Law Society of Singapore
Francis Seow, then President of Law Society
The PAP government
Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore
The Law Society of Singapore, then led by Seow, criticised the 1986 amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), which sought to restrict circulation of foreign publications deemed to be "meddling in Singapore's domestic politics" (p. 244).
[1] The government accused the Society of "seeking to act as a pressure group on an issue that fell outside its purview."
[2] The government also claimed that the Society was "being manipulated to confront the government."
[3]
Some felt that the government should not narrowly confine professional bodies to their objectives as stated in constitutions and laws under which they had been established, especially when issues commented upon have "public or professional interest."
[4]
Lee, upset with the quality of the Law Society's leadership,
[5] subpoenaed its entire council and interrogated them.
[6] Lee told the Council: "It is my job as prime minister in charge of the government to put a stop to politicking in professional bodies. If you want to politick, come out… You want to politick, you form your own party or join Mr Jeyaretnam… You think you can be smarter than the government and outsmart it, well, if you win, you form the government. If I win, we have got a new Law Society. It is as simple as that."
[7] Amendments were made to the Legal Profession Act which controlled the election of candidates to the Council,
[8] which according to Bell comprised almost exclusively "government appointees."
[9].
A provision was also made in the Act to restrict comments by the Society to legislation submitted to it by the government.
[10]
Lee, L.T. (1987). Singapore in 1986: Consolidation and Reorientation in a Recession. Asian Survey, 27(2), 242-253. Retrieved May 25, 2007 from LexisNexis Academic database.
-
Amendment of Legal Profession Act to
Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, then-opposition Workers' Party leader
Lee Kuan Yew, then-prime minister
setting the circumstances and whispering the right ideas to the right people that were gathered together into that article which, unless challenged head-on, item by item, would lead to more such foreign journals assuming that we are another Marcos-like regime—that we fix our judges, that we can switch decisions at will, when an accused person, a convicted person, becomes a hot political potato.
[13]
Lee charged that Jeyaretnam had made the allegation of executive interference in parliament to procure it greater coverage and "dignify" it with parliamentary privilege.
[14]
A parliamentary committee of privileges was set up to investigate Jeyaretnam's allegations of executive interference in the subordinate judiciary.
[15] The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act was also amended before the committee of privileges was set to examine Jeyaretnam's allegations, giving the parliament greater powers to punish MPs who are deemed to have abused parliamentary privilege.
[16] The leader of the house, foreign minister S. Dhanabalan, said the bill was needed to ensure that parliamentary and committee proceedings maintained "principles of truth, dignity and decorum", and to prevent the committee's investigations from turning into "a forum for another debate, an opportunity for more smears or a platform for histrionics."
[17]
Holloway, N. (1986, July 31). SINGAPORE: Justice is blind: A commission finds no executive interference in judiciary. Far Eastern Economic Review, 133(31), 13.
Holloway, N. (1986, September 4). SINGAPORE: Parliament rushes through new amendments: Power and privilege. Far Eastern Economic Review, 133(36), 12.
Holloway, N. (1987, April 2). SINGAPORE: The trials of JBJ: A parliamentary body suggests fines for former MP Jeyaretnam. Far Eastern Economic Review, 136(14), 12.
Seow, F. (1998). The Media Enthralled: Singapore revisited / with a foreward by Henry J. Steiner. Colorado, USA: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
A parliamentary fined of S$1,000 was imposed, with a further fine for publishing "distorted" reports of the proceedings in his party's newsletter.
The Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act was amended to give the parliament greater powers to punish errant MPs.
The government claimed that Odchimar's story – claiming that rescuers demanded money from trapped survivors before clearing away the rubble in the New World Hotel disaster – was "untrue and irresponsible."
[20][21] The government said Odchimar's story "had blemished Singapore's image overseas."
[22] Describing Odchimar's source as "incoherent and in a delirium", she was accused of "irresponsible reporting" for not checking the story with government officials.
[23]
Crossette, B. (1986, April 6). Press Freedoms Under Pressure in Southeast Asia. The New York Times. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from Factiva database.
Textline Multiple Source Collection. (1986, March 30). Marilyn Odchimar, the Reuters correspondant expelled by the Singapore government, still claims that rescuers in the Hotel New World disaster demanded money from survivors. Textline Multiple Source Collection (1980-1994). Retrieved May 30, 2007 from Factiva database.
Textline Multiple Source Collection. (1986, March 26). A Reuters correspondent, Marilyn Odchimar, has had her employment pass cancelled and has been told to leave Singapore immediately. Textline Multiple Source Collection (1980-1994). Retrieved May 30, 2007 from Factiva database.
The Times. (1986, March 27). Ms Marilyn Odchimar, the Reuters correspondent in Singapore, has been ordered to leave the country and has had her employment pass revoked. The Times, p. 12. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from Factiva database.
The government said the premature publication of the supposed arrest of
Peter Tham, a fraud suspect connected to the collapse of a local listed company,
Pan-Electric Industries Ltd, by the
Straits Times in April when Tham had not been apprehended, had resulted in a delay in Tham's arrest.
[26]
The reporter, Wee, was dismissed, and the editors "came under an official cloud" for allowing the report to appear.
