The following is an open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong from Reporters Without Borders
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong
Prime Minister’s Office
Orchard Road
Istana
Singapore 238823
Paris, 25 March 2010
Dear Prime Minister,
A foreign news organisation has yet again been forced to apologise to you and your father and pay you a large sum of money for publishing an article you did not like. This time it is the New York Times Co. that is a victim of this double punishment because of a compliant judicial system that always rules in favour of you and your family in all the lawsuits you bring against foreign news media.
Before the New York Times Co., you succeeded in punishing the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), FinanceAsia.com, The Economist, International Herald Tribune and Asian Wall Street Journal for their coverage of the political and economic situation in your country.
Threatened by a trial, the New York Times Co. apologised to you and your father, Lee Kuan Yew, for the article “All in the Family,” written by Philip Bowring and published in the 15 February issue of the International Herald Tribune. As well as an apology, this US media company had to pay 114,000 US dollars in damages.
Your lawyer, Davinder Singh, said Bowring’s article violated an “agreement” between your family and the International Herald Tribune, which was sentenced in 1994 to pay a large sum in damages for an article entitled “The claims about Asian values don’t usually bear scrutiny.”
The now defunct Far Eastern Economic Review agreed last November, after a long legal wrangle, to pay you and your father 290,000 US dollars in damages. Despite a lack of evidence, Singaporean judges ruled in favour of your family both in the original trial and on appeal without a thought for media freedom.
Reporters Without Borders condemns the judicial harassment which you and your father have practiced for years in order to prevent foreign news media from taking too close an interest in how you run your country. It does serious and lasting harm to press freedom in Singapore.
Your government has repeatedly displayed a disturbing inability to tolerate foreign journalists. Last October, for example, Benjamin Bland, a British freelancer who strings for The Economist and The Daily Telegraph, was denied a visa and permission to cover an APEC summit in Singapore. “I was forced to leave Singapore after the government refused to renew my work visa without any explanation,” Bland told Reporters Without Borders.
But the censorship has above all affected local media and local artistic production. In October 2009, for example, the ministry of information, communication and arts upheld a ban on a documentary by Singaporean filmmaker Martyn See about government opponent Said Zahari.
In response to the publication of the Reporters Without Borders 2009 press freedom index, in which Singapore was ranked 133rd out of 175 countries, your law minister, K. Shanmugam, described it as “absurd” and “disconnected from reality.”
Unfortunately, the facts show that we are right.
In the six years since you became prime minister and said you favoured an “open” society, we have seen very few improvements in the situation of free speech.
We therefore think your government should take the following measures as a matter of urgency:
1. Put a stop to the libel actions which you and your relatives have been bringing against Singaporean and foreign media that cover Singaporean developments in an independent manner. As the UN special rapporteur for freedom of expression recently said, the prime minister, his minister and high officials must refrain from suing journalists over their articles and comments.
2. Amend the criminal code so as to abolish prison sentences for press offences.
3. Amend the press law, especially the articles concerning the granting of publication licences. The current restrictions are preventing the emergence of independent media. The film law should also be relaxed.
4. Reform the national security law so as to abolish administrative detention, which allows the authorities to imprison people because of what they think.
5. Reform the Media Development Authority so that it is no longer able to censor and can solely make recommendations about TV programmes and films.
6. Allow government opponents and civil society representatives unrestricted access to the public media.
7. Guarantee the editorial independence of all the media owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Media Corporation of Singapore (Mediacorp).
8. Transfer the money that your family has obtained in damages from foreign and Singaporean news media to a support fund for imprisoned journalists that Reporters Without Borders proposes to set up.
We regret that you, the members of your government and your father keep citing the need to guarantee Singapore’s stability as grounds for controlling the media and maintaining its draconian laws. Countries that show the most respect for press freedom, such as Finland and Norway, are peaceful and prosperous democracies. Freedom of expression is not a source of political unrest. Quite the contrary.
You have perpetuated your father’s legacy by continuing to harass and intimidate news media. As a result, aside from a few websites specialising in Singapore, no news outlet can publish independent news and information about issues affecting the political situation in your country.
We would be very honoured to be able to meet with you in order to talk about our observations and our proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore in person.
Respectfully,
Jean-François Julliard
Secretary-General
______________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Despite what Shanmugam says about the low ranking of Singapore in Press Freedom Index where we were ranked 133 out of 175 countries, I am of the view that we should be ranked even lower i.e. in the range of 170 -175 out of 175 countries. I am a true Singapore citizen who has lived in this country for over 60 years and I sincerely believed that press freedom here is totally non existent.
