Shanmugam: Press can criticize (but will they dare to?)
October 28th, 2009 | 
Author: From our Correspondent
In an opening address at the New York State Bar Association International Section held in Singapore Swissotel from 26 to 29 October 2009, Singapore Law Minister K Shanmugam said that the Singapore government does not seek to ban press criticism of the Government or policies, but demands the right of reply.
Outlining the Government’s stand, he said: ‘Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article.
‘We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response. That irks the press no end,’ he added.
If the press crossed the line and alleged, for example, that someone was corrupt, or made some other personal attack, then it would face a libel suit. The allegation must then be proven.
Does Mr Shanmugam really believe that the press – both local and international will dare to criticize the Singapore government given its proven low tolerance for criticism and dismal track record of suing the media for defamation?
The Singapore media will never dare to criticize the government because it is already muzzled by virtue of the fact that the sole media company running all the print publications in Singapore – SPH, is under the control of the ruling party.
Self-censorship is pervasive throughout the Singapore media. Articles on politics are almost always slanted in favor of the ruling party which can do no wrong while the opposition is often ridiculed, discredited and demonized.
Negative news on the Singapore government are quietly censored while positive ones are highlighted and given extensive publicity.
For example, despite her questionable performance as Temasek Holdings’ CEO, the state media still tries to put a positive spin on Ho Ching.
Wall Street Journal was the first to break the news of GIC’s substantial losses in its investments last year. The Straits Times did not even carry a report on it (though Chinese paper Lianhe Zaobao did so).
A plethora of foreign publications were sued successfully by the Singapore government over the years – Far Eastern Economic Review, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg, Asia Times, International Herald Tribune etc.
All these are reputable international publications which are circulated freely even in places like China. Few of them are ever sued by other governments. What does that say about Singapore?
The end result is that foreign journalist are shunning reporting on Singapore altogether. While China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia and even Vietnam are regularly featured in the front pages of the Economist, Newsweek and Times, Singapore hardly warrants a brief mention.
Instead of ranting at the foreign media for portraying Singapore as a “repressive” state which had made him appeared defensive, vindictive and petty, Mr Shanmugam should take a leaf out of Chinese President Hu Jintao (who incidentally earns much less than him).
In an opening speech to a meeting of global media leaders on 9 October in Beijing, President Hu pledged that China would protect the rights of international news organisations reporting in China though their coverage is largely critical of China’s human rights record.
“We will continue to make government affairs public, enhance information distribution, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of foreign news organisations and reporters, and facilitate foreign media coverage of China in accordance with China’s laws and regulations,” he said.
This is real tact, diplomacy and statemanship. Resorting to bullying tactics to coerce the foreign media to toe the Singapore government’s official line will only sully its tarnished image further.
Perhaps the next time the Young PAP go on another “study trip” to visit China’s Communist Party, Mr Shanmugam can consider tagging along as well. It will prevent him from making Singapore a laughing stock again in future conferences like this.
Related articles:
>> Hu Jintao pledged to protect foreign media
>> Shanmugan peeved at Singapore media’s world press freedom index
>> Chief Justice on independence of Singapore judiciary
>> Temasek Review writes to Reporters without Borders
Posted in Editorial
For any issue in this world and some say the milky way, there are 2 sides of a story. If the other side is not mentioned, i find it less than a full bodied report.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“‘Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article.” K Shanmugam
Sir, please note that this is a gathering of lawyer members of New York State Bar Association International Section, not the gathering of staff of SPH at their dinner & dance party.
They must have laughed their heads off in the privacy of their rooms recalling your speech about press freedom in Singapore.
Tell it to the Marines.
This group of people might believe you as they are so used to saying “Yes Sir”.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
//kang kuan tew
Yes there are 2 sides of a story; unfortunately Singaporeans (at least 66%) of them have been lulled into the state of nirvana by the relentless propaganda of the ’state media’ and the PAP political machinery to the extent whereby the other side other than the PAP ’side’ is never ‘reported’. It is known as the ‘frog in the well’ syndrome.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Let’s not even start to talk about allegations of incompetency and corruption.. remember that poor lady who reported (matter of fact) how PM said his wife received poor treatment in UK and had a plane retrofitted to fly her back?
What happened to her?
She was called to PM press office and fired. The paper was subsequently told to shut down or merge with ST.
What happen to Mr Brown when he wrote (matter of fact) that Singaporeans are fed up with increasing cost of living?
What happened to him?
Column shut down, livelihood affected and now dare not directly criticize those in power.
Press freedom my arse.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
%@%@%@!%&$!
Right of response??? So what about those written in the Straits Times? Can the readers refute that?
Oh I forgot, due to the volume of letters received, only those politically-correct letters can be published.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
all this BS from Shanmugam is hurting my ears
make long story short … time for change, vote opposition
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Recall that Mr Brown was sacked by TODAY after he criticise MIW.
It is an unwritten rule that SPH journalists are to support MIW….the editors will not allow negative stuff on MIW. Which editor would dare try to offend MIW?? ….unless he/she wants to be bankrupt!!
