Let's refrain from making police reports

Tuesday, 19 May 2009

Singapore Democrats

The recent online attacks on Mr Siew Kum Hong and his reputation is unworthy and cowardly. They come in the aftermath of the Aware imbroglio where Mr Siew spoke up against the “new ex-co” for taking over of the organisation. The message accused Mr Siew of being funded by foreigners and that he is a mole of the SDP.

But as nonsensical and distasteful as these slurs may be, making reports to the police, which Mr Siew did a couple of days ago, is not the solution.

In the first place, the attacks were written and passed around on the Internet. The writer chose to remain anonymous which is what the overwhelming majority of Internet users do. This ability to hide one's identity is both good and bad.

Good because many stories which would not otherwise see print in the state press are reported on the Internet. Without the cover of anonymity that the Internet provides, much of such information would not get into the public domain as its sources would be too afraid to reveal their identities.

Bad because people can write scurrilous things about you and get away with it.

Of course, we want to keep the good and get rid of the bad. But that's not possible with the Internet because this is the nature of the beast. We have to take the bitter with the sweet.

But that's not to say that those attacked are completely helpless. The best way to stop these attacks is to take the accusations head on like what Mr Siew did and refute them. Challenge the accuser to produce the evidence to back up his or her claims, and even offer to reproduce them on your blog.

Then proceed to demolish these allegations with reason and facts. In other words take the fight to the accuser.

If the attacker refuses to take up the challenge, there is only one of two things he or she can do: Shut up or step up with the ad hominem attacks. Either way the silliness of the attacker will be made plain for all to see.

By going to the police, however, we send the signal that we want the identity of the perpetrator revealed so that action can be taken.

If the police launch a probe and uncover the individual, what happens to the Internet? Would it not lose its usefulness as a alternative source of news and analysis? Will not users start to look over their shoulders every time they post a message especially one that is unflattering of the powers-that-be? What will that do to the cause of democracy where a free flow of information is crucial?

Get the police involved and we destroy the promise that the Internet offers.

For those of us who are involved in the political and social spheres where public debates and taking sides are the norm, there will always be attacks against our persons and reputations. Get used to it.

But good leaders should not seek to take action, even though we can, against those who speak ill of us. However venomous and hurtful the words may be, we should rise above the attacks and seek dialogue and debate with our opponents.

The Singapore Democrats have been called all sorts of names and attacked in all sorts of ways. For us, the best way to deal with these attacks is to use this website to expose these lies with reasoned confrontation and in so doing show up the silliness and emptiness of such people.

Through the years, we have had to endure not just words but punitive actions as well. We have no recourse to the police because sometimes they are our accusers. In such instances, what do we do? We hold on to the truth and speak it at every opportunity we get.

We refute their allegations with reasoned argument and we let the force of logic be our weapon. We may be on the receiving end of the PAP's oppressive tactics presently, but things will change because history is on our side and the truth will ultimately prevail. It always does.

As for the comment that Mr Siew Kum Hong is a mole of the SDP, we wish to state for the record that the Singapore Democrats have little or no contact with the NMP. In fact, we are opposed to the NMP scheme because it is used by the PAP to undermine democracy in Singapore. As such, as highly as we may think of the individuals selected as NMPs, we have no interest in asking them, Mr Siew included, to speak on our behalf.

We wish Mr Siew the very best in all that he does.

Share this article:

Comments (4)

Wed 20 May 2009 10:02 AM | AnnA - Good

This is a very CLEAR note.

Wed 20 May 2009 7:29 PM | seebeng - NMP scheme a throwback to British colonialism

“In fact, we are opposed to the NMP scheme because it is used by the PAP to undermine democracy in Singapore. As such, as highly as we may think of the individuals selected as NMPs, we have no interest in asking them, Mr Siew included, to speak on our behalf.”

Well said, SDP.

The NMP scheme is a throwback to the British colonial rule when we’ve had British appointed community leaders “representing the myriad interests of the locals” in Singapore's Legislative Council/Assembly.

These so-called leaders were mainly from the mercantile and business houses of that era. They were beholden to the British colonialism for their wealth and power while the general populace remained exploited and oppressed.

Thu 21 May 2009 5:29 AM | quantum

Comment: Don't criticise, or we'll sue

http://www.newscientist.com/ar...ise-or-well-sue.html

CHALLENGING the scientific validity of a product or claim can be fraught with danger. Increasingly, such challenges are leaving scientists and science writers facing an expensive libel action before the English high court. Many individuals and publications have been threatened with libel actions, and some have had proceedings launched against them. Many more writers have had their work edited before publication to avoid any risk of such legal action.

Though the court's jurisdiction extends only to England and Wales, these actions can threaten scientists and writers wherever they live and work. English libel law can be used to discourage or prevent publication anywhere in the world if what is published will be seen by even a few readers in England or Wales. Any English-language publication can thus be affected.

