THE TEMASEK REVIEW

From our Correspondent

In a speech directed at visiting delegates from the New York State Bar Association, Singapore Law Minister Shanmugan complained that the Singapore media was unfairly ranked by international media watchdog Reporters without Borders.

Mr Shanmugam cannot understand why Singapore was ranked in a pathetic 133th position below Kenya, Congo and Guinea in terms of press freedom.

Instead of complaining, whining and lamenting, why not think of feasible ways to improve the Singapore media’s rankings?

The Temasek Review has taken the initiative to compile a proposal for Mr Shanmugan’s kind consideration which will surely increase the Singapore’s ranking to within 100 next year if the ideas contained therein are all implemented within a year:

1. Repeal or amend the Newspaper Printing and Press Act

The Newspaper Printing and Press Act (NPPA) came about in 1974, replacing the Printing Presses Ordinance which the PAP government had inherited from the British.

The NPPA requires that no newspapers are to be printed or published without a permit. This permit is granted, refused or revoked upon the Minister’s discretion. Also, the permit can be granted but “subject to conditions to be endorsed thereon.”

The NPPA requires anyone who wants to “keep and use a press for the printing of documents” to get a licence, and this licence can be withdrawn, indefinitely or otherwise.

It is time to deregulate the print media industry to allow the emergence of different players to compete with one another which will surely lead to an overall improvement in the standard of journalism in Singapore.

Instead of the giving the minister the sole discretion to grant a permit, it should be decided by a committee consisting of civil servants, journalists, opposition MPs and other industry players.

A series of rules and regulations should be promulgated to determine if the applicant qualifies for a permit.

The government should adopt a hands-off approach and let the industry players self-regulate themselves.

2. Break SPH into different smaller companies

With the sole exception of MediaCorp’s daily freesheet Today, all daily newspapers including the flagship Straits Times are printed by Singapore Press Holdings, whose management shareholders are appointed by the government in accordance with the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974.

The Chairman of SPH is always a former PAP minister by default with the incumbent being former deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan.

While current shareholding structure does not imply direct governmental control on media content, their active presence promotes self-censorship amongst journalists.

The lack of a serious competitor has led to the breeding of a sense of complacency within SPH which will result in stagnation and ossification eventually.

SPH is like a cartel which enjoys a complete monopoly over the print media industry in Singapore. It would have fallen afoul of anti-trust laws in the United States.

The government can consider introducing such a law to break up the monopoly of SPH.

The non-media related businesses of SPH such as property (Times Development Ltd) should be spun off from the main company to be independent entities.

The different language papers should form separate companies on their own to run their respective publications.

Similarly, the internet sites owned by SPH should be sold to smaller new media companies like ours to level the playing field.

The government should allow market forces to decide on the success of each individual company and should not intervene to pop up struggling companies.

3. Reform the harsh defamation laws

Singapore has one of the harshest defamation laws in the world which gives many the impression that they were used liberally to cripple the government’s critics financially.

In a damning indictment of the Singapore’s defamation laws, a report from the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute said:

“Another area in which the independence of the judiciary is of concern is the cases involving the courts hearing defamation claims initiated by PAP officials……the slim likelihood of the successful defence of an action, combined with the extraordinarily high damages awarded in defamation cases involving PAP officials sheds doubt on the independence of the judiciary in these cases. The courts in defamation cases have substantial discretion in awarding judgment and damages.

Under Orders 14 (Summary Judgment) and 78 (Defamation Actions), the court has substantial discretion to resolve the case without a hearing in open court and to permit the quantum of damages to be determined by a Registrar in chambers.”

Orders 14 and 78 should be revoked which shifts the burden of proof to the plaintiff that the statement made is defamatory and damaging to his/her reputation.

The defendant must be given a chance in court to defend himself/herself. In a landmark case last year, Justice Belinda Ang awarded more than $600,000 to the Lees against SDP leader Dr Chee Soon Juan for defaming the Singapore government via a summary judgment.

While the aggrieved leaders should be given a recourse to justice, the punishment meted out must not be putative in nature to deprive the defendants of their livelihoods.

A limit should be imposed on the awards granted in cases of defamation, e.g. not more than $10,000. In 2004, then Taiwanese President Chen Shui Bian was awarded a token $NT1 for winning a defamation lawsuit against a political opponent.

As the Law Minister, Mr Shanmugam is in a perfect position to amend and abolish these unreasonable laws to make them more in line with the standard practices adopted by modern democracies, most notably our closest competitor Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Donald Tsang came under attack in the Hong Kong media lately for allegations of favoritism towards his relatives. Though he has dismissed the reports as “pure fabrications”, he did not take any legal action to sue the journalists responsible for them.

In fact, his combative stance was questioned by lawmakers who said he should not casually dismiss public opinion, especially when some key questions remained unanswered.

Perhaps the most important “reform” Mr Shanmugam should undertake is to remind and convince his parliamentary colleagues that monitoring the government and public figures is a duty of the media and they should not resort to taking legal action too easily to “defend” their reputations.

Respect has to be earned and it is never gained by suing and bankrupting one’s critics even if one is proven right in the court of law.

7 Responses to “Proposal to Minister Shanmugam to increase the Singapore media’s rankings”