@ mice is nice
i think that “talents”, to the papayas, mean “workers without their own opinions”.
these ppl got their opinion, and write their letter and post so big somemore… so they r ppl that the papayas will sue.
RWB, what is your opinion on the Danish cartoons? Condone or condemn?
Do you view Western ideals of personal freedom as more superior than the Eastern values of communal obligations? Should the Western ideals be moderated? Or they are the model and mustn’t be adulterated by worthless Eastern values?
Its is my opinion that defamation and freedom of speech can never co-exist.
Journalists must be responsible for what they publish, and should their right for freedom of speech be irresponsible and of speculative accusations, the victims must challenge these accusation, or risk being perceived as guilty.
The family or the government has the right to demand for compensation from irresponsible journalists. Inaction will allow for more infancy foreign subversion.
i dont think theres such thing as “Eastern values of communal obligations” vs “Western ideals of personal freedom”. to me sporeans seem to be even more individualistic and selfish in some ways than western counterparts, albeit in a less outspoken way. by appearing to agree and form some consensus without debate doesnt necessarily mean that communal obligations are valued more than individual rights.
Anyway the more Lee & family try to sue their opponents and at the same time gain more media exposure through several means including getting his daughter to write a pseudo lifestyle column on national papers, the more it shows abt their insecurities in this rapidly changing world of freedom of information.
hi lolz,
i think so too! :D
but i prefer if the words came out from the mouths of the papaya. ;)
hi lolz,
there is a bigger bro watching big bro. ironic hor?
the papayas can go ahead & sue. in the long term, they will pay back with their reputation. it may well be post LKY, let’s see if he will raise from the grave. if that doesn’t happen maybe can counter sue? :D
historical baggage is something that the next (or future) generation will inherit from that old man. there are many examples in the past 100 years, WWII (Japan’s military aggression), Chernobyl, Iraq war (WMD where?), etc….
Great article by RWS… certainly some food for thoughts for LKY and gang… but I doubt anything will change just by sending a letter to them…
It is going to be interesting though… since RWS do not have a presence in Singapore, there is no way for them to be sued over here… Lets see if they have the guts to take this issue to international court.
Even communist China doesn’t sue foreign press / publication
Credibility is not to be earned from law suits, it is earned with transparent and impartial system…
mice is nice
but i have a feeling he will rise from the grave leh. hahahaha…
I am not against press freedom. However, humans live in confined societies with their own value systems that writing with total freedom may lead to undesirable consequences. A case in mind is uproar and violence over some insensitive cartoons. We may never be able to predict consequences of the written words, but sometimes it is better to err on the side of caution than total freedom.
In the same respect, if we value press freedom so much than we should also value personal freedom. Total personal freedom can only exists when there is no law. We should be be answerable to no one and we should be able to do what we like. In reality, we know this is not true. We do have limitations to personal freedom, so why should the press be exempted?
There should be a balance between press freedom and responsibility. It should not be senseless reporting and commenting. Just an example from one anonymous contributor who called himself/herself “Ho Ching’s Genital Warts”. Does that really help in the cause for press freedom?
I also find it amusing as with this case when NYT agreed to apologise and pay a fine is that why they would even bother to defend themselves in court if they believe they have the right to say anything. Is Singapore a market so important to them? Why not just write what they want and stop doing business with Singapore. This is just fruit for thought.
As the pen is mightier than the sword, it can also be deadlier. It must be wielded carefully.
Dear Mr Jean-François Julliard, Secretary-General, Reporters Without Borders,
if you are right about them, then our leaders are unlikely to listen to you.
But if you are wrong about them, then further pontifications from you would not be necessary.
You can either be right or wrong about our leaders.
Therefore, either way, your request to meet and talk about your observations and proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore is unlikely to elicit a positive response. So, write this letter at all?
Dear Mr Jean-François Julliard, Secretary-General, Reporters Without Borders,
if you are right about them, then our leaders are unlikely to listen to you.
But if you are wrong about them, then further pontifications from you would not be necessary.
You can either be right or wrong about our leaders.
Therefore, either way, your request to meet and talk about your observations and proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore is unlikely to elicit a positive response. So, why write this letter at all?
Dear smallvoice, yo r going to die anyway why live at all?
The fact that New York Times has apologised and agreed to pay compensation proved that the media is aware of its wrongful acts.
It is all about responsible reporting. News companies and journalists are welcomed to report anything about Singapore without having to fear of being sued so long as they do so responsibly and their articles are not defamatory or attempt to incite unrest. You don’t see Media Corp or SPH being sued by foreign or Singapore government. As I mentioned earlier, it is all about responsible reporting and getting the facts right.
