19 ms·

Man fined for sharing a Facebook link ruled as defamation in Singapore

284 points by donohoe 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Nasrudith 6y ago
It is Singapore what the fuck did you expect, liberty and a respect for personal rights? Really anybody following thosr authoritarians for precedent is already too far gone.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  it's a common theme among "smart-cities" marketers and cybersecurity wonks to cite Singapore (and other exotic one-off social structures) as role models for everyone else. Singapore likes to paint itself as open and its locals even believe it (the reference for contrast is Johor Baru or Medan which are ofc hard to compare). But it's just the effect of their own propaganda and brain washing (heavy censorship in film and art). When I lived there (90ies) you could sill buy a cane in the corner shop who were sold with the sole purpose of whipping and conditioning their kids.
  - 3131s 6y ago
    And there are tons of posts here are rushing to defend the country, because HN is filled with wannabe fascists and sheep.
akmarinov 6y ago
"fined almost $100,000 for sharing a Facebook link ruled as defamation against the prime minister." is the dangerous precedent
- ScalaFan 6y ago
  in a private facebook group!
  - ValentineC 6y ago
    Wait till you hear about the Singapore government suing the current prime minister's estranged [1] nephew for a private Facebook post [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road#Dispute_over_the_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road#Dispute_over_the... [2] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li-shengwu-fined-s15000-scandalising-judiciary-2017-facebook-post https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li-shengwu-fined-s1500...
tacostakohashi 6y ago
This isn't a "dangerous precedent", it's just more of the same from a regime that's been doing this for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_suits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_su... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%932012,_defamation_suit_and_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%9320... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublishing.law https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublis... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-defamation-case-threatens-press-freedom-20091119/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-def... Not a complete list, but that's the "precedent", not this.
- Clewza313 6y ago
  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.
  - dvlsg 6y ago
    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.
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Good question. And going back to the original example, would liking a Facebook post with the information also count, as that would signal to FB's algorithms that it should be promoted more?
      - jccooper 6y ago
        I presume even reading a Facebook post (or clicking on a Google search results link) provides a signal about popularity. Probably a little too far down the slippery slope for the law, though.
HenryBemis 6y ago
> His decision to sue Leong was one that he had arrived at after consultation with his lawyer That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!) On the other hand, this politician doesn't care if a random guy in the UK has a negative and correct opinion of him, he cares that his people sit down and shut up while he goes about his (corrupt) business. Another point towards this direction is that.. politicians usually sue somebody that defamed them, and then DONATE the proceeds to charities. Not this one I guess..
- Clewza313 6y ago
  Well, no, the defamatory allegations here were quite clearly bullshit. (The 1MDB scandal brought down the Malaysian PM in question and a lot of dirty laundry has been aired, so if there was substance to them, we'd know by now.) But the original source was a Malaysian blog, and suing them across the border would have been pointless.
- ValentineC 6y ago
  >> His decision to sue Leong was one that he had arrived at after consultation with his lawyer > That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!) The Singapore government has set multiple precendents about ministers having to sue to protect their integrity [1]: > 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. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.tong/goh3.html http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...
xbar 6y ago
Why does Singapore continue to win the #1 spot on the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report if the regime is so authoritarian? https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2019 https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-repor...
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  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.
  - screye 6y ago
    It is actually far worse than that. 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.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      It's sad, but it seems to be true, and knowing the truth is always better. We can like and promote democracy without marketing it as something it isn't, and if we're not afraid to identify areas where it isn't competitive, we can find ways to mitigate that.
    - AussieWog93 6y ago
      Botswana have done very well given their geography, as have many of the Eastern Bloc states (Estonia and the Czech Republic both spring to mind.) In that region, actually, democracy seems to have correlated positively with economic growth.
refurb 6y ago
A few thoughts: - Defamation or slander is also illegal in the U.K. upon which the Singapore system is based. It’s much easier to be convicted of that in the U.K. than the US - That said, I would agree that this is a pretty weak case with the convicted simply sharing a link to an article that contained false statements about the PM - Having spent considerable time in Singapore I’m not sure I’d label them authoritarian - at least not in the way it’s commonly used. - Legitimate elections are held although the ruling party has set up a system that is favorable to them holding power (though not impossible for them to lose) - There is an underlying sense by the ruling party that Singapore as a system is not that stable so the govt actually works quite hard to stay on the people’s good side. Recently the govt admitted that Covid tracing data could be used for police investigations which contradicted prior statements and it did not go over well. The govt basically apologized for mishandling it and added additional protections (though didn’t back down entirely). It’s a bizarre system where the govt holds a lot of power but is very concerned about not having support. So not excusing the lawsuit (because I think it’s a net harm) but adding some context.
- weswpg 6y ago
  Good comparison to Western restrictions on slander or libel because Singapore is one few countries to actually have a an "anti-fake news law" which many in the West desire and it absolutely proves the fear that it can very easily be abused
gigatexal 6y ago
Makes me wish I had a global enough reach to troll the Singaporean government. More of the wold should have protections such that people under a government are free to say all sorts of things about their elected leaders (except to incite violence or death threats of course but you know basic free speech).
disneygibson 6y ago
From 1993 but apparently still relevant: > Disneyland with the Death Penalty > We sent William Gibson to Singapore to see whether that clean dystopia represents our techno future. https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/
- eunos 6y ago
