TODAYonline

TODAYonline: "The line between defamation and debate
Defence of reputation, free speech calls for a delicate balance of interests

Thomas Koshy

'PRACTICAL politics consists in ignoring facts,' American historian Henry Adams said over a century ago. But time and again, ignoring the facts has been shown to be a perilous path to take in Singapore politics.
.
This was seen most recently when, faced with the prospect of having to defend their statements in court, 10 out of the 12 Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Central Executive Committee (CEC) members apologised and withdrew statements made in relation to the National Kidney Foundation saga.
.
The party has since also decided not to file its defence and has discharged its lawyer, who continues to represent Dr Chee Soon Juan and his sister in the lawsuit.
.
The loss of credibility and apparent breaking of ranks, which earned the SDP the moniker 'Slowly Disintegrating Party', probably contributed in no small part to the party — which was once the leader of the Opposition — ending up as the last choice of the people in the General Election.
.
With the many defamation suits filed against members of Opposition parties in the past, Singaporeans probably felt a sense of deja vu as matters unfolded against the CEC members. Invoking defamation laws to prevent falsehoods from gaining currency has been a consistent strategy employed by the ruling party.
.
By contrast, the Workers' Party (WP) demonstrated a rather different tack when the character of its members came under attack. It took the stance that Singaporeans are mature, they can think for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
.
This was a clever stroke that was sure to charm some, telling Singaporeans who are used to paternalistic, if not patronising, treatment, that they were mature enough to decide for themselves.
.
After the elections, the legal investigations into whether Mr Gomez had committed offences of criminal intimidation, giving false i"