Yawning Bread. August 2006

Singapore government takes hostages from foreign press

    

  

 
The news that Singapore government is tightening the screws on foreign publications went around the world immediately by means of various news agency reports. 

But except for a stick-to-the-government's-statement news story in our local media, I have not seen any commentary. 

 
Perhaps this was because there was only one possible way of interpreting the statement (see box on the right) released by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA), and since that interpretation can't be flattering to our government, the local editors must have felt it better not to say anything at all.

MICA's announcement said that 5 publications -- the Far Eastern Economic Review, Time magazine, the International Herald Tribune, Newsweek magazine and the Financial Times -- must now appoint a legal representative and put up S$200,000 as hostage money. Obviously, this is to guarantee their "good behaviour" towards the Singapore government.

Isn't taking hostages something that thugs do?

Well, with that kind of obvious conclusion, what are our journalists to write about? Come to think of it, what is there left for Yawning Bread to say? How many other ways are there to interpret an act of kidnapping?

As for the significance of having to appoint a legal representative, no one has explained it better than Mr Wang Says So. He noted that having a process agent here means that the government can sue the publications in Singapore courts, a more favourable situation than having to sue them in their home countries.

 
Sections 23 and 24 of the NPPA

But let me do an act of public service and explain Sections 23 and 24 of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) -- something that our timid local media haven't even gotten around to doing.

Section 23 says that "no person shall sell or distribute, or import for or possess for sale or distribution" any "offshore newspaper" unless the Minister has granted a permit.

The minister may impose whatever conditions he likes, without assigning any reason, before granting the permit. Among the conditions, may be:

(a) a maximum limit to the number of copies that can be sold or distributed locally;

(b) a need to appoint someone "within Singapore" to receive legal notices;

(c) a requirement to "furnish to the Registrar a deposit or some other form of security of such amount as the Minister may determine for the purpose of meeting any liability or costs arising out of any legal proceedings in connection with the publication of the newspaper".... in other words, hostage money.

How is "offshore newspaper" defined? Section 23(7) clarifies that it is any newspaper "published outside Singapore at intervals not exceeding one week" and containing news or commentary "pertaining to the politics and current affairs of any country in South-East Asia". It is considered offshore "if, and only if, its contents and editorial policy are determined outside Singapore."

Section 24 creates another classification called "declared foreign newspapers". The wording in the law is messy, because unlike Section 23, which uses the term "offshore newspaper", here it uses the term "foreign newspaper".

Whether "offshore" is the same as "foreign" is left unclear. However, "declared foreign newspaper" is defined in the law as "any newspaper published outside Singapore which has been declared by the Minister under section 24 (1) to be engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore".... which omits the qualification that it has to be at least a weekly, based on the Section 23 definition of "offshore newspaper".

What does Section 24 empower the minister to do? It empowers him to impose whatever conditions he likes, without assigning any reason, before granting the permit. 

Isn't that the same as Section 23, you might ask?

Yes it is, except that an offshore newspaper (Section 23) breaching the terms of its permit appears only to expose the publisher to the risk of losing his permit, whereas under Section 24, anyone who breaches the conditions attached to a declared foreign newspaper's permit will have committed a criminal offence. He "shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to both. is open to criminal prosecution".

Notwithstanding that, both types of publications can be sued if they say anything "defamatory". And the meaning of "defamatory" in Singapore has very, very wide scope.

 
FEER and AWSJ

The Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal are the 2 publications that have been gazetted as "declared foreign newspapers" for "interfering in the domestic politics of Singapore."

The AWSJ is a daily while the FEER used to be a weekly publication. In December 2004, the FEER became a monthly and thus slipped out of the "offshore newspaper" definition.

One therefore has the suspicion that the FEER had the temerity to ask for its money back, which might have prompted MICA to change the rules in order to keep the hostage money.

Another theory circulating is that the recent interview with opposition politician Chee Soon Juan that FEER published upset the government, only for the government to discover that they weren't holding any hostage money from FEER to deter them.

Thus, using the catch-all wording of Section 24 -- where the minister may "grant his approval [to permit a declared foreign newspaper to continue circulating] subject to such conditions as he may impose" -- MICA has now demanded that FEER put up S$200,000 as well as appoint a legal representative.

 
The other four

What is perhaps more significant is that the same conditions are now being imposed on Time, Newsweek, the International Herald Tribune and the Financial Times.