  > Disneyland with the Death Penalty The state with Disneyland has death penalty though (Fl & Cal) even thought Cal put it under moratorium.
  - staticman2 6y ago
    Sure but the owners of Disneyland don't decide who to execute. Gibson is using a metaphor.
cletus 6y ago
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. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
- stared 6y ago
  Right now in Poland, a writer is facing up to 3 years in prison for calling the president "a moron": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/polish-writer-jakub-zulczyk-charged-for-calling-president-andrzej-duda-a-moron https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/polish-writer-...
  - tim333 6y ago
    The funniest one was Erdogan/Gollum https://news.sky.com/story/court-orders-gollum-examination-in-erdogan-case-10337457 https://news.sky.com/story/court-orders-gollum-examination-i... where the guy got convicted with a suspended sentence and then acquitted.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Funny thing about China: > 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]
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Very interesting; reminds me of this one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-american-dream-hitler-modeled-his-concept-of-racial-struggle-and-global-campaign-after-americas-conquest-of-native-americans.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-am...
adventured 6y ago
The US is heading in this direction. In the US they're now sending police officers to your door to interrogate you if you merely criticize the authoritarian monsters in DC on social media, including Ted Cruz and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (to name two recent prominent examples of this phenomenon). That chilling assault on speech will get drastically worse during the new War on Domestic Terrorism campaign that is underway.
- stuff4ben 6y ago
  Source? I'm calling BS. You can criticize anyone you want here. You start making threats and THEN that gets investigated.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    This took me literally ten seconds to find: https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ca-podcaster-gets-visit-from-police-after-aoc-tweet/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ca-podcaster-gets-visit-from-p... [EDIT:] I couldn't find anything similar about Cruz in a couple of minutes, mostly because the search term "Cruz critics" is massively dominated by stuff about his ill-advised Cancun trip.
mewse-hn 6y ago
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. Strange times.
- russianbandit 6y ago
  > imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?
  - mewse-hn 6y ago
    Court
  - yifanl 6y ago
    Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has to be able to decide.
    - 3np 6y ago
      Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or even net negative value should be legal to share.
      - 6y ago
pgt 6y ago
> "While Lee won the case, public opinion is a different matter. Leong crowdfunded the $100,000 in just 11 days, with over 2,000 people contributing amounts large and small."
dilippkumar 6y ago
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.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  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] [1] https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slander-libel https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slan...
  - gowld 6y ago
cocoland2 6y ago
This is so sad , elected governments also try and do this. The most liberal state in India (higher on a lot of HR indices) , tried to add in a law and got slapped on the wrists (may be election time tactic) https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/11/24/5-yrs-jail-for-offensive-facebook-twitter-posts-kerala-tries-to-kill-freedom-of-speech-but-stops-after-backlash/ https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/11/24/5-yrs-jail-for-offe... This is the new norm , post something and disappear into thin air as if the poster did not exist , get trolled , threatened , coerced into apologies or be threatened with law suits (notorious cases like this https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files-2-6m-defamation-suit-against-critic/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files...) Cannot help but feel bad that "Man is born free ,everywhere he is in chains". Just cork up , and move on.
Causality1 6y ago
“Any libel or slander of their character with respect to their public service damages not only their personal reputation, but also the reputation of Singapore as a state whose leaders have acquired a worldwide reputation for honesty and integrity in office and dedication to service of the people.” Ah, so the Singaporean government is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom. Good to know.
beervirus 6y ago
It's very trendy and progressive in the US these days to want to put restrictions on the First Amendment. Most of the people who champion that cause have no idea how shitty things can get without free-speech protections.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lefstathiou 6y ago
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.
Aeolun 6y ago
If their goal was to portray the character of Singapore and PM Lee in a good light, they have failed spectacularly.
hyko 6y ago
On balance I’d rather just put up with chewing gum on the pavement thanks. I wouldn’t even visit this place.
supernova87a 6y ago
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.
- 77pt77 6y ago
  > For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another And yet I think one racial group of citizens was banned from the Air Force until a decade or so ago.
  - supernova87a 6y ago
    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?
    - ValentineC 6y ago
      > Which would naturally preclude them from being in the Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy of exclusion? The prevailing theory is that they're more likely to have kin in neighbouring Malaysia. Singapore is perpetually fearful of being annexed by Malaysia. (These days, it's more like propaganda to keep mandatory conscription relevant.)
TedShiller 6y ago
Even showing a smiley face in Singapore is illegal now. Look it up, I’m not making this up
- ValentineC 6y ago
  News article for anyone interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/world/asia/singapore-smiley-face-protest-charges.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/world/asia/singapore-smil...
Barrin92 6y ago
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.
- jariel 6y ago
  Criticizing the government is not lying. 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-monkeys/suppression-free-expression-and-assembly-singapore https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-mon...
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    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.
tus88 6y ago
Meanwhile in the UK people have been sued for liking defamatory tweets...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
3131s 6y ago
People on HN remind me of people from Singapore that I've met, in all the wrong ways. What a vile shithole of a country!
throwaway2037 6y ago
Can any British people comment on libel laws in the United Kingdom? Libel is much easier to prove in UK compared to US. Do politicians try to use it to silence critics or media? Is it ever successful? Or do they show restraint? Further: If anyone else can comment about libel in their own country (that is not UK/Singapura), please kindly comment. We are curious to learn more! To be clear: I am not making a judgement about libel laws. It is a complex matter for each society to decide.

