Amnesty engaging in 'propaganda campaign'
THE Singapore government, Oct 17, accused Amnesty International of joining the International Commission of Jurists in a "coordinated, partisan propaganda campaign" to put pressure on it.
Despite appearing to be impartial and independent, Amnesty was "dishonest and disingenuous" in its report on Wednesday, a Law Ministry statement said.
The ministry also rejected as totally unfounded, the human rights watchdog's criticism that defamation suits by Singapore leaders were unreasonable and politically motivated to silence and intimidate critics.
The ministry said: "By their contemptible attacks on the judges, they have also sought to intimidate the courts. Therefore we do not expect Amnesty's report on Mr Tang Liang Hong's appeals to be accurate, objective and fair."
We reproduce below extracts from the ministry's point-by-point rebuttal: Amnesty: Defamation suits are politically motivated to silence critics and intimidate, and are both unreasonable and unnecessary.
Law Ministry: The government is recognised internationally as being honest. Billions are invested in Singapore by MNCs, on the faith of the character and integrity of the Singapore leadership.
This faith and Singapore's future will be seriously damaged if government leaders who are defamed are afraid to clear their names in court.
Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam have also sued for defamation. Amnesty has not criticised their actions as being a politically motivated tactic to silence views critical of them. Amnesty therefore has double standards.
If the government's intention is to silence and intimidate critics, it would not have amended the constitution to allow opposition politicians who lose in the elections to be Non-Constituency MPs and oppose the government in parliament.
Amnesty: Defamation suits place restrictions on freedom of expression that cannot be justified under international standards.
Minlaw: This is absurd. There is no international standard which says that freedom of expression is freedom to destroy another's reputation. The Singapore Constitution guarantees freedom of expression. But that is no licence to defame. Amnesty: The words spoken by Mr Jeyaretnam were innocuous.
Minlaw: Mr Goh said in evidence that the plaintiffs obtained the advice of four Queen's Counsel before suing. The judge held that Mr Jeyaretnam's words meant that Mr Goh had committed an act of serious enough proportions to merit a police report and were defamatory. They were not innocuous.
Amnesty: The PM's integrity and standing had not been injured.
Minlaw: It is basic law that if libel is proved, injury to reputation is presumed and no evidence is required.
Amnesty: The PM released to the press the police reports to ensure wide dissemination of Mr Jeyaretnam's defamatory words but did not disclose that he had released the reports.
Minlaw: This is false and misleading. The claim was brought for Mr Jeyaretnam's announcement of the reports, and the publication of that announcement in the newspapers the following morning.
The publication of the reports was irrelevant to whether there had been a libel.
As a result of Mr Jeyaretnam's announcement, the press asked for copies of the reports. Mr Goh had no choice but to release the reports to the press. Mr Jeyaretnam made his announcement on the eve of poll and in his evidence said that he did so for political advantage.
Mr Goh had no choice but to accede to the request of the press so as to limit the damage caused by Mr Jeyaretnam's announcement.
Mr Goh disclosed before trial that he had authorised the release of the reports.
Amnesty: The Singapore judiciary has not checked the executive's misuse of the law of defamation to bankrupt opponents through the court.
Minlaw: Government leaders have not lost libel actions because they have sued only after making doubly sure that their actions are well-founded in law. They also take the advice of Queen's Counsel. Judgments in favour of government leaders have been upheld by the Privy Council.
This allegation against the Singapore judiciary amounts to a contempt of court.
Amnesty: Defamation suits have a more insidious effect than the ISA, as they are not likely to provoke protest.
Minlaw: Defamation actions are commenced to vindicate reputations which are unjustly injured. Just as government leaders know that they must be prepared to be cross-examined, so also those who defame them know they have to substantiate their libellous allegations. The process is conducted in open court.
Amnesty International says the defamation suits are more insidious as they are not likely to provoke protest. This is puzzling, given Amnesty's protest.
Amnesty: The judge found a lesser defamatory meaning and offended the concept of natural justice by not giving Mr Jeyaretnam the opportunity to defend himself against that meaning.
Minlaw: Mr Jeyaretnam's QC, Mr George Carman, never disputed that the judge was entitled to find a lesser meaning. He accepted that lesser meanings need not be pleaded.
Amnesty: The burden on Mr Jeyaretnam will be increased by the awards and costs of seven related cases and Mr Goh's decision to appeal the judgment.
Minlaw: The question in each case will be whether Mr Jeyaretnam has defamed the plaintiff. If so, the law will compel him to bear the consequences in damages and costs. By the same token, if the other plaintiffs do not prove their case, they will have to pay the costs.
In appealing, Mr Goh is exercising a right conferred on him by law. He runs the risk of having to pay costs if the appeal is unsuccessful.
Amnesty International has conveniently omitted any mention of the risks to the plaintiffs.
Amnesty: The award of aggravated damages was not sound in law because it reversed the burden of proof, thus flying in the face of natural justice.
Minlaw: It is established law that offensive and irrelevant cross-examination is ground for awarding aggravated damages. Mr Jeyaretnam's QC made accusations against Mr Goh which he was not able to substantiate.