All those cases were against the people who actually said something (supposedly) defamatory. The precedent here is that merely sharing a link to something somebody else wrote now also qualifies as defamation.
It is actually similar to the test for defamation in US law. Public figures just have a much harder time prevailing as plaintiffs in the US due to the precedent of NYT v. Sullivan. Even if you rereport a defamatory statement you can also be liable.
Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article. That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_lea...)
As some others have said, just because another country has different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong. The American interpretation of the first amendment and its applicability to defamatory statements against public figures could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's a lot easier to reverse.
Certainly an interesting (for lack of a better word) slippery slope.
Could upvoting this hackernews article count as defamation? It's not the same as sharing it, but it would still make the original article more visible to more people.
You could argue that by sharing a link you are quoting verboten. After all that is likely the intention of sharing the link unless other wise qualified.
If the individual in question shared the link with a disparaging comment then they would have most likely been fine.
I'm not necessarily defending the use of defamation law here just commenting on how it might analysed in law. IANAL :)
It's well known that Singapore is not a free country. Many people idolise it for being supposedly a success story in economic development. Which is fine in itself I guess, but what many people do is then jump to pretend that Singapore is not an authoritarian country, in an attempt to justify other areas in which it had success.
Here's a helpful explainer of the law being applied here (as well as data on additional cases where it was used since its introduction in 2019): https://pofmaed.com/explainer-what-is-pofma/
I seem to be on the other side of the consensus here on HN.
If you accept defamation laws (and defamation laws are a thing in Singapore and many other places), then the question is whether you actively participated in the creation or dissemination of slander (again, assuming that creation and dissemination are both illegal).
We in the tech world have optimized various mechanisms to enable sharing information- we have gotten so good at it that our users don’t pause for a moment and think about their responsibility they bear when hitting that share button.
It’s like picking up cleanly packaged meat from the grocery store or filling up on gas from a gas station- the experience is so clean and polished that one doesn’t really think about where the meat/crude oil is coming from and what it means to be paying for it.
I think the courts held that one is responsible for what they share. It isn’t “merely” sharing a news article on facebook - the person had to decide to hit that share button.
Now, there are a lot of things wrong with this. But most of the problems come from having some defamation law to begin with.
I take issue with the law itself, but this interpretation of it doesn’t bother me.
IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
> then the question is whether you actively participated in
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
I very much believe that intent matters, and should matter, but the problem with intent in a legal setting is that often it is incredibly difficult to prove intent, and the defendant just has to say "I never intended it to mean that; I was thinking $INNOCENT_THING when I said it" to inject some doubt into the proceedings, often enough doubt to avoid a guilty verdict.
Let's say the NYT publishes an article about the president. You, believing it to be an accurate representation of facts, share the article. It turns out the NYT writer made it all up. Do you think it's reasonable to punish you for libel?
What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
I think it's clear this ruling is totally incompatible with a free press and free speech. Only the original source should be held accountable.
I think the test here could/should be of visible and definite authorship. A NYT article, with a byline, shared removes the onus from the disseminator. If the article is wrong, the liability goes back to the original author. A share with unknown provenance puts the responsibility on the person sharing. Libel stops with the sharer in this case!
Disseminating defamatory material is legal __provided you did your due diligence__. Whether taking the journalist at face value is due diligence, I don't know.
> What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
What about the case that you shared it after it was shown that the story was made up, and it can be proved that you knew this at the time?
What about the case that we find out the reason that the article was made up was that you fed the writer false information, in order to shield yourself from prosecution?
Uneven enforcement is a problem in and of itself. Doing nothing to a thousand people and then slamming a fine like this on one guy is not conducive to rule of law.
But this is Singapore, it's not a very free country.
> Uneven enforcement is a problem in and of itself. Doing nothing to a thousand people and then slamming a fine like this on one guy is not conducive to rule of law.
The defendant, Roy Ngerng [1], is often portrayed in Singapore media as a troublemaker, and has been the subject of multiple defamation suits.
Politicians in Singapore's incumbent party seem to mainly use defamation against politicians, activists, and the media, and very rarely against a random person on the street.