It is against this troubling background that on 7 May a preliminary hearing of a case brought against the science writer Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) was held in London. The case concerned an opinion piece in The Guardian newspaper in which Singh criticised as "bogus" the use of chiropractic for treating various children's ailments. The BCA complained that it had been libelled, and launched an action against Singh (but not The Guardian). The hearing went against Singh (see "Libel victory for alternative medicine").

The BCA's case is part of a trend in that many of the recent threats and actions are responses to criticisms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In some of these cases one could fairly argue that simply producing scientific evidence would settle the issue. Despite this, it is not unusual for CAM practitioners to threaten a libel action against anyone who publishes doubts about the scientific validity of their treatment.
It is not unusual for alternative medicine practitioners to threaten a libel action

In one such case, writer Ben Goldacre and The Guardian were sued by Matthias Rath, who has promoted vitamin supplements in southern Africa for people with AIDS. Rath eventually withdrew the action, but there are other examples outside of CAM.

Scientists and journals are also finding themselves on the wrong end of libel threats and actions. Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital in Shropshire, UK, is being sued for libel by the medical devices company NMT Medical of Boston, Massachusetts, over comments he made to a US online news service about one of its devices. Wilmshurst was the co-leader of a clinical trial of the device.

Similarly, Israeli company Nemesysco has reportedly threatened two researchers with action if they continue to publish research critical of the company's lie-detector technology. A peer-reviewed article by the two in the International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law (vol 14, p 169) was removed from the journal's website after Nemesysco complained to the publisher that it was "highly defamatory".

It may be that the statements that led to these actions were indeed libellous. It seems entirely wrong, however, that any scientific debate can be settled in this way.

In large part, this situation is caused by the expansive nature of English libel law. To launch an action, all a claimant needs to contend is that the published statements constitute a libel - that is, a statement which defames their reputation. The claimant can be an actual person or a "legal person", such as a company.

Once the claimant has established they have a reputation in England, and that there is a defamatory statement, they have an automatic right to bring legal proceedings without having to show any damage has been suffered. It then falls to the unfortunate defendant to prove before the court, often at considerable expense, that the statement was defensible. This is the notorious "reverse burden of proof" which, for many, discredits English libel law.

There are, of course, defences against libel - most importantly that the defamatory statement was true or fair comment. But defending a libel action is a risky business. A defendant who loses their case is likely to have to pay the claimant's legal costs as well as their own. A full trial can cost a significant sum of money. In practice, when faced with the prospect of paying such costs, most defendants choose not to defend the action and instead make amends to the claimant such as retracting the statement or publishing an apology.

The nature of English libel law also means that threats can readily be made against any English-language publication, no matter where it is written or produced. As long as there has been "publication" within England, even to a handful of subscribers or internet viewers, and as long as the claimant can establish that they have a reputation in England, then the English courts may decide to hear the case regardless of the nationality or location of the claimant and the defendant.

What's more, if the claimant wins, the judgment can be enforced in other jurisdictions. This so-called "libel tourism" has become a cause for international concern. The state of New York has gone so far as to legislate to prevent English libel judgments being enforced there.

Libel law exists for a reason and the defences are supposed to allow reasonable debate, but in my view the system is open to abuse to stifle such debate.

There are some causes for optimism: the UK parliament is examining reforms to the law. But as things stand, it is too easy to bring a libel action in respect of any statement which can be seen as being critical. No responsible scientist, journal editor or writer should have to face this chilling prospect. There is something deeply wrong that legitimate scientific criticism can be silenced in this way.

David Allen Green is a London solicitor practising in technology, communications and media law. He blogs as Jack of Kent

Thu 21 May 2009 11:30 PM | Simpang Bedok - Pseudonym...literary pen names

Taking the rough with the smooth, anonymity in communication can sometimes achieve more.The emphasis on contents rather than the true identity of the communicator is critically needed. That way ideas, arguements and analysis are more important than status, clout or physical identity and other features like race, religion etc of the author.

As for the contents, let the people judge on the materials before them and not be influenced by who the author is.
And the author should spent all his time on establishing the integrity of his writing rather than trying to establish his popularity as a person.

And also like Parliamentary Privilege which has been taken out of the Singapore parliament, anonymity might give way to the scurrilous but it's well worth it as the benefits from Free
Speech far outweighs the trash that comes with it. In any case we get as much if not more trash from the mainstream media....pernicious ones too.

One famous example of a literary pen name is Samuel Clemens writing under the pen name Mark Twain. Charles Dodgson wrote fantasy novels under the pen name Lewis Carroll.

Some female authors use male pen names, particularly in the 19th century, when Mary Ann Evans who wrote as George Eliot.Jane Austen also used a pseudonym 'A Lady' as the author of her first novel Sense and Sensibility. Elisabeth Evermarie Sarai went by Elisheva (Hebrew for Elizabeth) Evermaire because she wrote a novel named "Sarai".