Chairman of SPH is MIW man.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
We are Singaporeans, we should believe whatever our govt officials say. Cos we love to continue SUCKING OUR THUMBS AND KEEP OUR LEGS SPREAD WIDER OPEN!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
MSM is a joke. Its like entering a jungle filled with booby traps. Once you are spotted to be a dangerous figure, they will trace you, if you are not a leopard they will draw some spot on your back. In the name of protecting your father and mother, they will place a noose around your neck. Hang you high and hang you dry until you cry.
Our sense of fear is real, it protects us from danger. Even animal can sense fear how about us, we are man. We are not stupid to walk into those booby traps.
Nah I don’t believe you that I can criticize you freely. Its more comfortable to be doing it here even though this is yet to be first world in material but in the spirit it is as good as one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Remember what Lui Tuck Yew boasted so proudly about? He was so smug that the government ‘only’ had to intervene once, during the AWARE incident. Once is quite enough. Once shows that the government will refuse to give up the ‘right’ to censor and spin the news as and when it wishes. Once reminds the journalists that the government holds the power to destroy their careers and livelihoods if they dare so much as dissent. Once scares said journalists into performing self-censorship so incredible that obviously the government would not have to intervene again. Certainly more would be even more damning, but once is already one too many. The government should never think itself above the principles of human rights and justified in manipulating the truth, no matter how unpalatable it may be to their self-interests. Lui Tuck Yew knows nothing about how incredibly devastating such restrictive censorship is on the state of the media. As for Shanmugam, he’s done nothing to help the lawyers, let alone the greater society.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Hey,give the man a TIGER! …I mean a chance!
It is always honourable to put words into action.
So,let’s wait and see.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I doubt that the MSM will criticize the policies of the MIW. In fact just reporting on them could get a journalist sacked.
http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2004/yax-357.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Honestly,I was told and learn from wisemen that CHANGE MUST COME FROM THE HEART,not the mouth.
Yet,to be quantified and qualified.
As i am ‘boh tah’,i wait and see how this time round the
OPPOSITION fair.
NO o more police van,no handcuffs,or some poor child crying:”papa!papa!” as was viewed by many in a recent video clip.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
MSM can do it!Why not?
Just put some members from the opposition as full-time staff!
Quite a few among them are outspoken and well-spoken too!
Seriously!At least they won’t beat around the bush!
TR writers and editors also can apply?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Singaporean journalist are even rapped for accurate reporting of the news. It is no wonder that foreigners now account for 70% of the journalists working for the Shitty Times.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/417995/1/.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ken Kwek, a journalist also left the Shitty Times after his robust questioning of MM Lee in a dialogue telecast on CNA.
http://singabloodypore.wordpress.com/2006/04/16/great-moments-in-television-history/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
btw does anyone know whether they give others the right to reply?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Police guard staff after Tiger passengers left stranded.
Wonder if this was reported in the Shitty Times. Like the advert said “hear only the good things.”
http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/police-guard-staff-after-tiger-passengers-left-stranded-20091026-hg17.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@fair and square on Wed,28th Oct 2009 9.11 pm
@webmaster/TR editor
I am fair and square who last blog at 7.51 pm
COULD YOU KINDLY CHECK AND CONFIRM IF THERE IS AN ERROR?
thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Woah… seems like the Tiger incident has really went unreported in our local MSM… I did a quick search on google using filters and keywords and not a single results from our MSM surface…
Really… give that man a TIGER!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It ia as simple as this…whoever eats the sweet apple as in the garden of Eden, will be transformed into a staunch supporter of the “Eden inhabitants” and will always protect it so as to ensure that the APPLE is always sweet!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Criticize within PAP government defined boundary. It just like telling the prisoner that they can move freely within the cell !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
forgot to add….and will continue to be “blessed” and “blinded” in the garden of eden as they continue to be retain/conditioned/brain-washed as servants, robuttos and slaves as well as meat things to be squeeze/mike further for their so called “lords”, “masters” or whatever shit these sickos want to call themselves these days…lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It was Tom Cruise who said in the movie “A Few Good Men”
“You can’t prove coercion”
Thus, our press is, by definition, free.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The New York State Bar Association International Section should have asked him these questions
1)Do you have freedom of speech in your country?
I am sure he will say ABSOLUTELY. The press is free to criticise but we are demand a right of reply. Sounds pretty reasonable.
2) Do you have freedom of speech for opposition parties and MOST DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF YOUR PROFESSION WHICH YOU ARE DEFINITELY THE MOST DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVER AMONG ACHIEVING MEMBERS OF YOUR PROFESSION to comments on matters of national politics?
We are looking for an UNEQUIVOCAL answer and we guarantee your UNEQUIVOCAL RIGHT OF REPLY.
What do you think his answer will be???
Will it be –
we got freedom of speech for the incumbent Government and FREEDOM OF NO SPEECH FOR OPPOSITION except in Hong Lim Park under police surveillance camera and ALSO FREEDOM OF NO SPEECH FOR ALL IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION unless so invited by and at the sole pleasure and boundaries defined by the incumbent Government???
Or
We exert our unequivocal right of UNEQUIVOCAL stated reply of simply “No Answer!”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0