Gopalan Nair arrest suggests Singapore worth fighting for

The Lees vs Chees trial has certainly met with the strangest unexpected turn of events yet.

Gopalan Nair, returns to Singapore from Fremont California, where he practises law after he sought and won asylum status, and demands to be arrested.

In occurrences such as this, it is somewhat heartening to know that there is somebody who is still passionate enough about engaging with Singaporeans and in its affairs, even though he can always choose not to be, and challenge the powers that be based on fundamental rights. Impressive.

In his recent trial, Dr. Chee was portrayed as a pyschopath for his antics in court, but suddenly, he found himself a supporter. I think the issues both of them are championing have merit and reside within the realm that comes before "bread and butter" issues. The mechanisms that run the State lay unconscious and must be brought to mind if Singapore ever wants to join the league of nations that are considered First World (I'm thinking more of Norway and Sweden as bastions of democracy, and not the United States as an example).

The cracks within the present system is indeed showing itself with Gopalan's arrest. Running Singapore based on the legitimacy gained from satisfying the economic imperative so that the needs of the populace are met and imposing fear as a necessary condition to govern that same populace serves to shove aside the nuanced understanding required to enhance the overall quality of life and making sense about why the general well-being in Singapore is not wholly gratifying.

Whether or not Gopalan is making a theatrical political statement is besides the point. Judging by the way Singapore is run, anything associated with politics is made to look theatrical anyways.

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.