I was just questioning the credibility of RBW after reading #8 “Transfer the money that your family has obtained in damages from foreign and Singaporean news media to a support fund for imprisoned journalists that Reporters Without Borders proposes to set up.” and to answer smallvoice585 ” request to meet and talk about” their “observations and proposals for guaranteeing press freedom in Singapore “ is it for quid pro quo? all will be well… sounding like gansters…
Our papers don’t bad mouth other countries. Our reporters just don’t have the capability to analyse anything. After all, their job is merely to report, and not give opinions…unless it’s ass kissing the govt like Chua Mui Whatever , useless musings on life like Sumiko or making the Jack Neo’s idiocy front page news.
Reporters without borders waiting for response ? Tan Ku Ku.
Our citizens don’t care about freedom of speech. They just keep putting Xs next to the PAP during elections. They are so dumb it’s cute.
Jean-François Julliard should have written to NYT instead of writing to Singapore, and questioned them why they’ve so easily caved in to the lawsuit? Why have they not stood their ground if they think they have the rights to report whatever they want to report?
It is apparent that the Reporters Without Borders feels that they are above any laws, and that reporters can go round reporting lies and defame others, yet expect to get away free from any libelous suit!
Jean-François Julliard highlights the typical hypocrisy that western media represents. They were not really interested about press freedom; they were more interested in imposing their values on others!
The Singapore gahmen also RWB mah…. Rulers without BALLS!
@ Chou and My Views
Fight the law sue? you must be kidding.
NYT did the right thing just to pay up the same sum.
Why spent money to fight and know that you will sure to lose.
Why not you guys try sueing the Burmese junta in Burma and see if you can win?
//My Views
Yeah, when the old pig dies, you will see if these people will pay.
“The fact that New York Times has apologised and agreed to pay compensation proved that the media is aware of its wrongful acts.”
>>I think it just prove that they have assets or financial interest in Singapore that outweigh the damages. RWB on the other hand have probably no assets or financial interest in Singapore, let us see what happens there.
@smallvoice585
RWB are unlikely to read your post anyway so why post it? :)
Actually, there is a misconception on defamation suits in Singapore.
In 1984, Chiam See Tong actually got damages and public apology from the PAP,
in a libel suit filed against the PAP.
Suing is part of politics in singapore and it goes both ways.
While you can say that Singapore’s politicians are pretty hyper-sensitive about reputation, demanding proof and damages for negative statements that can’t be backed up,
at the very least you can say it is applied both ways.
PAP reminds me of Norsefire Party from the fantastic movie V For Vendetta. The dictator High Chancellor cant take light legitimatecriticism much so they hunt them down like pack of wolves desperate for food. Why should RWB be afraid of two foot-lips ministers? They are not Singaporeans boss, their job is to run this country not sue foreign news organization.
I do not want to defend this highly incompetent govt which has done absolutely nothing for Singapore for 44 years. What reputation has this govt got to defend? Every one in the streets has nothing good to say about the PAP govt. If you cannot solve today’s multitude of problems after 44 years of rule, just admit that your are bloody useless. Please don’t tell us about your future plans, your over-the -horizon plan or your end of the world plan. Nobody is interested. Just acknowledge that you are bloody useless and resign. That is about the only honorable thing you can do and we may spare you the gallows.
Well its well planned goverment tat established long ago. Mr Lee is very clever enough take control over media. Media is the strength of projecting voice to public, if he has control off all media in singapore – people only hear, see & read what policticans say. It was a really gd move made by mentor Lee. when he become PM.
Imagine, if we ever have freedom of press -
Number of press firm will be increased by now
Many articles and posts against our govermen
People might have change thier views long back…
Hahaha ! DIE NASTY STORY, I can’t help laughing the question and answer between father and son. You can never tell what is happening at home in the Lee family dynasty !!
The contents of the letter alone is justifiable to BOOT OUT the oppressing and supressing famiLEE !
It has come to a state that only alternative is to vote your judgement in the coming election.
finally have we someone who’d dare openly challenge that pap… someone of authority and a stature beyond reproach, of course, vastly different from csj.
if the situation were as true as Toel on Mar 26, 2010 17:09 described, then this might turn out a highly intriguing show. the pap has two options, pursue the matter at its risk, or let it rest, which, needless to say, will adversely tarnish some “face”, notwithstanding remarks of scorn from the international community.
oh, and according to cna, “The letter, which was typewritten and consisted of a few pages, has been sent to the DSO National Laboratories for further checks”… so we wouldn’t see that letter for a long, long time. subtlely, pap, will at least buy you time.
deucement, pap.
