Hey Singapore, there's an easier way to settle libel

A few hundred years ago, people settled personal disputes with duels. If someone was insulted, or his girlfriend was molested, or his reputation was tarnished by gossip, he did not go running to a lawyer. He would have thrown a grove at the transgressor. That is a challenge to a duel.

Despite the fatal outcome, the duels were conducted in very gentlemanly ways. One does'nt challenge someone who is much older and physically weaker, nor did nobility force it on the working class. A noble man challenged only their kind.

Never were they in it for the money. They sought no damages. It was'nt about integrity. It was all about honour. If one's honour was impugned, they sought redress to reclaim their honour by a duel.

The tradition of duels was universal although it is very much romanticised in the West, especially in the travails of the Three Musketeers. Many noblemen, unfortunately, perished in such duels. One such example was Evariste Galois, a French mathematician who died from his wounds in a duel in 1832. He was only 20 and had just written his Galois theory that provides a connection between field theory and group theory. It's left to wonder what he could have contributed to the world of mathematics had he lived longer.

There were persons known as 'seconds' who acted as intermediaries These were usually close friends of the duelists, who met to discuss and see if the dispute can be settled without a duel. When this failed, then the duel proceeded. But for these 'seconds' the world could have been different had they not stopped the duels between Abraham Lincoln and state auditor James Shields in 1842, and in 1864 the duel between Mark Twain and a newspaper editor.

If the duel was to proceed, in their gentlemanly ways, they agreed on the details. Most notably on the choice of weapons, the time, and the honour field, which was the place where the duel was to take place.

Despite the deadly serious business, there were some morbid humour. In 1860 Otto von Bismark challenged Rudolf Virchow to a duel in which the latter chose as the means of the duel, two pork sausages, one infected with roundworms. The two would each choose which sausage to eat. Bismark declined. There was also the case of two Frenchmen who fought in balloons over Paris, each attempting to take pot shots at the other's balloon to bring it down.  Two other Frenchmen won hands down with this challenge -- they dueled by using billiard balls to throw at each other.

Today, a political libel suit in Singapore is a power play. The recently concluded suit brought by blogger Leong Sze Hian against the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong serves to underline this. The plaintiff's lawyer spent 1-1/2 hours arguing his case. The prime minister's senior counsel sat quietly without uttering a word. The judge threw Leong's case out and awarded cost of $23,000. That's more than 1 year's salary of the working class.

Today, it's not about honour, it's about damages. The more the better to bury the defendant with.

Today it's not a gentlemanly challenge of nobleman vs nobleman. The king will thumb down on the lowest digit in the economy if he dares to point out the emperor's clothe.

Today, the weapons are the senior counsels who count their earnings by the minutes. They are not like the 'seconds' who were there to help settle disputes as in the old days, but to 'duel' in air-conditioned comfort using the safety of words as weapons. They are there to fight, not to help prevent duels.

Today, it's a money game. The 'seconds' aka legal counsels, walk away with hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the privileged winners are awarded millions of dollars in damages, and tax payers have to suck up the cost of the judiciary process -- the electricity cost of the air-conditioned court room, the judges' salaries, the salaries of other judiciary employees, etc.

Today, the political libel suits are meant to be firstly vindictive - bankrupt the other party and prevent him his livelihood; secondly to instill fear in the low life mediocre mass of the population by cowering them to curtail the exercise of freedom of speech. It is being weaponised to protect the elites and the powerful.

Today, the 'field of honour' where the duels are conducted is the courthouse. It no longer is a private battle between the antagonists, but where proxies are used and the outcome depends on the intellectual capacity and the impartiality of an uninvolved entity in the form of the judge.

The deluge of political libel suits in Singapore warrants a more out-of-the-box approach. Why waste tax payers money going to a mandatory 'field of honour', ie the court, where universal libel doctrines crafted over 800 years since the signing of Magna Carta in 1215 do not apply. Uniquely Singapore autochtonous doctrines on libel assure outcomes are never a surprise, making court appearances a waste of time and resources. It is high time those in power cease and desist wasting tax payers money each time they are pissed off by somebody who does something that irks them.

There are easier and more fun ways to settle defamation disputes. We can have duels that do not break any laws, and the public have fun watching the fight. Afterall, let's be frank about it, a spectacle is what we want, so that wannabe dissenters can be cowed. Let's stop wasting public money on court battles. Let's have it out in public in a fun way. The antagonists have the right to choose the way the duel is to be conducted. I have a few suggestions :

• Let's have a money game, since it is all about trying to exact compensation. Have stacks of Singapore dollar currencies bundled and in sacks. Have these sacks placed at Supreme Court building. Opponents will carry these sacks and run from Supreme Court to Parliament House. Winner is the one who can carry the most number of sacks within one hour.
• Let's have a challenge of car polishing. Have two Mercedes Benz and see who can make their vehicle shine best. If one does'nt own a Benz, go find a Grab driver who has one. Advertisers are allowed to place their products on display at the same time. Proceeds from advertising goes to the neighbourhood senior citizen cardboard or garbage bin pickers.
• Or how about showing who has the bigger bank account. Needless to say, the one who has the biggest balance wins the duel. For this purpose, offshore bank accounts qualify.
• Or how about an ungentlemanly way. Opponents put their wife to the task. Who has the more intelligent wife wins. Of course, in Singapore, intelligence means the capability to earn more. Let's open up CPF and IRA returns as the basis.
• Here is my favourite idea. Have the antagonists sit in Parliament to answer the queries of members of parliament. Make it mandatory for MPs to query. That ought to solve the perennial problem of MPs falling asleep in the House and poor attendance. Outcome depends on a vote in the House. The reader will cry foul as the majority ruling party will surely mean a skewed result. To which I should point out that it makes no difference with a court ruling, historically speaking.

A Time Capsule of more than a hundred years old in Paris was recently opened. In it, amongst many other old stuff, was an article by National Geographic. It was a satire on duels and the antagonists were two frogs. The article became known as 'The Battle Of The Frogs'. The satire pokes fun at humanity and tells us that we are after all, simply humans and everyone has their follies and mistakes in life. Whyfor the haste to duel?

**********