- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 1,573
- Points
- 63
Current civil defamation laws are in urgent need of reform.
To see a classic example of how lop-sided civil defamation laws are, we need only go back to the late 1990′s when former NKF chief T.T. Durai sued then NKF volunteer Archie Ong and aero-modelling instructor Piragasam Singaravelu for alleging that he had flown first class and that under his charge, NKF has squandered monies. Both paid an undisclosed amount of damages to the NKF, and made public apologies. The allegations later turned out to be true.
In 1999, NKF sued Ms Tan Kiat Noi, who circulated an email saying that NKF paid its staff unrealistically high bonuses. She was forced to pay $50,000 in damages and publish full page apologies in the major newspapers. When the NKF scandal broke a few years later, Ms Tan’s remarks were vindicated.
In 2004, NKF and T.T. Durai sued then Straits Times senior correspondent Susan Long and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) for publishing an article which stated that a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl, and a S$1,000 gold-plated tap had been installed in Durai’s office. This case was dropped after further investigations revealed that Durai had collected a total of $1.8 million in salary over three years, had access to a fleet of eight chauffeured cars, and that the NKF had paid the taxes and maintenance costs of his personal Mercedes-Benz.
T.T. Durai met his match only when he was foolish enough to take on entities as large or larger than himself, when he clearly was guilty of extremely severe wrongdoing on many counts. But he got away with it when he took on defenseless individuals who acted as the first whistle-blowers.
After the 2001 general election, Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) was sued for defamation by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew for remarks he had made during the campaign about an alleged loan to then Indonesian President Suharto. Dr Chee was ordered to pay damages of $300,000 to Goh and $200,000 to Lee.
Ironically, another defamation lawsuit was brought against Dr Chee in 2006, one month before the general elections, after an article had been published in the SDP’s party newspaper questioning the role of the Singapore government in the NKF scandal. The NKF saga itself was not fully resolved until well into 2007, and by then, public outrage against NKF’s excesses under the former board of governors and T.T. Durai had reached its peak.
The intended purpose of civil defamation laws is to allow people to clear their names in the event of wrongful or malicious accusation. In that respect, the law must remain, in order that the innocent can seek redress.
When then NMP Siew Kum Hong was accused of being affiliated to the SDP, and also hurt by other malicious allegations, he made it clear that he reserved the right to pursue legal actions against the perpetrators (whose actions had allegedly crossed into criminal defamation). I agreed with his action.
However, defamation laws as they are currently framed also have the potential to be abused and be used as a tool of silencing legitimate commentary or criticism.
There is a need to reform current laws, lest the line between truth and falsehood be drawn by the person who can wield more financial weight, rather than by the person who can argue the case or produce the facts.
When defamation laws are abused, they can potentially have a chilling effect on the public and serve to dumb the nation down. That is why reform is so urgent.
To see a classic example of how lop-sided civil defamation laws are, we need only go back to the late 1990′s when former NKF chief T.T. Durai sued then NKF volunteer Archie Ong and aero-modelling instructor Piragasam Singaravelu for alleging that he had flown first class and that under his charge, NKF has squandered monies. Both paid an undisclosed amount of damages to the NKF, and made public apologies. The allegations later turned out to be true.
In 1999, NKF sued Ms Tan Kiat Noi, who circulated an email saying that NKF paid its staff unrealistically high bonuses. She was forced to pay $50,000 in damages and publish full page apologies in the major newspapers. When the NKF scandal broke a few years later, Ms Tan’s remarks were vindicated.
In 2004, NKF and T.T. Durai sued then Straits Times senior correspondent Susan Long and Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) for publishing an article which stated that a glass-panelled shower, a pricey German toilet bowl, and a S$1,000 gold-plated tap had been installed in Durai’s office. This case was dropped after further investigations revealed that Durai had collected a total of $1.8 million in salary over three years, had access to a fleet of eight chauffeured cars, and that the NKF had paid the taxes and maintenance costs of his personal Mercedes-Benz.
T.T. Durai met his match only when he was foolish enough to take on entities as large or larger than himself, when he clearly was guilty of extremely severe wrongdoing on many counts. But he got away with it when he took on defenseless individuals who acted as the first whistle-blowers.
After the 2001 general election, Dr Chee Soon Juan of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) was sued for defamation by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew for remarks he had made during the campaign about an alleged loan to then Indonesian President Suharto. Dr Chee was ordered to pay damages of $300,000 to Goh and $200,000 to Lee.
Ironically, another defamation lawsuit was brought against Dr Chee in 2006, one month before the general elections, after an article had been published in the SDP’s party newspaper questioning the role of the Singapore government in the NKF scandal. The NKF saga itself was not fully resolved until well into 2007, and by then, public outrage against NKF’s excesses under the former board of governors and T.T. Durai had reached its peak.
The intended purpose of civil defamation laws is to allow people to clear their names in the event of wrongful or malicious accusation. In that respect, the law must remain, in order that the innocent can seek redress.
When then NMP Siew Kum Hong was accused of being affiliated to the SDP, and also hurt by other malicious allegations, he made it clear that he reserved the right to pursue legal actions against the perpetrators (whose actions had allegedly crossed into criminal defamation). I agreed with his action.
However, defamation laws as they are currently framed also have the potential to be abused and be used as a tool of silencing legitimate commentary or criticism.
There is a need to reform current laws, lest the line between truth and falsehood be drawn by the person who can wield more financial weight, rather than by the person who can argue the case or produce the facts.
When defamation laws are abused, they can potentially have a chilling effect on the public and serve to dumb the nation down. That is why reform is so urgent.
