In April 2013, when I was 21 years old, I received a letter of demand from Singapore’s government to sue me for defamation.
(You may read more about it on
U.S. Department of State:
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220439.pdf and
Asian Human Rights Defenders:
https://asianhrds.forum-asia.org/?p=9788)
Since then, the PAP government has passed the following laws, which have restricted the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech in Singapore.
31 August 2013
Sedition Act (CHAPTER 290)
Seditious tendency
3.—(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore
28 February 2014
Defamation Act (CHAPTER 75)
Unintentional defamation
7.—(1) A person who has published words alleged to be defamatory of another person may, if he claims that the words were published by him innocently in relation to that other person, make an offer of amends under this section; and in any such case —
(a) if the offer is accepted by the party aggrieved and is duly performed, no proceedings for libel or slander shall be taken or continued by that party against the person making the offer in respect of the publication in question (but without prejudice to any cause of action against any other person jointly responsible for that publication);
(b) if the offer is not accepted by the party aggrieved, then, except as otherwise provided by this section, it shall be a defence, in any proceedings by him for libel or slander against the person making the offer in respect of the publication in question, to prove that the words complained of were published by the defendant or were published by the defendant innocently in relation to the plaintiff and that the offer was made as soon as practicable after the defendant received notice that they were or might be defamatory of the plaintiff, and has not been withdrawn.
31 May 2015
Protection from Harassment Act (CHAPTER 256A)
No person shall by any means —
(a) use any threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour; or
(b) make any threatening, abusive or insulting communication,
which is heard, seen or otherwise perceived by any person (referred to for the purposes of this section as the victim) likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
11 July 2016
Administration of Justice (Protection) Bill
Contempt by scandalising court, interfering with administration of justice, etc.
3.—(1) Any person who —
(a) scandalises the court by intentionally publishing any matter or doing any act that —
(i) imputes improper motives to or impugns the integrity, propriety or impartiality of any court; and
(ii) poses a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined;
(b) intentionally publishes any matter that —
(i) prejudges an issue in a court proceeding that is pending and such prejudgment prejudices, interferes with, or poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with, the course of any court proceeding that is pending; or
(ii) otherwise prejudices, interferes with, or poses a real risk of prejudice to or interference with, the course of any court proceeding that is pending;
(c) intentionally interferes with (by intimidation or otherwise) or hinders another person’s access to or ability to appear in court, knowing that this person is a party, witness, advocate or judge in ongoing court proceedings;
(d) intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption or obstruction to any judge of any court, while such judge is sitting in any stage of a court proceeding; or
(e) intentionally does any other act that interferes with, obstructs or poses a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice in any other manner, if the person knows or ought to have known that the act would interfere with, obstruct or pose a real risk of interference with or obstruction of the administration of justice,
commits a contempt of court.
Finally, Singapore’s Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth:
“The name or image or likeness of Mr Lee Kuan Yew may be used for purposes of identifying with the nation, including on works of art or publications or items for charitable purposes, in accordance with law.”