I feel so ashamed reading such a letter that comes from a foreign agent rather than from a Singaporean. What have Singaporeans become that we have to have a foreign body to fight for press freedom in our land?
Look at the role of our MSM. These past weeks have seen it at its very best working as a propaganda arm of the government. Everyday, there are news and reports that nudge us into accepting the foreign worker when the government knows that this is an issue that has potential to bring about its downfall.
We get to hear from the numerous articles that atempt to justify the handlings of Mabok Tan on his housing policies. Today’s Shitty Times article is one example and that is just the first part of many more articles to come that would go into trying to repair the image of this drunken ministar.
We also read about how our homeless poor are at fault for the plight they have brought to themselves and the exhonoration of guilt it tries to justify on Vivian’s behalf.
A national newspaper that does not carry the views of its people is a description that cannot be found in the dictionary of any language.
It is time Singaporeans stand up for ourselves instead of waiting for foreigners to show us how to go about seeking redress for the wrongs done to us – especially by the group of people that majority of Singaporeans have entrusted their lives to.
To those who think such a letter would make no difference, I ask that they think again. It would have meant nothing if such a letter never saw the light of day. But now that it did, so many Singaporeans are now more aware of the things that we never got a chance to read or hear about previously.
We are now more appreciative of the battles that our freedom-fighters are fighting for. We are now more grateful to our Opposition parties and members for roughing it out even when there seem to be nothing to gain from it all.
The best thing that is coming out from all these is public awareness. We are now able to make more informed choices when we are called to make any decisions in the future.
To PM Lee, may I add that you now have a bigger decision to make; to either throw the letter into the waste bin or to do something about it, because unlike before – NOW WE KNOW!
You know, it would be pretty nice if an entity with seriously deep pockets would publish regular articles accusing Singapore’s judiciary of compliance, which would result in regular lawsuits directed at said entity, which would then put up a cursory defense and pay the stipulated damages.
The amount of money involved means nothing to the Lees, but repeated lawsuits of the sorts would serve only as compelling evidence for what the lawsuits are trying to disprove in the first place.
Dear gemami on Mar 27, 2010 at 11.58 am,
Like you, I felt so ashamed after reading the letter …, but I did not feel ashamed for myself or for my country. I felt ashamed for Reporters Without Borders!
Like I’ve said in my earlier post, RWB deliberately wrote such a letter in full knowledge that the Govt will not meet them. So they’ve written a pointless letter. Why? Obviously, they have less than honourable intentions. Just think. Why should they be fighting for press freedom in our LOCAL media? That’s just a very lame excuse to level unsubstantiated accusations about our judiciary being compliant. Did they provide any solid evidence of compliance?
The fact that the PAP has won so many libel suits is solid evidence that indeed those media groups had been guilty of libel. RWB is just sore that their brothers in the internatIonal media could not hold their ground in open court. Well, what can be more open and transparent than the readiness to have the credibility and political practices of our Govt examined in an open court of law?
Worse, they have issued an 8-point demand that we change our laws to suit their liking! My goodness! No foreign news group has any right to demand a change of laws in any sovereign nation. Our Straits Times do not issue 10-point demands to the governments of China or USA asking them to change their laws, do they?
@smallvoice585
“The fact that the PAP has won so many libel suits is solid evidence that indeed those media groups had been guilty of libel.”
… really? you really think that’s “solid evidence”?
smallvoice585 , you are so right indeed !
where is the solid evidence of judiciary compliance ?
where is the solid evidence Ho Ching was not appointed on merit ?
where is the solid evidence Temasek and GIC has no transparency and accountability ?
where is the solid evidence LHL became PM because of his father ?
where is the solid evidence elections dept is manipulated by PM ?
where is the solid evidence the ISA had been abused ?
where is the solid evidence those charged as Marxist conspirators were innocent?
where is the solid evidence the MSM has no journalistic integrity ?
where is the solid evidence Nathan is a puppet president ?
where is the solid evidence those in govt are a bunch of liars and selfserving buggers ?
The solid evidences you are talking about are provided simply those media groups not being able to provide solid evidence for their accusations.
They are shooting themselves in their foot!
If accusations are supported by evidences, than they will not be guilty.
Simple as that.
The question we should be asking is what do they have to gain in trying to throw baseless accusations? What monetary gains or personal agenda are they fighting for when they start throwing defamatory, baseless accusations at leaders?
smallvoice585,
Have you been living in Singapore with your eyes closed and your ears shut? Are you a PAP lackey, spurting nonsense in this website. Try writing something adverse about the PAP and see if it is printed in Shitty Times. Winston Churchill once said, “ There are no such things as public opinion, there is only published opinion”. What we get in Shitty Times are published opinions by their own reporters on how good this highly incompetent govt is.
