Amnesty: Singapore defamation ruling attacks press
November 20th, 2009 | 
Author: Associated Press, 19 November 2009
Human rights group Amnesty International urged Singapore on Thursday to protect freedom of expression after an Asian magazine paid 405,000 Singapore dollars ($290,000) to settle a defamation suit by the country’s prime minister and his father.
Far Eastern Economic Review reached the settlement Tuesday after the Court of Appeal upheld a 2008 decision finding the defendants guilty of defaming Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
The Review’s editor, Hugo Restal, and the Review Publishing Co. Ltd. were alleged to have defamed the Lees in a 2006 article based on an interview with Chee Soon Juan, an opposition party leader. The magazine is owned by the U.S.-based Dow Jones & Co.
“This ruling further illustrates how press freedom is under threat in Singapore and sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of expression and journalism in the region,” Sam Zarifi of Amnesty International said in a statement.
He said Singapore’s Parliament should enact legislation to allow the media to act as a watchdog and bring laws on freedom of expression in line with international law and standards.
“Laws that allow the authorities to impose restrictions on freedom of expression together with a pattern of politically motivated defamation suits, have created a climate of political intimidation and self-censorship in Singapore,” he said.
Critics, including opposition leaders, contend that Singapore applies defamation laws selectively to silence criticism. The government says restrictions on speech and assembly are necessary to preserve the economic prosperity and racial stability of the multiethnic city-state of 4.8 million people. It says any slight on its leaders will hinder their ability to rule effectively.
The elder Lee founded the People’s Action Party, which has ruled Singapore since 1959 and has 82 of Parliament’s 84 members. He was prime minister from 1959 to 1990, and today has an advisory role in the government with the title of mentor minister.
The Review said in a statement while it did not agree with the verdict, it settled to avoid prolonging the case.
Dow Jones does not believe it defamed the Lees and this decision will not “deter us from (providing) fair and timely reporting and commentary on matters of importance from around the world, including in Singapore,” said the statement.
The article that got Review into trouble, “Singapore’s Martyr, Chee Soon Juan,” featured an interview with Chee and criticized a scandal at the National Kidney Foundation charity.
Chee was forced into bankruptcy in 2006 by a $300,000 ruling against him for defaming the elder Lee and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.
The city-state’s leaders have sued journalists and political opponents several times in past years for alleged defamation. They have won lawsuits and damages against Bloomberg, the Economist and the International Herald Tribune. – AP
Republished from Associated Press
Posted in Headlines
17 Responses to “Amnesty: Singapore defamation ruling attacks press”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
“Dow Jones does not believe it defamed the Lees.”
Indeed, if one reads the original FEER article, one shall find a tone consistent with a rebuke of the government as a whole, rather than of the Lees in particular. However, in a warped sense of logic, “Singaporean officials” was taken to mean Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong personally. See Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and Another and Another Suit [2008] SGHC 162.
Precisely, as the Lees had filed a defamation suit in their personal capacity against the FEER, the interpretation of “Singaporean officials” became critical. Lest the plaintiffs were to find themselves lacking locus standi.
Pfeh. Westerners forcing their western values on us. We have our own Asian values!
(Being sarcastic in case you didn’t notice)
As if LKY cares?
Websites have been showing how cruel he has been to ISA detained prisoners who have committed no crime and all he could respond was his chinese language policy was wrong.
What a joke.
Morvius, you are obviously another PAP bootlicker. Your definition for Asian value is throwing political opponents into jail? Is your sarcasm for yourself?
Why IBA not sued but the news agency sued?
Does it tally?
Forgive and Forget.
I am sure when LKY finally RETIRES, Dow Jones can write something about him.
I have deep affection for LKY and what he did for Singapore in the early turmulous years of Singapore – frankly, he went thru a lot of shit and Singapore came out very well under his leadership.
I disagree that LKY should continue to meddle in the local affairs in Singapore – the New Leadership in PAP, the Opposition as well as ALL NEW POLICIES. At 84 now, he cannot possibly be relavent when it comes to actual policy making and understanding where all young singaporeans are now.
I disagree that PAP should continue to silence Opposition figures (it is not about CSJ) for the sole objective to stike fear in their hearts.
I know for a fact that PAP WANTS Check and Balances and an Alternative Voice – but continuing to silence Opposition will not encourage Good Quality Opposition to bud, to grow and establish itself over time – Organically
PAP’s current “strong man tatics” – will only breed contempt from the younger population (those that do not know and thus not appreciate what LKY has done) and VOTE FOR ANY OPPOSITION – for ANY OPPOSITION – regardless of their Quality or Agenda.
Lky will never retire. His family will continue his legacy.