It seems to boil down to the government needing to protect their integrity, as former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in a 1999 interview [2]:
> There are many critics of the PAP in Singapore. They are not all hauled up before the judiciary. Political opponents, so long as they keep within the law, don't need safeguards. They do not have to appear before the judiciary. But if they've defamed us, we have to sue them -- because if we don't, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet. By defamation, I mean if somebody says the minister is on the take or is less than honest. If he does not rebut it, if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why are you not suing?
And there is the problem. While you propose an interesting academic question, the chain of events starts from a law that I see as harmful. Therefore, there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of the next steps.
The suggestion that defamation should be generally legal is somewhat outside the norm, as far as I know.
If I start a campaign, billboards and all, saying that my doctor is a pedophile once convicted of rape in Australia who has been also implicated in organ trafficking (when she's actually very wonderful) then I should be held liable for the damage to her career and reputation, at a minimum.
What you're proposing here doesn't scale. What if everyone decided that there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of the next steps following the existence of laws they each saw has harmful? If everyone did that, there would be no laws left to enforce...
Republishing libellous content can indeed be defamation. I don't know the details for his case and IANA but retweeting/sharing can land you in hot waters not only in Singapore but also in the UK for instance:
"In 2013, a defendant named Alan Davies was ordered to pay £15,000 in settlement after retweeting a Sally Bercow tweet that suggested Lord McAlpine, a former leading Conservative politician, had committed child abuse." [1]
"Defamation is apparent when one person publishes a statement or material about another person that is untrue and is damaging to the claimant’s reputation or likely to cause such harm – this is the case even if the defendant has simply republished a statement made by another." [1]
There seems to be an argument to be made that sharing an article resembles saying "I heard that X" where X is the contents of the article. It seems a bit dumb to have the heard that distinction and not apply it to sharing on social media. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that by sharing an article a person is asserting they consider everything in it to be unquestionably true. It generally means they found something they heard/saw interesting.
It's also worth mentioning that the shared article claimed that Malaysia, under former Prime Minister Najib Razak, had signed unfair deals with Singapore in return for help to launder stolen funds, so this is a big allegation.
However, a guy has to wonder what the odds are of the state levying such a fine in defence of an ordinary citizen.
> IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
It is different. Opinion is also exempted. I don’t think that’s dumb at all. Otherwise it would be impossible to report on a controversy without risking a lawsuit.
I've visited Singapore and it's a beautiful country but it's commonly understood they achieved their status through an authoritarian government.
I'm struggling with my opinion about this case - imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
On the other hand, powerful politicians suppressing dissent with crippling lawsuits tramples all over free speech and open debate. I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA but it is vital to democracy to be able to have discussions freely.
What I do think is that the penalty in this case was much too large for simply sharing a link, citizens must be able to criticize their public figures without fearing a penalty that is some multiple of their annual salary, and the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
Doctors told people smoking is healthy in the past. Harvard apologized for pushing sugar as healthy 60 years ago. Flat Earth was the accepted truth at some time, and Round Earthers considered nut jobs. Not being able to questioning anything "science has settled", would basically kill advancement.
> all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes.
Nutritional science is particularly bad. Trans fats were considered the healthy alternative to saturated fats, salt has been made a boogeyman on shaky gorunds, eggs have flipped between being considered healthy and unhealthy a few times, and the food pyramid/low fat movement pushed carb heavy diets that contributed to the obesity epidemic.
Yes, it would be great to not have people spread bullshit information. But how would you accomplish it? By having "official fact-checkers" censoring information, but that's an appallingly terrible idea, many times worse than the current state of affairs. So the imperfect situation we have now is preferable to another many times worse.
>>imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good
You're comparing apples and oranges. What works on the micro political level (Singapore) doesn't necessarily work at the macro political level (Canada). This is also why I can vote for Republicans in the state government and Democrats in the federal government and still sleep soundly every night.
That being said the court case in question is draconian.
FWIW the population of Canada is only 6x Singapore, so definitely bigger but not irreconcilably larger.
I think one of the bigger things that makes Singapore so much easier to govern with consensus is the density. It's 5.7 million people packed onto a 30x20km island. There isn't much in the way of urban/rural divide or of different federal-level divisions having competing resource concerns, etc.
> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it.
Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government)
> we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA
A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck.
There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind.
If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.
> the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media.
"Cui bono?"
Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.
>"I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA"
I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights.
Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.
I'm also Canadian but to be fair American Freedom of Speech and the Bill of Rights is also violated whenever the government wants to. People have been put to death or jailed for being certain protests or screening anti-war movies. Not recently at least overtly, but nothing changed so this is still possible.
There are several countries that make it a crime to disparage the rulers, even if you do it outside that country and even if what you post is true.
On top of Singapore this includes Qatar, Thailand and... China [1].
One effect of the Hong Kong "security" law China passed is that if you "undermine" the regime outside China and transit through Hong Kong airport, you can technically be arrested and tried under that law.
> Lee's programs in Singapore had a profound effect on the Communist leadership in China, who made a major effort, especially under Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of economic growth, entrepreneurship, and subtle suppression of dissent. Over 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore to study its methods.[90]
Singapore is a puzzle, a challenge to typical western democratic beliefs that certain things need to go hand-in-hand, or that restricting some rights are intolerable. It makes you question whether you're completely right about certain things.
They restrict freedom of speech in certain areas so that people don't get riled up by issues that only "cause trouble". But that means it's harder to question and expose some perhaps injustices. But they also mitigate that by having strong internal checks and government incentives to root out such problems.
They believe in equal opportunities, yet have some significant racially based laws and restrictions. For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another. And certain things are allocated (by government) by race. But this restriction on speech / allocation helps keep the peace and prevent racial riots and animosity.
They have draconian drug policies. But they don't have major drug problems or homeless on the streets.
It's a small city, so some things are very peculiar to its situation and probably don't work elsewhere. And maybe there is a cultural aspect to tolerance for these rules too.
But whether you agree or disagree, Singapore makes you think twice whether you're right about your beliefs.
So the Singapore thing is only a puzzle for those who refuse to accept that Confucian values had been working pretty well as a political ideology for hundreds of years in Asia (until the world flipped upside down in the past two centuries).
For example, if you look more closely at Japan, while their politics is arguably more democratic, the culture has an obvious authoritarian slant as well. Mostly unnoticeable to foreigners but it's there. Some of what you described regarding Singapore also applies to Japan, albeit sometimes those things might be enforced culturally and not necessarily in law. (But then, look up their criminal conviction rate if you want to be scared.)
China is another example. People often have strong (and often irrationally emotional) opinions about politics in China, but I suppose we can agree that the past narrative about the Chinese government having to implement democratic reforms or perish has lost much credibility by now.
I mean, everyone has their own opinions about what is a "moral" way to run a country, but if we're talking about achieving objective results with Confucian-style-paternalistic-authoritarian governments, Singapore isn't really an exception. (In fact, it might be the only way East Asian countries know how to properly run a country. There's more to public administration than democratic elections)
I had not heard of that, that is interesting to know. Well, the government certainly still does make mistakes. It is not infallible by any measure.
Are you speaking of the restriction on conscription of Malay citizens? Which would naturally preclude them from being in the Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy of exclusion?
LKY also said, not that long ago, that “Singapore wasn’t ready for an Indian Prime Minister”.
Singapore’s perception of causing “racial disharmony” is very different from the West. In fact, the ruling party in Singapore has been speaking against importing any sort of “woke politics”.
I have no interest in mounting a defense for the Singapore government, I don't know what the truth is and have none of the facts outside of this article.
On the topic of libel, I do believe there should be consequences (perhaps not $100k but enough to strongly deter individuals and media) for spreading unsubstantiated claims / accusations that negatively impact someone's reputation. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and can be destroyed on a whim - along with your career - without due process. The consequences of this can be devastating to people and their families for the remainder of their lives. It's not just sharing a link, damage is being done here.
I don't agree with the general tone of most of the comments at all. A lot of people seem to conflate holding people accountable for lies that damage other people's reputation or honor with authoritarianism or lack of freedom.
Letting that kind of lying go unpunished does not enhance freedom. It destroys discourse and it destroys people's respect for governance. If these laws were simply a tool for corruption, then Singapore would be the most corrupt, dysfunctional place on earth. It clearly isn't.
I think actually the opposite is true. When you let people libel and lie with impunity you destroy any respect for leadership, truth and politicians itself will stop holding themselves to any standard, because after all anyone can slander you anyway, so why even bother.
