Statement on Singapore Banning the REVIEW
The Singaporean government today announced that it has banned the Far Eastern Economic Review from the country. It has explicitly warned that not only is the Review Publishing Company forbidden from importing or distributing the Hong Kong-based monthly, but Singaporeans will also commit a criminal offense if they import or reproduce the magazine for distribution.
In its September issue, the Review urged the Singaporean government to reconsider its decision to impose punitive regulations on the Review. These retroactive regulations furthered the interests of individual members of the government and harmed the magazine financially, but were never justified by the government under the applicable law. Today’s statement shows that the government has refused to reconsider its repressive approach toward the media.
We regret that this action infringes on the fundamental rights of our Singaporean subscribers and further restricts the already narrow scope of free expression in Singapore. The Review will publish a more complete response to the government’s actions in the next issue of the magazine to appear on October 6.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:32 am
This was entirely expected — and massively regretable. Kudos to FEER for standing up to the PAP. Are they imposing any restrictions on on-line readership?
September 30th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Well, too bad. FEER always test Singapore’s resolve in freedom to criticise those off-limits issues.
While FEER can still do it as best as it could and as often as it should, Singapore government can ban FEER simply because FEER refused to comply with their laws.
This however, shold not stop FEER from writing interesting issues on the country that does not agree with your opinions.
Truth will win.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:20 am
Looks like Singapore has nothing to fear but FEER itself.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Good luck and hopefully the case will not be held behind closed doors. Also thanks for the free access to what I consider in my humble academic opinion to be three fantastic articles.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Erm,
5 newspapers were issued with the demands to provide a person in Singapore to be sued if the Govt felt the necessity. Does this mean the other 4 newspapers such as ASWJ and Financial Times folded their journalistic freedom for the promise of economic riches?
E.o.M.
October 7th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
On a totally unrealted note, I was browsing through the FEER website and noted the correspondence between MICA (Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts) and FEER.
MICA sure has an interesting motto:
“Creative People, Gracious Community, Connected Singapore”
http://www.feer.com/download/MICA/2006_09_14_From_MICA.pdf
i‧ro‧ny
–noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!†when I said I had to work all weekend.
October 7th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Well done FEER! There are not many media organisations that have the guts to stand up to the Singapore government.
You are in the uncommon position of being unrepresented in Singapore plus having a global footprint and financial muscle to boot. Don’t give in, and see this one through!
Now if all this really mattered to the average Singaporean…
October 8th, 2006 at 8:55 am
I sincerely hope FEER will win that defamation lawsuit. I am a Singaporean myself, and am ashamed of our SG leaders’ actions towards FEER!
Unfortunately, the Singapore courts have bent over backwards and stretched the law in favour of our leaders in past defamation suits, and will surely not hesitate to repeat that move again. It will probably be a closed-door affair. There have been many instances where the court will find a way to dismiss or render irrelevant any evidence that bolster the case of anyone who dares to face the SG leaders in court.
I doubt it will be any different this time around, especially since your FEER article challenges the govt-controlled media’s public portrayal of Chee as a misguided lunatic.
Nevertheless, and thank you for daring to publish such an article. :) All the best, I will be cheering you on.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
FEER could write what they want.
Singapore Govt could ban them if they want.
But if FEER trys to put a joke that is Chee in good light, it could seriously damage FEER’s reputation.
October 12th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
Its about time some-one exposed the myth of democracy in Singapore. The sooner the Lee dynasty is removed the better off all Singaporeans will be. Old man Lee has done a fantastic job in selling one of the biggest snow-jobs in modern political history to the “West”. Cross him and the Courts that he and his PAP party have manipulated for over 40 years will destroy you using pussy-pussy law firms who would not get past “go” in a truly democratic country. Yes its time that the old boy network in Singapore was replaced by a system that represents all Singaporans, not just the racially selected “elite” - Keep it up Chee- for Singapore’s future, may you win!!
August 19th, 2007 at 9:04 am
I hope you can hold an informal meeting with all the foreign media firms which have investment interests in Singapore. Advice your fellow colleagues of foreign media firms to relocate the investment somewhere else since the repressive and draconian laws are still in force.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
@David Ong, Singapore cannot ban FEER, they can only stop FEER from circulating in Singapore.
That is an important point. The Lee family dynasty have sued several papers apart from FEER - WSJ and FT for example. These are big papers, circulated globally with massive readership, so why do they bow to the Lees? Why do they care so much about circulation in a small city in Asia?
It is bad that the Lees are so oppressive, and one has to wonder what they fear, but ultimately the loss of freedom of speech is by the paper themselves. They *agree* to self-censorship, and that is a far worse crime.
They could just refuse to play, refuse to have an office in Singapore and a named lawyer. They could just say “sod the Lees” and forget about being published in Singapore at all. But they don’t: greed for that last little bit of profit is too much, so they sell out. This is not the way self-proclaimed beacons of free-speech and free press should behave.
December 28th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
nice article, a joy to read :)
May 6th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Desmond Says @9:
“But if FEER trys to put a joke that is Chee in good light, it could seriously damage FEER’s reputation.”
This is very true. I have decided not to read FEER about Singapore from now on.
For those who do not know about Singapore politics…
[I wrote the following elsewhere]
There are many other opposition parties in Singapore, but the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is the worst performer in every General Election. They can hardly get 25 per cent of the votes, whereas other opposition party members get up to 33 to 40 per cent. A few got over 50%.
The SDP is despised in Singapore. Do not give them too much attention.
The leader of SDP is Dr. Chee. Before Dr. Chee became the leader, the SDP was the most respected and successful oppposition party in Singapore, under Chiam See Tong. After Chee joined the SDP, Chee ousted Chiam who was his mentor. Singaporeans do not have much respect for such a character. And more so because he was actually charged in court for mis-use of university research funds and dishonestly claiming reimbursement for taxi mileage. And he was convicted by the court.
And the banning of FEER and other magazines - we did these things once-in-while, when they don’t comply with our laws. We don’t need to apologise for this.
You want to sell your magazine in Singapore, then obey our laws. You want to sell your ideology and accuse our government? Then give us the right of reply. That is what we insist in our laws. And put down some money deposit.
We have not asked for so much that you cannot pay and cannot do. If you can’t even pay this small amount and do this little thing, then you better get out of Singapore market. We don’t want you. And we don’t trust you because you are unwilling to pay (a deposit) for what you believe in.