284 points by donohoe 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

It is Singapore what the fuck did you expect, liberty and a respect for personal rights? Really anybody following thosr authoritarians for precedent is already too far gone.

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
it's a common theme among "smart-cities" marketers and cybersecurity wonks to cite Singapore (and other exotic one-off social structures) as role models for everyone else. Singapore likes to paint itself as open and its locals even believe it (the reference for contrast is Johor Baru or Medan which are ofc hard to compare). But it's just the effect of their own propaganda and brain washing (heavy censorship in film and art). When I lived there (90ies) you could sill buy a cane in the corner shop who were sold with the sole purpose of whipping and conditioning their kids.
- 3131s 6y ago
  And there are tons of posts here are rushing to defend the country, because HN is filled with wannabe fascists and sheep.

akmarinov 6y ago

"fined almost $100,000 for sharing a Facebook link ruled as defamation against the prime minister." is the dangerous precedent

ScalaFan 6y ago
in a private facebook group!
- ValentineC 6y ago
  Wait till you hear about the Singapore government suing the current prime minister's estranged [1] nephew for a private Facebook post [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road#Dispute_over_the_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Oxley_Road#Dispute_over_the... [2] https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li-shengwu-fined-s15000-scandalising-judiciary-2017-facebook-post https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/li-shengwu-fined-s1500...

tacostakohashi 6y ago

This isn't a "dangerous precedent", it's just more of the same from a regime that's been doing this for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_suits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._Jeyaretnam#Defamation_su... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%932012,_defamation_suit_and_bankruptcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chee_Soon_Juan#2002%E2%80%9320... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublishing.law https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/03/pressandpublis... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-defamation-case-threatens-press-freedom-20091119/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2009/11/singapore-def... Not a complete list, but that's the "precedent", not this.

Clewza313 6y ago
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.
- dvlsg 6y ago
  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.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Good question. And going back to the original example, would liking a Facebook post with the information also count, as that would signal to FB's algorithms that it should be promoted more?
    - jccooper 6y ago
      I presume even reading a Facebook post (or clicking on a Google search results link) provides a signal about popularity. Probably a little too far down the slippery slope for the law, though.

HenryBemis 6y ago

> His decision to sue Leong was one that he had arrived at after consultation with his lawyer That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!) On the other hand, this politician doesn't care if a random guy in the UK has a negative and correct opinion of him, he cares that his people sit down and shut up while he goes about his (corrupt) business. Another point towards this direction is that.. politicians usually sue somebody that defamed them, and then DONATE the proceeds to charities. Not this one I guess..