It seems to have become common in Western discourse to conflate truth with power. Any speech against individuals who hold a position of power is legitimate, any defense from people in position of power is illegitimate and tyrannical. This cannot be right because the end result is that no legitimate exercise of power is even possible. Someone who posts on Facebook is not automatically the hero of the people, and the Prime Minister is not automatically wrong.
To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else.
What we need are principled institutions that don't lie.
Edit - adding a reference [1]
"Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages."
You're not engaging my actual argument at all. Criticism of the government can obliviously be based on lies. It depends entirely on what your accusation is based on. Why is a court deciding on whether an accusation is true or not corrosive to freedom? Why is it corrosive to discourse? How do you have discourse without having an arbiter of truth?
You don't just need principled institutions that don't lie, you need principled people that don't lie. Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? Why is a government official supposed to be punished if they lie to the public, but a person on Facebook isn't? In either case lies are undermining social trust.
These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma.
Because as it turns out, democracy is orthogonal to having a productive country and competitive market. The belief that one is required for the other was one of the big lies of the second half of 20th century.
No non-colonial democracy has managed to go from underdeveloped to developed since WW2.
SK, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and Malaysia all had their key growth during authoritarian regimes. Many later transitioned to democracies, but that's easy when the hard part is done.
Sadly, I reached this when desperately looking for a democratic country for India (my home country) to emulate as a model. As a believer in democracy, I would love to be corrected. But my research indicates that Demovracy does truly have a shoddy track record at spurring development.
This is true. So long as the government is run by capable people who are looking out for the greater good. This was Rome under someone like Caesar. But you can also end up with a Nero or Commodus running things.
To whom will monuments be built a century from now? Among them, perhaps, will be Lee Kuan Yew. He will be remembered not only as the first prime minister of Singapore, but also as the creator of authoritarian capitalism, an ideology set to shape the next century much as democracy shaped the last.
It was, after all, to Singapore that Deng Xiaoping came before enacting his far-reaching economic reforms in China. Until then, capitalism and democracy had seemed inextricably linked. Now the link is broken.
They are very disciplined and targeted in their authoritarianism. It doesn't pervade daily life the way it does in China. They have free and open communication with the world. They have a vibrant consumer economy and a genuine multicultural society. They apply censorship and repression with a scalpel, not a broadsword. Law-abiding citizens reap a lot of rewards from living in a society like that and are willing to look the other way at the occasional arrest for being outspoken.
I spent some time there and met a bunch of locals from different backgrounds. Some were outright enthusiastic about the authoritarian government and thought the ends justified the means. Some (Malay folks in particular) chafed at the enforced rigidity of the society, but they still had comfortable lives.
Because the World Economic Forum cares for global competitiveness, and pro market propaganda (when it serves its controllers interests), not for democracy...
Why would an association of the wealthiest capitalists in the world not give a rat's ass about democracy as long as the $$$ is flowing? Is that what you're asking?
Readit News
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_su...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%9320...
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublis...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-def...
Not a complete list, but that's the "precedent", not this.
Singapore has an opposite standard for public figures. In the US you can defame or libel public figures and our precedent considers first amendment concerns to be exculpatory in most circumstances. E.g. I can say "Cillary Hinton killed Beffery Jepstein" without being held liable for defamation, although if I made the same type of accusation against a nonpublic figure like my neighbor that caused actual damages, I could be lose my shirt in any state court for defamation. I could also be held liable for defamation if I was merely restating what I had heard elsewhere or read in a libelous article. That is not a valid defense. There have indeed been defamation cases involving Facebook posts that resulted in substantial judgments or costly settlements here in the US (example: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/facebook_comment_lea...)
As some others have said, just because another country has different standards around a body of law doesn't necessarily mean that their interpretation is right and ours is wrong. The American interpretation of the first amendment and its applicability to defamatory statements against public figures could change, and it wasn't the same as it is now in previous eras of American history. NYT v. Sullivan is not the Constitution or one of the tablets handed down to Moses: it's a lot easier to reverse.
There is an innocent dissemination defense [1], but that requires you to show you did due diligence to avoid defamation.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination
Could upvoting this hackernews article count as defamation? It's not the same as sharing it, but it would still make the original article more visible to more people.
