US embassy cable - 05SINGAPORE3147

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SINGAPORE 003147 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/21/2015 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, SN 
SUBJECT: GOS HOLDS THE LINE ON FREE SPEECH 
 
REF: SINGAPORE 2058 
 
Classified By: E/P Counselor Laurent Charbonnet for reasons 1.4(b)/(d) 
 
1.  (C) Summary:  The GOS continues to narrowly define the 
parameters of free speech in Singapore -- extending into the 
internet -- and constraints on public protest remain firmly 
in place. The convictions of three Singaporeans for racist 
comments made on the internet are the latest indication that 
the GOS will not tolerate speech it deems to be racist in any 
forum. A rare public protest over the GOS's failure to open 
an expensive subway station resulted in a stern GOS warning 
to the unnamed perpetrators.  A prominent academic's 
discussion of the role of civil disobedience in Singaporean 
society elicited a public shot across the bow from the Prime 
Minister's office. Though only a small part of his farewell 
speech, the Ambassador's comments on Singapore's restrictions 
on free expression received widespread media attention. End 
Summary. 
 
Bloggers Jailed for Violating Sedition Act 
------------------------------------------ 
 
2.  (U) On October 7, the court sentenced Benjamin Koh Song 
Huat, 27, and Nicholas Lim Yew, 25, to jail for allegedly 
racist remarks posted on the internet about ethnic minority 
Malays.  Koh was sentenced to one month's imprisonment while 
Lim was fined SGD 5,000 and jailed for one day.  Both were 
convicted of violating the Sedition Act, a 1948 law that had 
not been previously used against individuals.  On October 26, 
a third Singaporean, 17 year-old Gan Huai Shi, was also 
convicted of publishing racist comments on his internet blog. 
 
 
3.  (U) Following the filing of sedition charges against the 
bloggers, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stated that the GOS 
would not tolerate any racist comments, whether posted on the 
internet or in other media: "It doesn't matter where you say 
it, this is a message that is not acceptable.  It is against 
the law and the Sedition Act specifically...If you publish 
such stuff, anywhere you go, we will act." 
 
Buangkok Subway Station: A White Elephant? 
------------------------------------------ 
 
4.  (U) On August 28, to coincide with the visit of a 
government minister, eight cardboard cutout white elephants 
appeared outside a subway station that had been completed two 
years ago, but never opened.  Although PM Lee had stated that 
the government does not build "white elephant" public works 
projects, complaining local residents disagreed.  Even 
grassroots members of the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) 
had urged the GOS to open the station, to no avail. 
 
5.  (U) Immediately after the police allegedly received an 
anonymous complaint, the elephants were removed (by whom it 
is not known), and police have thus far been unable to track 
them down.  Police conducted an investigation as to whether 
Singapore's Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), 
which requires a license for public displays, had been 
violated.  The investigation resulted in a "stern warning" to 
the unnamed perpetrators, who many speculated were PAP 
grassroots leaders.  When ribbed about the case, GOS 
officials have (while slightly squirming) stated the police 
are obligated to investigate every complaint. 
 
"Managing Civil Disobedience" 
----------------------------- 
 
6.   (U) In response to the "white elephant" affair, Dr. 
Cherian George, a leading academic and political commentator, 
placed an article on his blog, which the Straits Times then 
published.  The article, "Managing Civil Disobedience," noted 
that the stern warning issued in the white elephant case 
would not deter opposition activists from deliberately 
"breaking the law to make a political point" and alluded to 
opposition leader Dr. Chee Soon Juan's promotion of 
non-violent civil disobedience. Dr. George characterized the 
government's method of dealing with public protest in general 
as one of "calibrated coercion," wherein challenges to 
government rule were suppressed with minimal force and 
maximum effectiveness. 
 
7.  (C) Chen Hwai Lian, the Press Secretary to PM Lee, 
responded to Dr. George on the forum page of the Straits 
Times, prompting a response from Dr. George that the 
government had mistaken his analysis for advocacy, in turn 
prompting a rejoinder from Chen that Dr. George had failed to 
be non-partisan in his analysis. A member of the PM's staff 
averred that these exchanges were an example of the GOS' 
engaging in a dialogue with its critics, not firing a shot 
across their bow. 
The Ambassador's Farewell 
------------------------- 
 
8.  (U) In his wide-ranging farewell speech, the Ambassador 
asked, "In this era of Weblogs and Webcams, how much sense 
does it make to limit political expression?"  He noted that 
governments would "pay an increasing price for not allowing 
full participation of their citizens," but expressed 
confidence that Singapore would rise to this challenge. 
Though only a few sentences in a larger speech, the 
Ambassador's comments on political expression were played up 
by the foreign media,  such as the Financial Times (FT), as a 
"rare public rebuke" to Singapore. 
 
9.  (SBU) Singapore's Ambassador to the United States, Chan 
Heng Chee, raised her concerns over the "mischaracterization" 
with the Ambassador.  The Straits Times published the speech 
in its entirety, which put the remarks in the right 
perspective.  The chairman of the Singapore Institute for 
International Affairs -- which hosted the speech -- plans to 
publish a commentary in the Straits Times noting that the 
Ambassador's comments were a "suggestion from a friend" as 
opposed to a "slap in the face" and that such constructive 
criticism is necessary for effective international dialogue. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
10.  (C) All these events reinforce how tightly the GOS 
continues to monitor and restrict public discourse. Though 
the white elephant caper could have been viewed as humorous, 
creative dissent, the GOS conducted a criminal investigation. 
 When the perpetrators were found to be PAP members, the GOS 
issued a stern warning rather than prosecuting the offenders 
-- a leniency not often afforded the opposition.  Though GOS 
rhetoric claims to support a freer and more open civil 
society, its actions indicate that the GOS will continue to 
maintain strict control over public debate. 
FERGIN