Clewza313 6y ago
Well, no, the defamatory allegations here were quite clearly bullshit. (The 1MDB scandal brought down the Malaysian PM in question and a lot of dirty laundry has been aired, so if there was substance to them, we'd know by now.) But the original source was a Malaysian blog, and suing them across the border would have been pointless.
ValentineC 6y ago
>> His decision to sue Leong was one that he had arrived at after consultation with his lawyer > That speaks volumes. "I am probably corrupt, but definitely too lazy to chase the original source, because a) it will cost more, and b) I'm corrupt probably corrupt and the article is speaks the truth". I believe that the "b)" is more likely (let's see if he will sue me!!) The Singapore government has set multiple precendents about ministers having to sue to protect their integrity [1]: > 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. [1] http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.tong/goh3.html http://edition.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/interview/goh.chok.t...

xbar 6y ago

Why does Singapore continue to win the #1 spot on the World Economic Forum's global competitiveness report if the regime is so authoritarian? https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-report-2019 https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-competitiveness-repor...

TeMPOraL 6y ago
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.
- screye 6y ago
  It is actually far worse than that. 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.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    It's sad, but it seems to be true, and knowing the truth is always better. We can like and promote democracy without marketing it as something it isn't, and if we're not afraid to identify areas where it isn't competitive, we can find ways to mitigate that.
  - AussieWog93 6y ago
    Botswana have done very well given their geography, as have many of the Eastern Bloc states (Estonia and the Czech Republic both spring to mind.) In that region, actually, democracy seems to have correlated positively with economic growth.

refurb 6y ago

A few thoughts: - Defamation or slander is also illegal in the U.K. upon which the Singapore system is based. It’s much easier to be convicted of that in the U.K. than the US - That said, I would agree that this is a pretty weak case with the convicted simply sharing a link to an article that contained false statements about the PM - Having spent considerable time in Singapore I’m not sure I’d label them authoritarian - at least not in the way it’s commonly used. - Legitimate elections are held although the ruling party has set up a system that is favorable to them holding power (though not impossible for them to lose) - There is an underlying sense by the ruling party that Singapore as a system is not that stable so the govt actually works quite hard to stay on the people’s good side. Recently the govt admitted that Covid tracing data could be used for police investigations which contradicted prior statements and it did not go over well. The govt basically apologized for mishandling it and added additional protections (though didn’t back down entirely). It’s a bizarre system where the govt holds a lot of power but is very concerned about not having support. So not excusing the lawsuit (because I think it’s a net harm) but adding some context.

weswpg 6y ago
Good comparison to Western restrictions on slander or libel because Singapore is one few countries to actually have a an "anti-fake news law" which many in the West desire and it absolutely proves the fear that it can very easily be abused

gigatexal 6y ago

Makes me wish I had a global enough reach to troll the Singaporean government. More of the wold should have protections such that people under a government are free to say all sorts of things about their elected leaders (except to incite violence or death threats of course but you know basic free speech).

disneygibson 6y ago

From 1993 but apparently still relevant: > Disneyland with the Death Penalty > We sent William Gibson to Singapore to see whether that clean dystopia represents our techno future. https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/ https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/

eunos 6y ago
> Disneyland with the Death Penalty The state with Disneyland has death penalty though (Fl & Cal) even thought Cal put it under moratorium.
- staticman2 6y ago
  Sure but the owners of Disneyland don't decide who to execute. Gibson is using a metaphor.

cletus 6y ago

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. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838

stared 6y ago
Right now in Poland, a writer is facing up to 3 years in prison for calling the president "a moron": https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/polish-writer-jakub-zulczyk-charged-for-calling-president-andrzej-duda-a-moron https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/23/polish-writer-...
- tim333 6y ago
  The funniest one was Erdogan/Gollum https://news.sky.com/story/court-orders-gollum-examination-in-erdogan-case-10337457 https://news.sky.com/story/court-orders-gollum-examination-i... where the guy got convicted with a suspended sentence and then acquitted.
andrepd 6y ago
Funny thing about China: > 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]
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Very interesting; reminds me of this one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-american-dream-hitler-modeled-his-concept-of-racial-struggle-and-global-campaign-after-americas-conquest-of-native-americans.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/nazi-germanys-am...

adventured 6y ago

The US is heading in this direction. In the US they're now sending police officers to your door to interrogate you if you merely criticize the authoritarian monsters in DC on social media, including Ted Cruz and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (to name two recent prominent examples of this phenomenon). That chilling assault on speech will get drastically worse during the new War on Domestic Terrorism campaign that is underway.