Holloway, N. (1987). SINGAPORE: A fall from grace: An editor is moved aside after earning the government's wrath. Far Eastern Economic Review, 135(4), 30.
The Catholic News
Ministry of Home Affairs
Tan reminded the archbishop of the
earlier warnings against the
Catholic News's involvement in political issues (p. 135).
[27] The government took offence at an editorial endorsing the
Law Society's position against the amendment of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act.
[28]
The archbishop expressed fears that he might be "muzzling" the publication if he limited its ambit to comment on widely-discussed issues.
[29] He also felt that certain issues should be reported for the information of parishioners.
[30]
Tan rebuked that views on public issues should only be made in personal capacities lest it gave the impression that they had the "tacit support" or "official approval" of the Church.
[31] The archbishop was "sternly reminded" that it was the responsibility of newspapers — not the
Catholic News — to keep parishioners informed.
[32]
The archbishop was instructed to send each issue of the
Catholic News for screening at the Ministry of Information and the Arts for "political correctness".
[33]-
The archdiocese's application for a permit to publish a Chinese-language edition of parish news along with its proposal to turn the
Catholic News into a weekly were put on hold, pending a change in the
Catholic News's editorial stance.
[35]
Time published an article, "Silencing the Dissenters", sympathetic to opposition party Workers' Party leader J.B. Jeyaretnam.
[36]
The magazine refused to publish an unedited reply by the press secretary to the prime minister.
[37]
Time cites its editorial rights and space constraints as reasons for its refusal to publish Fu's letter.
[38]
The magazine was deemed to have "engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore" by refusing the press secretary the "right of reply" (p. 148).
[39] Time was gazetted on October 15, 1986; its circulation reduced from 18,000 copies a week to 9,000 from October 19, and to 2,000 from January 1.
[40]
The chairman of
Time Inc. Magazine Group protested the restriction, claiming that it was "standard practice to edit all letters published for reasons of space".
[41] Notwithstanding, it "capitulated" to the government's request and printed the reply in full "in the spirit of full discussion of issues" two weeks later.
[42]
The
NPPA was invoked for the first time since its 1986 amendment to restrict the circulation of a foreign press.
The
Business Times incurred the wrath of the government when it criticised the government's move to
restrict Time magazine's circulation in an editorial.
[43]
The information ministry rebuked the
Business Times for giving "succour to foreign publications at Singapore's expense."
[44]
Chaim Herzog, president, Israel
Lee Kuan Yew, prime minister, Singapore
Berita Harian
The
Berita Harian was accused of giving "generous space" to Malay displeasure over the state visit of Herzog.
[45]
In December, Lee singled out three stories in the
Berita Harian that quoted Malay criticisms of the state visit.
[46]
This, along with
other events which upset the PAP government eventually led to the transfer of the
Straits Times group's editor-in-chief, Peter Lim, to head a new afternoon tabloid, the
New Paper.
[47]
Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ)
Stephen Duthie, author of offending article; resident Singapore correspondent
Fred Zimmerman, editor-publisher
Koh Beng Seng, director, Money Authority of Singapore (MAS)
Koh accused Duthie of "bias" and "prejudice" in an
AWSJ article by Duthie published from December 12-13, entitled "Singapore Exchange Puzzles Financiers", wherein critics were quoted as saying that the proposed second securities market would be used by the government to "unload state-controlled and government-backed company" (p. 149).
[49]
The MAS director wrote to Zimmerman, complaining of the "errors and omissions" in Duthie's article.
[50]
Zimmerman declined to publish Koh's reply, claiming that Duthie's article was "fair and accurate," and described the personal attacks on the Duthie as "unwarranted".
[51] The editor added that he would be willing to publish the letter "if you care to write it, stating your point of view on the subjects dealt with in the article".
[52]
Koh thus wrote again on January 17, repeating his allegations of "personal irresponsibility against Duthie", to which Zimmerman refused to publish again, claiming "personal attacks or allegations of errors that we're confident don't exist."
[53] AWSJ thus became the second foreign media, after the
Time magazine, to be gazetted under the 1986 amendment of the NPPA.
Its circulation was restricted to 400 copies a day from 5,100 copies a day, of which a list of 143 libraries dictated by the information ministry would have priority in receiving them, "thus continuing public access to the newspaper."
[54] The
AWSJ protested, claiming that only a few libraries on the list were "routinely open to the public – many are in government or quasi-government offices, or in those of private companies."
[55] The government's move drew criticisms from both journalistic and private organisations, such as the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the American Business Council in Singapore, International Federation of Newspaper Publishers, The Voice of America, and even the U.S. State Department; their criticisms were however met with government responses from justifications to sharp rebukes.
[56] Zimmerman later offered, on February 20, 1987, to supply the
AWSJ newspaper "free of charge to all paying subscribers and hotel purchasers that were on our rolls as of February 13, immediately prior to the ban".
[57] The information minister felt that the
Journal was "less than honest" to "pretend that advertising rates have nothing to do with circulation figures," and thus agreed conditionally to Zimmerman's offer, provided "all advertisements spaces are left blank." The
AWSJ rejected the offer.
[58]
