There is an expression in law, res ipsa loquitur-the matter speaks for itself.  A course of civil and criminal legal proceedings resulting in a member of the opposition being fined, jailed, forced into bankruptcy and disqualified from being a Member of Parliament and a lawyer for raising, in public, matters that are or should be of public concern demonstrates a failure of the rule of law and of democracy.

The decisions in these two appeals heightens concern that libel laws are being used in Singapore in a manner that amounts to a violation of the international fundamental rights to freely hold and peacefully express one's opinions.  Such use of the libel laws and the awarding of damages, which are not clearly in proportion to the harm suffered by the victim, run the risk of having a serious chilling effect on freedom of expression in Singapore. To many Singaporeans the libel suits against Mr. Jeyaretnam and other government critics may act as a powerful deterrent to exercising their right to peaceful freedom of expression.

The use of defamation suits in Singapore to prevent political expression belies any notion that Singapore is a democracy.  Democracy is the right to participate in one’s governance and to receive, distribute and debate information regarding issues of public concern and the performance of public officials without the risk of civil or criminal penalties.  Singapore has failed to protect these rights.  Singapore has also failed to honour its obligation [30] to promote and protect the rule of law (a state of affairs in which there are legal barriers to government arbitrariness and legal safeguard for the protection of individuals).  In Singapore there are insufficient legal safeguards to maintain the balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state creating a situation in which those in power are not accountable.  

Section 14 of the Defamation Act creates a restriction that violates the rule of law and with the minimum freedom of expression upon which democracy depends.