====== 1994 ======

===== May 31: Immigration authorities vs Asiaweek correspondent Alejandro Reyes =====

==== Protagonists ====

  * Alejandro Reyes, //Asiaweek// correspondent

==== Actions Taken ====

  * Reyes, a Canadian who had worked in Singapore for Asiaweek for two years, had his application for renewal of his employment pass rejected on May 31st.((The Straits Times. (1994, June 1), Asiaweek correspondent's employment pass not renewed. //The Straits Times//, p. 17.))
  * A spokesman for the Ministry of Information and the Arts (Mita) said: "Renewals are not automatic and the Immigration Department does not give reasons for not renewing passes." He also noted Reyes's employment pass had been renewed once before.((Ibid.))
  * The //Straits Times// also noted in the report that:

> Mita's policy regarding journalists from regional publications is to allow renewal for only a limited period of time. This is to discourage them from becoming involved in the domestic politics of Singapore.((Ibid.))
  * The Kyodo News Service noted that Reyes had:

> reported on several politiclly sensitive issues such as Singapore's decision to cane U.S. teenager Michael Fay... [and] wrote a piece on his exclusive interview in the United States with Singapore political exile Francis Seow...((as cited in Seow, 1998, p. 184))

==== Source ====

  * The Straits Times. (1994, June 1), Asiaweek correspondent's employment pass not renewed. //The Straits Times//, p. 17.
  * Seow, F. (1998). //The Media Enthralled: Singapore revisited / with a foreward by Henry J. Steiner//. Colorado, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

==== Category of Repression ====

  * Nonrenewal of employment pass for foreign journalist.

===== August: Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong v International Herald Tribune (IHT) =====

==== Protagonists ====

  * Lee Kuan Yew, then senior minister
  * Lee Hsien Loong, then deputy prime minister
  * Goh Chok Tong, then prime minister
  * Philip Bowing, columnist, //International Herald Tribune//; former FEER editor
  
==== Accusations ====

  * Bowring's article, [[http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/08/02/edbow.php|'The claims about Asian values don't usually bear scrutiny']], published on August 2, was charged by Lee senior and junior for suggesting alleged nepotism in Lee Hsien Loong's rise to political power in the following words:
    * "dynastic politics is evident in Communist China already, as in Singapore, despite official commitments to bureaucratic meritocracy."
    * "battle between the corporatist needs of the state and the interests of the families who operate it."
    
==== Actions Taken ====

  * Lawyers for Lee senior and junior complained to //IHT// about Bowring's article.

==== Defence ====

  * The //IHT// did not challenge the accusation and published an apology, accepting the Lees' interpretation that "the implication of nepotism... [was] unfounded"

==== Outcome ====

  * The published apology did not placate Lee senior, junior nor Goh Chok Tong. The trio successfully sued the //IHT// for S$950,000 in total damages.
  * The ruling was uncontested by the //IHT//.
  * Rodan noted that the //IHT// "placed a premium on not aggravating Singapore's leaders ... [f]rom the outset".
  * Seow and Rodan noted that unlike other foreign newspapers, the //IHT// was neither gazetted nor restricted in circulation, although it did suffer from hefty financial penalties from defamation suits and contempt of court charges brought by senior government officials.

==== Source ====

  * Rodan, G. (2004). //Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia: Singapore and Malaysia.// London: Routledge.
  * Seow, F. (1998). //Newspapers: A Ban is not A Ban unless Restricted//. Retrieved December 26, 2007, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN002549.pdf

==== Category of Repression ====

  * Libel suit by senior government officials with hefty financial penalties.
=====  Nov 20, 1994 - Janary 1995: Goh Chok Tong vs Catherine Lim  =====

====  Protagonists  ====

  * Goh Chok Tong, prime minister
  * Chan Heng Wing, press secretary to prime minister
  * Catherine Lim, author

====  Accusations  ====

  * In Lim's article((Lim, C. (1994, November 20). One government, two styles. //The Straits Times//, p. 12. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database)), she wrote about the PAP government suffering from an internal conflict between Goh's promise of a consultative style and his predecessor's authoritative approach, citing moves to deny single mothers the right to own HDB flats as well as the ministerial pay rise as examples.
  * On the issue of ministerial pay rise, Lim made comparisons between salaries of local politicians and those of the United States.
  * She also wrote that "[f]or the Government to convince Singaporeans that the decision is for their good in the long run when it makes its own ministers millionaires in the short run, will be painfully awkward."((Ibid.))
  * She concluded that Goh's promise of "gentler, wiser society" has been "overshadow[ed]" by the "continuing influence of the Senior Minister [Lee Kuan Yew]."((Ibid.))

====  Defence  ====

  * In a review by Warren Fernandez, he wrote of a dichotomy of opinions toward Lim's article.
  * Some argued that Lim "simply put into print [the] private thoughts" of people and that Goh's firm stance towards Lim's criticisms may inadvertently proved her argument of a Government increasingly intolerant of criticisms.((Fernandez, W. (1994, December 17). Politics for politicians only? //The Straits Times//, p. 30. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.))

