Chees vs Lees: No clear winner in court of public opinion

Judging by the reports in the national newspapers, the perception that the Chees are as good as buried seems to be the overriding reality. The court of law has almost carried out its due process and the final verdict to be out soon would not come as a surprise.

However, in the court of public opinion, it seems highly unlikely that the winner would be as clear cut as the one in the court of law.

The Internet, being democratic to a fault, opened a floodgate of opinion justifying the motives of the Lees and the Chees, showing that support for both parties is more equal than the mainstream media is willing to give credit for and comment on.

There has also been a strange silence regarding the media's responsibility in educating the populace about the libel laws of Singapore.

Simply put, in Singapore's case, the burden of proof is on the defendant (Chee) to prove that what he said was true. And that is an enormous burden to bear.

In the United States, where it is sort of like the converse being true, the plaintiff (Lee) who sues for libel must prove that what was written about him was blatantly and categorically false with the intention to cause harm (a.k.a malicious intent).

In this sense, it is not hard to see why whistle blowers do not feel as protected as they should in Singapore, and where silence becomes a default accepted condition.

Yet, broaching this topic of libel in the mainstream press seems equivalent to challenging one of the sacred cows that our society holds so dear. If you simply do not have the means and resources to prove what you say, please shut up.

Perhaps a consequence of the communitarian ideology as espoused by Confucianism, and propounded earnestly by the elder and earnest Lee, it is for the collective good that society thrives. Individuals who put themselves first, would instead upset the balance and most likely cause trouble or be of an inconvenience.

Oh dear. What happened to the need to at least be pragmatic and accommodating to modernity and its inhabitants, and admit that the experiences of even the muckrakers cannot be discounted?

The funny thing about the Lees going to court with their defamation suit is that they only served to further publicise the alleged libel by Chee. Probably prior to the trial, not many remembered or bothered about it. Probably also because The Democrat newsletter was not that fantastic a read either.

The concept of libel being exaggerated on the Lees' own accord has also not been taken into consideration and commented on by those high and mighty political commentators on television and newspapers who seemed to have a field day with Malaysian politics, talking about it at lengths and analysing every little detail to death.

Reading the mainstream newspapers and finding the glaring omission of certain information is just as illuminating.

Therefore, even if the courts can make the final verdict and rule it one way, the word on the street is anything but.