Nevertheless, a line exists. It is not hard to see that it has been crossed in the recent comments posted in government's Reach portal and on other websites, attacking the integrity of Nominated Member of Parliament Siew Kum Hong and others. The allegation that they were "on the take" from a Swedish politician was not only unsupported by any prima facie evidence, it was deliberately malicious.

I saw the malicious intent right here on Yawning Bread itself. Last Saturday (16 May 2009), when moderating the comments queue, I saw two postings by someone using the nick "justfacts" making that allegation. I refused to approve the comments for publication. Instead, I posted my own statement explaining why I rejected the two comments:

I have rejected two comments on the grounds that they are defamatory. The two postings, by someone with the nick "justfacts", allege that certain politicians and others are "on the take", in other words corrupt. Other than citing something from hardwarezone, the comments do not provide any supporting evidence whatsoever. Yawning Bread will not tolerate wild accusations that besmirch others, whichever side of the political fence one is on.

The following day (Sunday 17 May), when moderating the comments queue, I saw a new posting by "justfacts" repeating the same libellous accusation. Again, I rejected it, explaining my action a second time to readers.

The re-submission by "justfacts" is significant. It proves intent. While one might claim that the first time around, he was unaware of the seriousness of his statement, the same excuse cannot be made the second time around. I had clearly said they were defamatory, yet he insisted on putting it back into the comments queue.

I understand there were far more numerous similar statements made on other websites, particularly Reach.gov.sg, though I did not bother to check them out as I was extremely busy over the weekend. Apparently, there was a coordinated campaign to destroy Siew Kum Hong's reputation by means fair or foul, well, mostly foul.

As many netizens are aware by now, Siew has filed a police report. He has a right to expect the police to investigate the source of these libellous statements, Further to that, if the Attorney-General's office does not prosecute offenders under Section 499 of the Penal Code (Criminal Defamation) [1], Siew himself can sue the persons responsible for (a) initiating those statements, (b) circulating or spreading those statements.

Section 201 of the Penal Code [2] makes it an offence to destroy evidence of an offence committed, or giving false information regarding it, or any attempt to screen the offender. This means that websites that now contain the malicious statements and the IP addresses associated with them should take care not to purge such information.

In libel law, the burden of proof lies on the person making the allegation. It is not a simple case of "I say, you say". Siew does not have to prove that the statements are false -- even though they are. The persons making the statements, even if they are mere innuendo, have to prove that they are true, otherwise they will be liable for damages. Persons circulating libellous statements made by others, e.g. webmasters keeping comments so made on their sites, must also be able to show that there were reasonable grounds to think the statements were true, otherwise failure to remove those comments promptly constitutes abetment.

I noticed this evening some comments saying Siew should not have made a police report. Some of the writers argue that an advocate of freedom of speech that Siew is should not resort to the law. This argument is too simplistic. An assault on one's character and reputation is akin to a physical assault. One can be a defender of the freedom of movement and still expect the law to come in when bullies beat you up. Likewise, freedom of speech is meaningless if speech is allowed to become a tool for bullies to destroy others. Speech that is not grounded in reason and reasonable inferences should fall outside civilised society.

It is not in Singapore's interest to allow politics to become a snakepit of malicious innuendo, wild accusations, scare-mongering and hate speech demonising minorities and their defenders. Bad speech has a tendency to crowd out reasoned debate. It is entirely justifiable to apply the law.

* * * * *

 
The allegations were concocted out of a simple meeting that Siew had with Johan Skarendal on Monday, 20 April 2009, a meeting that I had arranged. Skarendal is a young politician belonging to the Swedish Liberal Party. He used to head its Student's wing. [3] 

My understanding from Skarendal in emails that we exchanged prior to his visit was that he wanted to update himself on the political situation and trends in Singapore in order to modulate his party's foreign policy. The Liberal Party is one of four component parties in the coalition government in Stockholm. Skarendal had been familiar with Singapore before, and had been based in Taiwan for a number of years. He speaks fluent Chinese. Among the things he wanted to be updated on was the human rights situation. That being the case, a meeting with Maruah, Singapore's non-government working group for an Asean human rights mechanism, would be perfect. I myself am a member of Maruah.[4]

I arranged a meeting for the afternoon of 20 April, even though I couldn't be there as I had a clash of appointments. Siew Kum Hong, Peter Low and Leong Sze Hian represented Maruah, giving Johan Skarendal an update of the situation with respect to the Asean Charter signed last year and its provision for a human rights mechanism. They spoke from a civil society perspective.

Three days later, on Wednesday, 22 April 2009, Johan had a second meeting with Siew. This time, I was there, and Skarendal brought with him Henrik Ehrenberg, a member of the Swedish Moderate Party (formerly known as the Conservative Party). The Moderate Party is also a partner in the governing coalition. In this second meeting, the discussion was about democracy Singapore-style, including the liberalising trends (if any) that we are witnessing. It mostly took the form of the Swedes asking questions and Siew (and, at times, myself) answering them. At no time in the meeting was funding offered or requested. It would have been completely out of place.

It is perfectly normal for politicians from other countries to seek input from non-government voices. Foreign governments need to ensure that they do not get a skewed reading of the Singapore situation as a result of listening only to official mouthpieces. I myself communicate regularly with an endless stream of foreign officials and journalists.

I noticed, and thought it interesting, that the allegations (as far as I could see) mentioned only the meeting of 20 April, not that of 22 April. Some postings also mentioned Peter Low's and Leong Sze Hian's name. So, whoever initiated the libel knew only of the first meeting, not the second. I believe this helps Siew narrow down the possibilities.

* * * * *

 
This episode a continuation of the great 377A debate of 2007, though "debate" it no longer is. The anti-gay side's present behaviour is less one of contestation of ideas, more that of lashing out at anyone who took sides against them, no holds barred.

We have seen it manifested in a secretive takeover of a secular organisation by church-linked women, followed by doublespeak and denials; then a mass pressure campaign to influence the Ministry of Education over its sexuality education programs and now an "astroturfing" attempt over the selection of Nominated Members of Parliament. The term "astroturfing" refers to an attempt by a small number of people to sound like they are the majority by repeatedly voicing similar views under multiple guises. Fake grass-roots as opposed to real grass-roots.

Now we see a smear and libel campaign against Siew Kum Hong. And going by this record of concocting allegations out of thin air, I even wonder if the allegations of death threats received by the church-linked women who took over AWARE had any basis to them.

The actions of this rabidly anti-gay group are taking the form of the ends justifying the means. Factual accuracy is no longer needed, honesty redundant, ethical behaviour and integrity dispensable. These people are no more interested in winning arguments in debate. In fact, you'd notice that reasoned arguments are no longer offered. Their aim is to bludgeon people into silence and bully the government into sharing their paranoia. Their tools are stealth, scare-mongering, astroturfing and character assassination. 

You can't reason with such people. Nor can we ignore them because they are out to inflict damage on anyone who gets in their path the same way terrorists go about their business. At some point, those of us who believe in civilised liberty have to say: Enough is enough. The law must be invoked.

© Yawning Bread