Alex Au at Yawning Bread was the first to get a letter, then Temasek Review Emeritus (TRE) got smacked with two from the Lee brothers after one of their editors Richard Wan revealed his identity to the Singaporean public for the first time.
Whenever I think of this, I am reminded of The Stream’s episode on internet regulation and restrictions in China, and comments made by Eva Galperin from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):
Censorship does not have to be 100% in order to be incredibly effective, especially in an authoritarian regime. … What the Chinese government does is they create an air of fear and uncertainty around whether or not you’re being watched, whether or not people are going to show up at your house and possible arrest you, and this leads people to self-censor. The most effective censorship is the censorship that happens between your brain and keyboard.
(The quote above can be see at around 10:23 of the video.)
Although Singapore’s authorities don’t tend to show up at your door and arrest you (well, not anymore, anyway) just for voicing your opinions, defamation suits have been widely acknowledged as a popular PAP tactic to deal with critics and/or those viewed as loudmouths. It’s been documented in many news reports, as well as country reports from international organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. And it’s certainly what a lot of Singaporeans are saying. A lawyer’s letter is often interpreted by the public as a sign of the government trying to “do something” those identified as their “opponents”, and held up as an example of insidious repression.
Just look at this timeline compiled by Under the Willow Tree. It’s not a happy list, and neither does it reflect well upon Singapore’s claims to be a democratic nation.
Apart from the fact that all these threats of legal action are laughable when juxtaposed with Khaw Boon Wan’s gleeful words after the expulsion of Yaw Shin Leong – ”once your enter politics, then there’s no such thing as your private life” – I find it difficult to see how all this helps Singapore. How does this improve Singapore’s online communities, once dubbed as the “Wild Wild West”?
Since I moved back home in 2010 I have discovered, and participated in, a fast-evolving online citizenry. At long last, people are reading (and from more than one source), questioning, discussing and thinking through the issues. I have seen debates spring up on issues such as the Internal Security Act and the death penalty – issues which in the past may never have been discussed by the average Singaporean.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said this:
You need more openness, you need more engagement. At the same time you need people to pay more attention to what is happening in their lives and think about what is happening to their country and to us as Singaporeans. This calls for effort on both parts – Singaporeans and government.
Well, PM Lee, that’s exactly what we’re doing. Singaporeans are paying attention to and talking about what’s happening in Singapore. Instead of helping it along with “more openness” and “more engagement”, letters threatening defamation suits are hindering this process.
The letter to Yawning Bread pretty much said, “We couldn’t find the rumour-monger who started this whole thing in the first place, ‘cos he’s anonymous. But you’re not! So here’s the letter, we’re going to sue you if you don’t do something about it.”
The message: if you’re anonymous, you can pretty much say whatever you want and get away with it, since they can’t find you. But if you write under your real name, allowing Singaporeans to put a face to the source of blog entries, you’re fair game for any Minister who doesn’t like how you dropped his/her name in your blog entry. (And I found the letter to Yawning Bread particularly unnecessary, since he never even mentioned what the allegations were.)
So, when the government calls for more accountability online, are we meant to be reading the term “accountability” as “more people who can be identified and potentially sued”? Is this really how we’re going to build a responsible, mature citizenry?
Threats of defamation will not bring us more openness or more engagement. The use of sticks like lawyer’s letters to quash allegations (and mentions of possible allegations) will not result in a well-educated, well-informed citizenry. It will only result in a well-trained citizenry; that is, trained not to say anything at all, just to be safe, and to brood upon its own discontent in silence.
I leave you to decide which is more dangerous.
Justsaying
February 26, 2012
The legal letters to YB is just a bluff. So is TRE.
If both parties had continued to fight on, there would be more political damage to the party in 2016 than they had wanted.
They calculated and know that the plaintiffs would cave in, without a fight.
And they were right. Clearly shows the default fear in Singaporeans, and how their bullying still works on the psyche of citizens.
In YB case, Mr K has no case at all.
Eddy Blaxell
February 26, 2012
Justsaying’s comment here is interesting because I’ve seen a number like it, in a number of places, once this issue has come up: anonymous statements criticising how easily YB and TRE have “caved” to the demands of the PAP’s lawyers.
These statements don’t help so much, because as we have seen in the past, they all too easily disappear once the crackdown actually does happen. If YB or TRE had dug their heels in, and the lawyers had actually sued, many of the comments would have quickly changed to things like “YB and TRE have gone too far here. They didn’t know the limits. They were naive. They should have played within the rules.” etc.
Far more useful to people like Alex Au and organisations like TRE would be strong, solid support with a name behind it; the sort of support that says “we don’t see anything wrong with what you are doing, we support it, we support it openly, and we will continue to support it. And like you, we are not scared.”
That kind of support will eventually encourage these organisations to back themselves in this kind of fight,, knowing that their fellow citizens will stand up for them and help them if they go down. But it’s very hard for them to take any comfort from even a large group of anonymous supporters.
p.s. Not trying to criticise you particularly Justsaying, just mentioning your post to help make a general point
Saycheese
February 27, 2012
Do they really care so long as they are in control? And with the power to decide how much to pay themselves?
They are going to spend $1.1 billion to improve bus service for your benefit but who will profit? LOL!
Kirsten Han
February 27, 2012
(Damn. Wrote a really nice and long reply, then shut the browser by accident.)
I think it’s really unfair for people to criticise others for “caving” to the pressure. We have no right to EXPECT others to sacrifice and risk bankruptcy just to prove a point. At the end of the day everyone makes their own choices based on how much they want to risk (which is why there are people who operate in complete anonymity online). Even if we ourselves are willing to put our heads on the chopping block and risk a defamation suit or even jail time, we cannot expect others to do the same.
Visakan
February 27, 2012
“I think it’s really unfair for people to criticise others for “caving” to the pressure. We have no right to EXPECT others to sacrifice and risk bankruptcy just to prove a point. ”
^yes.
If you believe strongly that it is something that needs to be done, do it yourself! n_n