stuff4ben 6y ago
Source? I'm calling BS. You can criticize anyone you want here. You start making threats and THEN that gets investigated.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  This took me literally ten seconds to find: https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ca-podcaster-gets-visit-from-police-after-aoc-tweet/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/10/ca-podcaster-gets-visit-from-p... [EDIT:] I couldn't find anything similar about Cruz in a couple of minutes, mostly because the search term "Cruz critics" is massively dominated by stuff about his ill-advised Cancun trip.

mewse-hn 6y ago

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. Strange times.

russianbandit 6y ago
> imagine a society where people are actually held accountable for spreading bullshit disinformation, wouldn't that be a net good? Who decides that it’s bullshit though? The government? Or maybe interested-party-backed “fact checkers”?
- mewse-hn 6y ago
  Court
- yifanl 6y ago
  Well, unless you hold the opposite position where nothing is bullshit and everything is equally valuable, _somebody_ has to be able to decide.
  - 3np 6y ago
    Not if you subscribe to the idea that things without or even net negative value should be legal to share.
    - 6y ago

pgt 6y ago

> "While Lee won the case, public opinion is a different matter. Leong crowdfunded the $100,000 in just 11 days, with over 2,000 people contributing amounts large and small."

dilippkumar 6y ago

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.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
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] [1] https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slander-libel https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slan...
- gowld 6y ago

cocoland2 6y ago

This is so sad , elected governments also try and do this. The most liberal state in India (higher on a lot of HR indices) , tried to add in a law and got slapped on the wrists (may be election time tactic) https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/11/24/5-yrs-jail-for-offensive-facebook-twitter-posts-kerala-tries-to-kill-freedom-of-speech-but-stops-after-backlash/ https://trak.in/tags/business/2020/11/24/5-yrs-jail-for-offe... This is the new norm , post something and disappear into thin air as if the poster did not exist , get trolled , threatened , coerced into apologies or be threatened with law suits (notorious cases like this https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files-2-6m-defamation-suit-against-critic/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/22/whitehat-jrs-founder-files...) Cannot help but feel bad that "Man is born free ,everywhere he is in chains". Just cork up , and move on.

Causality1 6y ago

“Any libel or slander of their character with respect to their public service damages not only their personal reputation, but also the reputation of Singapore as a state whose leaders have acquired a worldwide reputation for honesty and integrity in office and dedication to service of the people.” Ah, so the Singaporean government is absolutely corrupt from top to bottom. Good to know.

beervirus 6y ago

It's very trendy and progressive in the US these days to want to put restrictions on the First Amendment. Most of the people who champion that cause have no idea how shitty things can get without free-speech protections.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lefstathiou 6y ago

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.

Aeolun 6y ago

If their goal was to portray the character of Singapore and PM Lee in a good light, they have failed spectacularly.

hyko 6y ago

On balance I’d rather just put up with chewing gum on the pavement thanks. I wouldn’t even visit this place.

supernova87a 6y ago

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.

77pt77 6y ago
> For example, you are not allowed to say that any particular race is "better" than another And yet I think one racial group of citizens was banned from the Air Force until a decade or so ago.
- supernova87a 6y ago
  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?
  - ValentineC 6y ago
    > Which would naturally preclude them from being in the Air Force in similar numbers? Or some worse actual policy of exclusion? The prevailing theory is that they're more likely to have kin in neighbouring Malaysia. Singapore is perpetually fearful of being annexed by Malaysia. (These days, it's more like propaganda to keep mandatory conscription relevant.)

TedShiller 6y ago

Even showing a smiley face in Singapore is illegal now. Look it up, I’m not making this up

ValentineC 6y ago
News article for anyone interested: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/world/asia/singapore-smiley-face-protest-charges.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/23/world/asia/singapore-smil...

Barrin92 6y ago

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.

jariel 6y ago
Criticizing the government is not lying. 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-monkeys/suppression-free-expression-and-assembly-singapore https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/12/12/kill-chicken-scare-mon...
- Barrin92 6y ago
  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.

tus88 6y ago

Meanwhile in the UK people have been sued for liking defamatory tweets...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

3131s 6y ago

People on HN remind me of people from Singapore that I've met, in all the wrong ways. What a vile shithole of a country!

throwaway2037 6y ago

Can any British people comment on libel laws in the United Kingdom? Libel is much easier to prove in UK compared to US. Do politicians try to use it to silence critics or media? Is it ever successful? Or do they show restraint? Further: If anyone else can comment about libel in their own country (that is not UK/Singapura), please kindly comment. We are curious to learn more! To be clear: I am not making a judgement about libel laws. It is a complex matter for each society to decide.