====  Actions Taken  ====

  * Chan responded in a letter((The Straits Times (1994, December 4). PM Goh remains committed to consultation and consensus politics. //The Straits Times//, p. 4)) published in Straits Times, claiming that Lim "shows poor understanding of what leaders in government have to do."
  * To Lim's charges that Goh's promise of a consultative style has given way to Lee Kuan Yew's top-down approach, Chan argued that the "Prime Minister must lead the populace, and not follow popular opinion just to appear consultative."
  * To Lim's claims that Goh has deferred to Lee too much, Chan wrote that the final decision on every major issue lies with "[Goh], not with the Senior Minister or any other minister."
  * Finally, to issues raised by Lim on the ministerial pay rise, Chan urged Lim to "use her communication skills to articulate her philosophy of government... and [to] take responsibility for her views."
  * Chan also wrote that Lim could support the opposition parties -- which "regularly made ministers' pay an election issue -- in the next elections.
  * Goh also responded to Lim personally on December 5, stating that he "could not allow political commentators to undermine his authority as Prime Minister."((Chua, M.H. (1994, December 5). PM: No erosion of my authority allowed. //The Straits Times//, p. 1. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.))
  * Goh took offence when Lim implied that "he had allowed himself to be overwhelmed by his predecessor."((Ibid.))
  * When asked why he believed that a person who criticises policies should enter politics, Goh said "if you are outside the political arena and influence opinion, and if people believe that your policies are right, when we know they are wrong, you are not there to account for the policy."
  * Chan also wrote in a local magazine, //Singapore Business//, that "it was not just ministers who needed 'a little humility', as suggested by [Lim]" but also of journalists who "pontificate on what ministers should and should not do" for a living.((Fernandez, op. cit., p. 30.))

====  Outcome  ====

  * Lim's commentary was "promptly discontinued" by the //Straits Times//, which had until then been appearing periodically (p. 28).((Seow, F. (1998). //The Media Enthralled: Singapore revisited / with a foreward by Henry J. Steiner//. Colorado, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.))
    * The columnist publicly lamented that she had been "unable to persuade [Singapore] newspapers to continue publishing [her] political commentaries after [the] controversy caused by the two of them."((Far Eastern Economic Review, 1996, February 15, as cited ibid.))
  * Lim wrote a two-line handwritten note to Goh on December 5, one day after the press secretary's rebuttal, apologising for any distress that she may have caused.((The Straits Times. (1994, December 17). PM tells Dr Lim why he responded to commentary. //The Straits Times//, p. 3. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database))
  * The brouhaha raised the issue of "out-of-bounds markers" (OB markers) defining the limits of Goh's notion of openness and consulation.
    * Goh wrote in a reply to Lim's letter that "respect for and standing of the Prime Minister and his government" should not be undermined.((Ibid.))
  * The issue came to a close only during a Parliament session in January 1995 when Goh reassured that the Government "did not have a monopoly of ideas and was prepared to listen to suggestions."((Fernandez, W. (1995, January 24). PM's assurance should calm nervous commentators. //The Straits Times//, p. 23. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.))
  * Goh also added that one need not join a political party to air one's views, but that the government reserves the right to respond -- "robustly" if needed.

====  Source  ====

  * Chua, M.H. (1994, December 5). PM: No erosion of my authority allowed. The Straits Times, p. 1. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.
  * Fernandez, W. (1994, December 17). Politics for politicians only? The Straits Times, p. 30. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.
  * Fernandez, W. (1995, January 24). PM's assurance should calm nervous commentators. The Straits Times, p. 23. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.
  * Lim, C. (1994, November 20). One government, two styles. The Straits Times, p. 12. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.
  * Seow, F. (1998). //The Media Enthralled: Singapore revisited / with a foreward by Henry J. Steiner//. Colorado, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  * The Straits Times (1994, December 4). PM Goh remains committed to consultation and consensus politics. The Straits Times, p. 4
  * The Straits Times. (1994, December 17). PM tells Dr Lim why he responded to commentary. The Straits Times, p. 3. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database

====  Category of Repression  ====

  * The author was publicly castigated by the press secretary and the prime minister.
  * The //Straits Times// was observed to have practised self-censorship by discontinuing Lim's commentary --- which had until then been published periodically.
  * Fear of making political commentary was instilled amongst the "English-educated intelligensia" in view of the harsh rebuke from the government to Lim's criticisms.
  

===== December: Government vs NUS academic Bilveer Singh =====

==== Protagonists ====

  * Bilveer Singh, political science lecturer, //National University of Singapore//

==== Accusations ====

  * Singh wrote in an article titled "Singapore Faces Challenges of Success", published in the //Jakarta Post// on December 6, 1994, saying among other things:

> Many, including the Government, were profiteering as a result of the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax in April.
> What is now emerging in Singapore is a society that is faced with growing impoverishment even though a fortunate minority is still reaping profits and the queue for a Mercedes 320 is still very long.
> What the statistics hide through the law of averages and generalisation, is that the majority of Singaporeans are basically living hand-to-mouth and it is these Singaporeans, who constitute the majority, that have become increasingly alienated with the Government.

==== Actions Taken ====

  * The government rebuked Singh in a letter to the //Post// through the Charge d'Affaires at the Singapore Embassy in Indonesia, Simon De Cruz.
  * De Cruz challenged Singh to either substantiate his allegations or withdraw them, particularly on the claims that the government is profiteering from the introduction of GST, that Singapore is a society that is faced with growing impoverishment and that "a majority of Singaporeans are basically living hand-to-mouth".
  * De Cruz also said that as an academic, Dr Singh could not "merely assert the conclusion to be proven and ignore facts to the contrary".

==== Outcome ====

  * Singh wrote back in a letter to the //Post//, saying it was not his intention to cast doubts on the achievements of the Singapore Government:

>As a Singaporean, I will be the first to admit that Singapore has made great strides since 1959. The all-round progress achieved is the envy of many countries which view Singapore as a model of development.
>I withdraw the allegations that "Singapore is a society that is faced with growing impoverishment" and that "a majority of Singaporeans are basically living hand-to-mouth". I admit that it was a gross error on my part and apologise for the negative impression created.

==== Source ====

  * S'poreans living hand-to-mouth? Govt asks academic to substantiate claims. (1994, December 22). //The Straits Times//, p. 3.

==== Category of Repression ====

  * Public castigation by government
  * Challenge to withdraw statements made or to substantiate them