Ang Peng Hwa
TohLibel
February 1996
The New Paper's report of the arrest of former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye for a traffic accident was a tragedy of errors. But this tragedy is being compounded by both The New Paper's publisher, Singapore Press Holdings, and Dr Toh. The ultimate victim will be press freedom.
First, for reasons best known to the SPH group, the local dailies (which are all under the SPH group) have decided to place an apology to the former Deputy Prime Minister. This creates a very bad precedent for future libel cases. The SPH group can expect that, in future, lawyers will ask for an apology in all its papers even if the libel appeared in the Tamil Murasu, the smallest daily in its group.
When I was in the varsity, the club I was involved in libelled a student hall of residence. Someone had drawn a poster that depicted a person wearing a T-shirt. On the T-shirt were the word "Martian" and, in a corner, the initials of the hall. No doubt about it, my club had libelled the hall.
So, that hall called an extraordinary general meeting to debate what to do about being called a nerdy bookworm hall. At that meeting, the hall decided that, because the libel had spread to other parts of the campus, my club had to pin up posters across the campus apologising for the libel. We put our foot down: if the libel can spread across the campus through one poster, the apology can also spread across the campus through an identical-size poster in that same location.
Perhaps SPH needed to show its contrition so as to mitigate its damages. But it had done so: it withdrew more than 80 percent of the circulation. Then it printed a fresh edition with the apology. It certainly lost money on that issue.
Despite these actions, if Singaporeans on the Internet are representative of the population, then most Singaporeans are unforgiving. Many in the soc.culture.singapore discussion group on the Internet are baying for maximum payment of damages. Some are blissfully proud that they have never bought a New Paper in their entire lives.
The only person who seemed remotely gracious was a journalist. As one well-travelled experienced journalist put it: there but for the grace of God go I. You trust a source who has given you reliable information in the past and somehow, one day, the information from the source sours.
I am sure such situations have happened to many people: you rely on someone who one day is unreliable. Singaporeans should treat the newspaper in the same way: sometimes, someone inside is unreliable and so the information is unreliable. Sometimes, someone outside the newspaper is unreliable and so the information is unreliable.
This, of course, does not excuse the newspaper group. Instead, while the horrors of such an error are still fresh in the minds of everyone, it should take this as a good time to look at its practices. One potential pitfall that I mention to my journalism classes is that the SPH group has a policy of removing the honorific from a person once that person is charged. Thus, when a Mr Tan or Miss Tan or Mdm Tan is charged, they all become simply Tan. The exception is when the person is a medical doctor--as in the case of Dr Toh. (The style guide offers an explanation that, unfortunately, I have never quite been able to grasp.) Such a practice makes a field day for those lawyers who have their honorific dropped in the newspaper coverage.
It is not a good time to fire anyone simply because the only action in daily press journalism is in the SPH group. Certainly those who have acted wrongly should suffer some censure. But to fire them would certainly discourage attempts at scoops. Those journalists who never make a single mistake in their entire careers would be those who provide only sterile information.
As for Dr Toh, I am not arguing for a second that he should not get any damages. He certainly deserves compensation for the shock he must have suffered. If I were the lawyer advising him, I would probably shoot for the moon.
But I think there is a better way. I think Dr Toh should ask for less, perhaps even submitting the matter for the courts to decide.
First, it is to Dr Toh's credit that I have not met a single person who even believed that he was the person involved. Every person I have met has pointed out suspect information in the report. Most have then gone to point out: even if he did it, he would have owned up.
Unlike virtually all of the other political libel cases, the source of the libel in The New Paper clearly does not know Dr Toh. It was an innocent mistake, innocent at least of suspect motives.
So the damage to Dr Toh's reputation has been negligible if at all.
Second, I am sure that Dr Toh, in his twilight years, still harbours the best thoughts and wishes for Singapore. There is no doubt that his contribution to Singapore will be remembered. All that remains for someone of his stature is to go out in style.
My own sense is that he would go out in style and grace if he were to ask for less. Not only that, asking for much would have a negative impact on the future of the press. Controlled as the press is, and no one denies there is control, the press does not need further limitations.
Third, Dr Toh does not need the money and will probably, in line with the trend established by the Senior Minister, give it away.
At first, I thought that Dr Toh should donate the money to charity. Perhaps buy a red van and name it after those who have contributed towards it. But on second thoughts, no. The whole incident is not funny. Someone else will have his career shattered and his life scarred forever. Worse, a young man about to begin his working life has died.
Perhaps Dr Toh should donate the money to the young man's family. That way, at least some good, perhaps the only good, might come out of this sorry case. (1,046 words)