Our local media mostly kept the mention of these additional cases to the tail-end of their stories, a kind of "Oh, by the way, there were others affected too ...."

The key words from MICA's statement are, "there have been changes in the media scene. In view of these developments...."

Let's see now. The Financial Times covered the Warwick University issue critically, so perhaps the government wasn't happy. International Herald Tribune had a front-page story about the Enernorth case in Canada, forcing the government's and Straits Times' hand. And there must be plenty more examples I haven't noticed.

"These newspapers now regularly report on political issues in the region and Singapore, and have significant circulations in Singapore," the ministry said.

Of course, as anyone can guess, the effect of taking hostage money from these publications and putting the on notice that they will be sued in (third-world standard) Singapore courts will be to chill their future coverage of Singapore. This will no doubt suit the government nicely. The government thinks that this is only proper as foreigners shouldn't "interfere" in our domestic politics.

K Bhavani, the press secretary to the MICA minister, told reporters it is "a privilege, not a right, for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore."

That's putting the cart before the horse. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) says,

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

(emphasis mine)

We should have the right to receive information, regardless of frontiers. The state is not at the centre of the universe, much as our government likes to pretend that it is. It is not for the state to say what is a privilege when it should be an individual's by right. By trying to deter and limit the reporting of these publications, our government is violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our rights. Again.

© Yawning Bread 

 

3 August 2006

Media release by the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts

Circulation of foreign newspapers in Singapore

The Government has given notice to the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER), a declared foreign newspaper under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) that it will have to comply with the conditions required of offshore newspapers before it can be circulated in Singapore.

2. These conditions, as stipulated under Section 23 of the NPPA, will also be re-instated for some offshore newspapers which were previously exempted from them.

Background

3. Since 1990, offshore newspapers (within the meaning of Section 23 of the NPPA), unless exempted, have to have a permit to circulate in Singapore. This permit can be issued subject to conditions under Section 23 (3) of the NPPA.

4. Under Section 24 of the NPPA, the Minister may allow declared foreign newspapers (defined as those engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore) to continue circulation in Singapore and this approval may also be granted subject to conditions.

5. The NPPA serves to reinforce the Government’s consistent position that it is a privilege, and not a right, for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore. They do so as foreign observers of the local scene and should not interfere in the domestic politics of Singapore. Hence, foreign newspapers seeking to circulate in Singapore need to comply with the provisions in the NPPA.

Far Eastern Economic Review

6. On 26 December 1987, FEER was gazetted as a declared foreign newspaper for interfering in the domestic politics of Singapore.

7. Subsequently, FEER was also classified as an offshore newspaper following the amendment to the NPPA on 30 August 1990, and was subjected to the conditions in Section 23 of the NPPA.

8. In December 2004, FEER changed from a weekly to a monthly publication. As a result of this change, FEER ceased to be an offshore newspaper. Hence, it was allowed to circulate in Singapore without having to comply with the conditions for offshore newspapers. However, FEER remains a declared foreign newspaper. It is an anomaly for FEER, which is a declared foreign newspaper, not to be subjected to the conditions that apply to the other declared foreign newspaper, namely Wall Street Journal Asia, (which is still an offshore newspaper) and other offshore newspapers.

9. Hence, the Government has given FEER notice that, with effect from 11 September 2006, it will have to comply with the requirements of an offshore newspaper circulating in Singapore, which means

a) appointing a person within Singapore authorised to accept service of any notice or legal process on behalf of the publisher; and

b) submitting a security deposit of S$200,000.

10. There will be no change to FEER’s current circulation cap of 10,000 copies.

Offshore Newspapers

11. Since 1990, offshore newspapers have to comply with the permit requirements under Section 23 of the NPPA. But some of these offshore newspapers have been granted exemption from the provisions previously. Since then, there have been changes in the media scene. In view of these developments, MICA has reviewed the exempt status of offshore newspapers circulating in Singapore.

12. On review, MICA has given notice to lift the exemption granted to the International Herald Tribune, Financial Times, Newsweek and TIME. These newspapers now regularly report on political issues in the region and Singapore, and have significant circulations in Singapore. Their exempt status should cease upon the expiry of their current permits given under Section 21 of the NPPA. They will thereafter be required to comply with conditions for the circulation of an offshore newspaper under Section 23 of the NPPA.

 

 

 

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None