If the individual in question shared the link with a disparaging comment then they would have most likely been fine.
I'm not necessarily defending the use of defamation law here just commenting on how it might analysed in law. IANAL :)
I wonder if there are better lists that sort countries by actual freedom?
The person in the linked article was being sued for defamation.
If you accept defamation laws (and defamation laws are a thing in Singapore and many other places), then the question is whether you actively participated in the creation or dissemination of slander (again, assuming that creation and dissemination are both illegal).
We in the tech world have optimized various mechanisms to enable sharing information- we have gotten so good at it that our users don’t pause for a moment and think about their responsibility they bear when hitting that share button.
It’s like picking up cleanly packaged meat from the grocery store or filling up on gas from a gas station- the experience is so clean and polished that one doesn’t really think about where the meat/crude oil is coming from and what it means to be paying for it.
I think the courts held that one is responsible for what they share. It isn’t “merely” sharing a news article on facebook - the person had to decide to hit that share button.
Now, there are a lot of things wrong with this. But most of the problems come from having some defamation law to begin with.
I take issue with the law itself, but this interpretation of it doesn’t bother me.
IANAL, and I don’t know if dissemination is somehow different from creation in defamation cases. I expect it has to be - otherwise “Mr. X is a pedophile” can be illegal while “I heard that Mr. X is a pedophile” isn’t. Which seems dumb if one’s intent was to make defamation illegal in all ways.
There is another important question: intention. In the US, "for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case in the United States, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth" [1].
It seems to me that most of the problems come not from having the defamation law to begin with like you said, but from the law applying even to defendants who believed the information they were creating or disseminating was true.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
What about newspaper stands that sold the libelous paper?
I think it's clear this ruling is totally incompatible with a free press and free speech. Only the original source should be held accountable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocent_dissemination
What about the case that you shared it after it was shown that the story was made up, and it can be proved that you knew this at the time?
What about the case that we find out the reason that the article was made up was that you fed the writer false information, in order to shield yourself from prosecution?
Bright line distinctions are difficult.
But this is Singapore, it's not a very free country.
The defendant, Roy Ngerng [1], is often portrayed in Singapore media as a troublemaker, and has been the subject of multiple defamation suits.
Politicians in Singapore's incumbent party seem to mainly use defamation against politicians, activists, and the media, and very rarely against a random person on the street.
It seems to boil down to the government needing to protect their integrity, as former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said in a 1999 interview [2]:
> There are many critics of the PAP in Singapore. They are not all hauled up before the judiciary. Political opponents, so long as they keep within the law, don't need safeguards. They do not have to appear before the judiciary. But if they've defamed us, we have to sue them -- because if we don't, our own integrity will be suspect. We have an understanding that if a minister is defamed and he does not sue, he must leave cabinet. By defamation, I mean if somebody says the minister is on the take or is less than honest. If he does not rebut it, if he does not dare go before the court to be interrogated by the counsel for the other side, there must be some truth in it. If there is no evidence, well, why are you not suing?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Ngerng
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...
And there is the problem. While you propose an interesting academic question, the chain of events starts from a law that I see as harmful. Therefore, there's no value in justifying the legitimacy of the next steps.
If I start a campaign, billboards and all, saying that my doctor is a pedophile once convicted of rape in Australia who has been also implicated in organ trafficking (when she's actually very wonderful) then I should be held liable for the damage to her career and reputation, at a minimum.
"In 2013, a defendant named Alan Davies was ordered to pay £15,000 in settlement after retweeting a Sally Bercow tweet that suggested Lord McAlpine, a former leading Conservative politician, had committed child abuse." [1]
"Defamation is apparent when one person publishes a statement or material about another person that is untrue and is damaging to the claimant’s reputation or likely to cause such harm – this is the case even if the defendant has simply republished a statement made by another." [1]
[1] https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slan...
The law needs to be updated for this nuance.
Is giving a magazine (containing a defamatory article) to a friend Publishing?
That can absolutely be the basis for slander and defamation though.
However, a guy has to wonder what the odds are of the state levying such a fine in defence of an ordinary citizen.
It is different. Opinion is also exempted. I don’t think that’s dumb at all. Otherwise it would be impossible to report on a controversy without risking a lawsuit.
