Singapore government advertisement

The Singapore government wrote to the Sydney Morning Herald to reply, but the Herald declined to publish the letter.

The Singapore government has purchased this advertisement to inform readers of the facts and enable them to judge the matter for themselves.

18 October 1997

The Editor,
The Sydney Morning Herald
Sydney,
Australia

Dear Sir

In "Amnesty slams lawsuits" [17 Oct], you reported Amnesty's' criticism of the Singapore government. But Amnesty had done nothing more than to echo Stuart Littlemore's report to the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), and repeat identical errors and falsehoods in ICJ's statement, which you had reported and I had rebutted.

2. Your reports conveyed the impression that Amnesty and ICJ were two impartial, independent critics of the Singapore government, when they were in fact conducting a coordinated propaganda campaign against Singapore.

3. Contrary to Littlemore's claim in "Contempt for ministry's threat" [15 Oct], the Singapore government has issued a point by point rebuttal of Littlemore's report to the ICJ. For example, it pointed out that under the law, a judge is entitled to find a lesser defamatory meaning. And the plaintiff is not required to prove damage to his reputation if he is libelled; it is presumed. It rejected the charge that the government interfered in the choice of judges, which was not backed by any evidence or verification. Littlemore has not answered the rebuttal.

4. Littlemore speaks of accommodating "the fundamental right of free speech alongside the right to protection of reputation". It is not a fundamental right to defame another, destroying his reputation by falsehoods. Mr Jeyaretnam himself once sued Mr Goh Chok Tong for defamation. Mr Goh successfully pleaded fair comment. Another opposition politician, Mr Chiam See Tong has recovered damages for defamation from government ministers. Mr Chiam has also sued other politicians for libel.

5. Singapore, like England and Canada, does not recognise "public figure" defence for defamation, as Littlemore the ICJ want us to do. Singapore politicians who are afraid to clear their names in court after a defamatory charge lose the respect of the electorate. Because Singapore politicians defend their reputations, they are not regarded, like in some countries, as untrustworthy, sleazy characters.

Yours faithfully
(Signed)
Lim Siam Kim
Press Secretary
to the Prime Minister

Published in the Sydney Morning Herald. Nov 29, 1997