585,
let’s be mature about this and let everyone express their opinions with no fear of being criticised.
I am not spurting nonsense but showing everyone the otherside of the coin. I am free to express myself via this comment box, and so are you. After all, isn’t this the point if this website, no?
I recognize your point on your last post, however I was talking about the right to defend oneself from false accusation, so let’s not digress from that arguement with another.
Sue whoever in the local court and be judged / declared victorious amounts only to pyrrhic victory for them : time will reveal fairly the truth to everyone : including singaporeans who are not so daft when juducial impartialities are obviously absent in some of these obvious cases.
It seems all chickens for them when international court jurisdictions apply.
Mr Jean Francois Julliard
It is funny you western hypocrites still want to tell us what we should do.You chaps have a huge pile of bones in your closet eg Haiti,Polynesian islands where you guys tested your nuclear bomb (against the will of the inhabitants and where were you?). Senegal, Ghana and the list goes on.In short we don’t rape and pillage from third world nations .If we do have issues with our press we will iron it out.We really don’t need you to tell us what to do. I think you have your hands full with the North African issues back home old chap. Cheerio froggy!
That went against so many human rights issues.
@smallvoice585
“The fact that the PAP has won so many libel suits is solid evidence that indeed those media groups had been guilty of libel.”
NKF successfully sued 2 individuals for libel but failed on their attempt to sue a 3rd.
Does that imply that the first 2 individuals were guilty of libel? In the eyes of the law, yes.
Why then did they failed on the 3rd attempt? Because the 3rd guy has a bigger “brother” behind him (SPH). That’s when everything we were led to believe about NKF sudden become lots of lies, which was what the first 2 individuals were trying to tell us.
So far, none of the people that PAP sued have a “brother” bigger than the PAP govt….
Dear Soda on Mar 27, 2010 at 6.19 pm
Are you mistaking me for “Useless Govt”? He is calling me names, not you. He is attacking me, not you. So, don’t worry.
I’m a benign fellow. I don’t criticise anyone.
Dear Hellstorm on Mar 27, 2010 at 6.42 pm,
As far as I could remember in those NKF cases, the first 2 individuals settled when sued. When you settle a case, it is not an admission of guilt. But, it is an acknowledgement that you do not wish to fight the case in court. Unfortunately, this is usually due to a lack of personal resources.
The 3rd party to be sued, SPH, is different. They have plenty of resources. In the event, they went
ahead, fought the case brilliantly and won.
r Mar 27, 2010 0:27,
So, does RWB condemn or condone about the cartoons? That speaks a lot about their values. Why should we listen to them when their values are questionable?
sue these people! how dare they talk bad about singapore! we all know singapore is a highly democractic society with an extremely free press!
Good Evening,
Sometimes it may be wiser to take one or two steps backwards to make progress. Let me put it another way; let us say you happen to be a gambler and the roulette wheel keeps favoring the house at every turn. The house wins all the time. And you lose all time and again.
Under those conditions. Do not be surprised if some of those losers ask, “why does the house win all the time? Is the wheel rigged?”
http://dotseng.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/jack-neo-le-foyce-and-george-yeo-the-three-stooges/
Yes, it is possible to do the impossible, win all the battles and still lose the war – but what did you expect, while battles are fought with battlefields – waging war on the otherhand is not so straight forward, first it requires perfect pitch, good acumen and the wisdom to pick and choose your battles like chess pieces as it’s waged in the hearts and minds.
It’s game over.
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood – sponsored by the Interspacing Mercantile Guild)
yes, we should welcome anyone to disagree with our opinions because the burden of proof would be on them to convince us they are right and this is great for enlightenment.
its only human that people DISAGREE.
when all humans can only agree on all things, its called yes-man disease where humans behave like robots and cannot distinguish one from another. Disagreements can lead to new knowledge if managed positively.
That’s what happen to the americans in the vietnam war won the battles and lose the war
#smallvoice585
You should follow some of the cases, our dear leaders have sued and won.
Then perhaps you would know about our judiciary where and how they stand and/or stood.
There won’t be smoke without a fire….things are just getting hotter on all fronts.
Injustice and suffering, It is the same, how we feel when Haiti is in trouble or if Burma is killing people unjustly. People will feel and want to be heard.
This notion has made the world united and for a greater good,I feel. A change in a country like Singapore will certainly influence our region and improve all life. To deny such a notion will only make things worst for all, and of course us.
Singapore needs to mature and most people are. I believe most of us know this and we are heading in the right direction, with or without PAP.