I'm struggling with my opinion about this case - imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good?
On the other hand, powerful politicians suppressing dissent with crippling lawsuits tramples all over free speech and open debate. I'm from Canada so we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA but it is vital to democracy to be able to have discussions freely.
What I do think is that the penalty in this case was much too large for simply sharing a link, citizens must be able to criticize their public figures without fearing a penalty that is some multiple of their annual salary, and the average person can't be expected to have a fact checking department on staff to verify every link they share with their social media friends.
Strange times.
> all this “believe experts” dogma is legit indistinguishable from the rhetoric of evangelical christians. ffs please just go to church and leave science to the skeptical assholes.
- https://twitter.com/micsolana/status/1381237434512502784?s=2...
Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?
That largely depends on who is choosing what is "disinformation", normally if government (or corporations) is involved "disinformation" normally becomes "things that we do not like" which would not be a net good
That being said the court case in question is draconian.
I think one of the bigger things that makes Singapore so much easier to govern with consensus is the density. It's 5.7 million people packed onto a 30x20km island. There isn't much in the way of urban/rural divide or of different federal-level divisions having competing resource concerns, etc.
Sure, but who cares? Just doing what is a 'net good' isn't a good enough yard stick for whether you should actually do it.
Imagine a society where the weak or infirm are culled at [or before] birth. Wouldn't that be a net good? (Answer: we already went there. Hitler thought the American idea of Eugenics was such a great idea that he made it a major priority of his government)
> we don't have a hardline free speech movement like the USA
A lot of places have movements where people want more free speech. Just like us. The difference is, we were lucky enough to actually succeed. And it really was luck.
There is this myth that we have always just naturally revered free speech. The reality is that our country has only recently evolved its position. Up until the early 20th century, Americans were regularly convicted for defamation of the government (or speech that wasn't in the government's interests), particularly through and after WWI. Then one Supreme Court justice changed his opinion on free speech, and set the whole country on a course to re-interpret the limits of the First Amendment. We can only legally say "Fuck the USA" during wartime, or even salute a Communist flag (at any time), because that one Justice changed his mind.
If one person changing their mind moved us forward, it could also go the other way. And the same could be true for your country.
I think perhaps this is a misrepresentation of the requirement (that exists even in places like Singapore) that one be skeptical by default of any claim made by the media.
"Cui bono?"
Penalties for what the court system deems misinformation absolutely do not solve the problem: indeed they make it worse.
Why do you suggest that criticizing the government is BS and disinformation?
That's not what is made illegal.
Legitimate criticism is.
There's a world of difference.
I'm in Canada as well an while I do not like many things in the US when comparing to Canada I am absolutely on their side when it comes to things like freedom of speech and things like Bill of Rights.
Formally due to notwithstanding clause I do not think we have any rights at all as the government basically can override our rights any time it feels like. Sure it does not do it every other Monday but still it's been used something like 15 times and recently our provincial wizards like Legault and Ford just showed what does this Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms mean for them - apparently zilch.
On top of Singapore this includes Qatar, Thailand and... China [1].
One effect of the Hong Kong "security" law China passed is that if you "undermine" the regime outside China and transit through Hong Kong airport, you can technically be arrested and tried under that law.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
where the guy got convicted with a suspended sentence and then acquitted.
Deleted Comment
> Lee's programs in Singapore had a profound effect on the Communist leadership in China, who made a major effort, especially under Deng Xiaoping, to emulate his policies of economic growth, entrepreneurship, and subtle suppression of dissent. Over 22,000 Chinese officials were sent to Singapore to study its methods.[90]
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-am...
They restrict freedom of speech in certain areas so that people don't get riled up by issues that only "cause trouble". But that means it's harder to question and expose some perhaps injustices. But they also mitigate that by having strong internal checks and government incentives to root out such problems.
They believe in equal opportunities, yet have some significant racially based laws and restrictions. For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another. And certain things are allocated (by government) by race. But this restriction on speech / allocation helps keep the peace and prevent racial riots and animosity.
They have draconian drug policies. But they don't have major drug problems or homeless on the streets.
It's a small city, so some things are very peculiar to its situation and probably don't work elsewhere. And maybe there is a cultural aspect to tolerance for these rules too.
