Donaldson Tan
New Media offers a participatory channel for citizens in the next General Election
On 17 July 2010, 20 participants from academia, civil society and the political blogosphere gathered at One North to share their views on the impact of internet election advertisement regulations and related legislations on internet free speech during General Elections at a workshop.
The workshop, titled “General Election Blogging and the Law”, was co-organized by the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication & Information (WKWSCI) and New Asia Republic (NAR). NAR is a group blog that provides commentaries on current affairs pertaining to Singapore, ASEAN and the world-at -large, encompassing the liberal-libertarian spectrum.
The key speaker of the workshop was none other than former Law Society President Peter Cuthbert Low. A highly respected figure in the local legal fraternity, he had represented several Internal Security Department political detainees between 1987 and 1989 who were alleged to have been involved in a “Marxist Conspiracy”, and also high-profile defamation suits involving political figures such as Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, JB Jeyaretnam and Tang Liang Hong.
On Parliamentary Elections Act
During the workshop, Peter Low highlighted that election advertisement includes activities that either promote or prejudice the electoral success of any identifiable group of General Election candidates. This means a broad spectrum of online activities fall under the purview of internet election advertisement regulation. From existing legislation, it is quite clear what the law stipulates as “don’t”s for bloggers. Further safeguards may be unnecessary.
The Parliamentary Elections Act outlaws the publishing of elections survey results during the period between the issuance day of election writ and polling day. Election survey refers to an opinion survey of how electors will vote at an election or of the preference of electors respecting any candidate(s) and/or political parties. On top of that, no internet election advertisement may be published on Polling Day and Cooling-Off Day.
While the Parliamentary Election Act allows individuals to publish election advertisement online, it remains unclear on how websites, especially group blogs, would bear “its printer, its publisher and the person for whom or at whose direction the election advertisement is published” to avoid being charged for corrupt practice. Additional clarification is also required to gauge whether group blogs can be classified as “individuals” under the wording of the law.
While the penalty for corrupt practice does not apply on non-commercial internet election advertisement, it remains a corrupt practice to make false statement on the personal character, personal conduct and the withdrawal of candidates before and during General Election. Such false statements may be a double whammy since additional charges can be constituted under the Defamation Act and the Penal Code (Criminal Defamation).
Regulatory minefield outside Parliamentary Elections Act
Free speech in Singapore is restricted constitutionally to provide against to provide against: (1) contempt of court; (2) defamation; and (3) incitement to any offence.
Contempt of court is an attack on the independence or integrity of the court of judges. Anything done or published that is calculated to bring a court or a judge of the court into contempt or to lower his authority is a contempt of court. In November 2008, Singapore Democratic Party Assistant Secretary-General, Mr John Tan, was sentenced to 15 days imprisonment by High Court Judge Judith Prakash for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a kangaroo in a judge’s gown during the defamation hearing between Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore Democrats.
Defamation suits are not new in Singapore’s political circles. However, it would be wise to take note of following exceptions whereby defamation does not apply:
- Imputation of any truth which the public good requires to be made or published;
- Public conduct of public servants;
- Conduct of any person touching any public question;
- Publication of reports of proceedings of courts of justice, etc;
- Merits of case decided in a court of justice; or conduct of witnesses and others concerned therein;
- Merits of public performance;
- Imputation made in good faith by a person for the protection of his interests;
- Caution intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed or for the public good.
Last but not least, incitement to any offence is an offence itself under the Penal Code. It is considered as public mischief if a person makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report, with the intention to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offence against any other class or community of person. It is also illegal to promote enmity between racial/religious groups. Enhanced penalties would be applicable if it is demonstrated that the offender is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards members of a racial or religious group based on their membership of that group.
—
Photo courtesy of Farzad Hamidimanesh.