SINGAPORE IS A REPRESSIVE STATE, AMENESTY AND WORLD PLEASE HELP US
http://fashionablefacistdictator.wordpress.com/
My Question comes after your comments quoted below as…
You WROTE…
“I know for a fact that PAP WANTS Check and Balances and an Alternative Voice – but continuing to silence Opposition will not encourage Good Quality Opposition to bud, to grow and establish itself over time – Organically”
BIGGEST QUESTION!… If AS YOU SAY… PAP and so meaning LKY in reality and YOU as “I know for a fact that PAP WANTS Check and Balances and an Alternative Voice – but continuing to silence Opposition…”… Why have they kept on SILENCING ANY OTHER Voice too who QUOTED someone??? The latest being FEER!!!… And so…
HAVE YOU NOT Blatantly also like PAP’s way of FLOUTING common sense by CONTRADICTING-SELF IN “A Single Breathe”???… Great logic and reasoning of a smae kind of twisted mind for like “Means justifies the PAP desired end because it is far too complex for all other non-PAP ones to comprehend”!!!… Read the foloowing taken from another TR posting by a certain “cy” even if you are a PAP mind or more! And it is repeated in ITEMISE order for your benefit…
“Mindboggling quotes by Lee Kuan Yew
1. “If I have to shoot 200,000 students to save China from another 100 years of disorder, so be it.” – Lee Kuan Yew endorsing the Tiananmen massacre, Straits Times, 17 August 2004
2. “If you are a troublemaker… it’s our job to politically destroy you. Put it this way. As long as JB Jeyaratnam for what he stands for – a thoroughly destructive force – we will knock him. Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac.” – Lee Kuan Yew, The Man And His Ideas, 1997
3. “I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens. Yes, if I did not, had I not done that, we wouldn’t be here today. And I say without the slightest remorse, that we wouldn’t be here, we would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, or what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think.” – Lee Kuan Yew, Straits Times, 20 April 1987
4. “I make no apologies that the PAP is the Government and the Government is the PAP.” – Lee Kuan Yew, 1982, Petir
5. “If I were in authority in Singapore indefinitely without having to ask those who are governed whether they like what is being done, then I would not have the slightest doubt that I could govern much more effectively in their interests.” – Lee Kuan Yew, 1962
6. “Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love – it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.” – Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition PAP member speaking to David Marshall, Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956
7. “I pointed to an article with bold headlines reporting that the police had refused to allow the PAP to hold a rally at Empress Place, and then to the last paragraph where in small type it added the meeting would take place where we were now. I compared this with a prominent report about an SPA rally. This was flagrant bias.” – Lee Kuan Yew complaining about the Straits Times in 1959.”… And so…
Dear “坡仔哥哥 on Fri, 20th Nov 2009 12:59 pm”…
How does LKY look to you now???…
1. Like one who is always right and can never eve be wrong???…
2. In short… INFALLIBLE!!!… AND STILL…
3. WANT “Checks and Balances”???… BUT…
4. BY “WHO” I AM ASKING YOU MOST POINTEDLY?!!!
In rounding up… Please ask yourself if You DO HAVE… ABLIND-SPOT” in your views and opinions??? Do be honest and come back here honestly ans sincerely with reasonings that we… the non-rocket scientisit mor… “gods”… can Phathom for things as OBVIOUS as SURELY The “Sun Rises IN The EAST and
Sets In The WEST… and NEVER will be any other way!”…
FOR… should you continue with your smae distorted reasonings… Wise ones here WILL KNOW where you are coming from!!!
HI, I AM ON FHM. PLS BUY MY MAGERZINE OK?
I am not sure who you hate more…me or LKY
Please take a deep breathe and hold for 15 sec
1. PAP does not equal to LKY (or even LKY + LHL) – Regardless of what impression u (or the puplic at large) have, this is true, it has to be.
There are no facts, figures or formulae to support the above statement but Singapore itself, its survival will be in question if this is not the case.
2. I cannot remember which year was this (sorry), but I remembered well I was shocked when then PM Goh talked extensively about the creation of “shadow cabinet” to be created by PAP itself – in order build a Check and Balance function into Parliament. This was suggested as an idea (obviously it did not come to fruit) due to the consistent lack of Quality Opposition in each and every election.
3. I agree that after LKY expires (even he knows this)…PAP will change, his DNA is part of PAP (vice versa)
He should not meddle anymore in specific local issues anymore, but he is really not a bad man, he has done alot for all of us and we should not hate him….
//坡仔哥哥
Why is Singapore’s survival link to PAP?
This is the biggest mistake.
//Ris Lo
Why? to feed the pigs at sph another 2 dollars?
I might as well burn it.
Since my comments were posted by another poster here, let me defend myself.
the quotes by LKY were copied from another blog. It is to show the true and contradictory nature of LKY. personally, i bear no animosity towards him or pap (whether they are the same or not)
i prefer to let the facts speak for itself. From what i have seen and read, LKY is machiavellian (i have posted several quotes from machiavelli in previous post) he has his contributions and mistakes just like any leader.
However, i object to the way the media tried to portray him as infallible and indoctrinating his beliefs to singaporeans.
“to err is human, to forgive is divine’ we should forgive LKY for his faults but that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to these faults.
That’s why i always remind myself to 对事不对人 in my comments, hard it may be, i still give it a try.
fpc – good question and if read wrongly, one can get that impression, please allow me to apologize for my expression and let me clarify
1. Singapore Does not Equate to PAP – their survival is not directly linked. However, consider the fact that during the LUP debacle, the HDB (which is a Stat Board) ended up siding with a PAP candidate – this is not correct.
2. PAP as a political party (even though it is the ruling party) should not influence (but clearly it does) or control of any of the government organs (the police, the army..etc)
3. In my previous statement – I did not imply that Singapore’s survival depends on that of the PAP (it clearly should not) – but rather, I was saying that LHL + LKY does not Equate to PAP. IF IT DOES, then following the logical route, even the survival of Singapore may come into question.
4. Should LKY + LHL = PAP ? NO, it should not
5. Should PAP control, influence Government Organs ? No it should not
6. Should LKY, CGT (no executive role in the Cabinet) continue to influence specific policies – No, they should not
7. Are the rules of elections really fair and square ? No it is not
8. Do we have really have an alternative to the PAP ? No we do not (at least not now)
9. Do we want Check and Balances / Alternative Voice ? Yes, we do
10. Can we do better ? Of course, we always can…
坡仔哥哥 on Sat, 21st Nov 2009 11:14 pm
I toast to that! ABSOLUTELY.