But whether you agree or disagree, Singapore makes you think twice whether you're right about your beliefs.
For example, if you look more closely at Japan, while their politics is arguably more democratic, the culture has an obvious authoritarian slant as well. Mostly unnoticeable to foreigners but it's there. Some of what you described regarding Singapore also applies to Japan, albeit sometimes those things might be enforced culturally and not necessarily in law. (But then, look up their criminal conviction rate if you want to be scared.)
China is another example. People often have strong (and often irrationally emotional) opinions about politics in China, but I suppose we can agree that the past narrative about the Chinese government having to implement democratic reforms or perish has lost much credibility by now.
I mean, everyone has their own opinions about what is a "moral" way to run a country, but if we're talking about achieving objective results with Confucian-style-paternalistic-authoritarian governments, Singapore isn't really an exception. (In fact, it might be the only way East Asian countries know how to properly run a country. There's more to public administration than democratic elections)
Singapore has homeless people [1]. They're sometimes homeless by choice or pride.
It's more obvious if one is out and about in the housing areas at night. I walk past one homeless person sleeping on a void deck bench every day.
[1] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/about-1000-homeless-pe...
And in other parts of the US, everyone has a family member or knows someone with a family member suffering from drug addiction.
And yet I think one racial group of citizens was banned from the Air Force until a decade or so ago.
Are you speaking of the restriction on conscription of Malay citizens? Which would naturally preclude them from being in the Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy of exclusion?
Singapore’s perception of causing “racial disharmony” is very different from the West. In fact, the ruling party in Singapore has been speaking against importing any sort of “woke politics”.
On the topic of libel, I do believe there should be consequences (perhaps not $100k but enough to strongly deter individuals and media) for spreading unsubstantiated claims / accusations that negatively impact someone's reputation. It takes a lifetime to build a reputation and can be destroyed on a whim - along with your career - without due process. The consequences of this can be devastating to people and their families for the remainder of their lives. It's not just sharing a link, damage is being done here.
Letting that kind of lying go unpunished does not enhance freedom. It destroys discourse and it destroys people's respect for governance. If these laws were simply a tool for corruption, then Singapore would be the most corrupt, dysfunctional place on earth. It clearly isn't.
I think actually the opposite is true. When you let people libel and lie with impunity you destroy any respect for leadership, truth and politicians itself will stop holding themselves to any standard, because after all anyone can slander you anyway, so why even bother.
It seems to have become common in Western discourse to conflate truth with power. Any speech against individuals who hold a position of power is legitimate, any defense from people in position of power is illegitimate and tyrannical. This cannot be right because the end result is that no legitimate exercise of power is even possible. Someone who posts on Facebook is not automatically the hero of the people, and the Prime Minister is not automatically wrong.
To the contrary, government control of the 'truth' is quite corrosive to freedom, discourse and everything else.
What we need are principled institutions that don't lie.
Edit - adding a reference [1]
"Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages."
[1] https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-mon...
You don't just need principled institutions that don't lie, you need principled people that don't lie. Why do you think institutions are supposed to be held accountable but citizens are not? Why is a government official supposed to be punished if they lie to the public, but a person on Facebook isn't? In either case lies are undermining social trust.
These questions require actual answers rather than platitudes about freedom or dogma.
https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-repor...
No non-colonial democracy has managed to go from underdeveloped to developed since WW2.
SK, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and Malaysia all had their key growth during authoritarian regimes. Many later transitioned to democracies, but that's easy when the hard part is done.
Sadly, I reached this when desperately looking for a democratic country for India (my home country) to emulate as a model. As a believer in democracy, I would love to be corrected. But my research indicates that Demovracy does truly have a shoddy track record at spurring development.
It was, after all, to Singapore that Deng Xiaoping came before enacting his far-reaching economic reforms in China. Until then, capitalism and democracy had seemed inextricably linked. Now the link is broken.
- Slavoj Zizek
https://www.ft.com/content/088ee78e-7597-11e4-a1a9-00144feab...
I spent some time there and met a bunch of locals from different backgrounds. Some were outright enthusiastic about the authoritarian government and thought the ends justified the means. Some (Malay folks in particular) chafed at the enforced rigidity of the society, but they still had comfortable lives.