Confining the freedom of the press in Singapore: A "pragmatic" press for "nation-building"?

Human Rights Quarterly

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 876-905

  Tey, Tsun Hang ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM; HEGEMONY; HUMAN RIGHTS; INFORMATION SYSTEM; INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT; LEADERSHIP; LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION; MEDIA INDUSTRY; POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT; POLITICAL IDEOLOGY; STATE BUILDING;

ASIA; EURASIA; SINGAPORE [SOUTHEAST ASIA]; SOUTHEAST ASIA;

EID: 65749231018     PISSN: 02750392     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/hrq.0.0034     Document Type: Article

References (321)

1. Singapore became a separate colony by virtue of the Straits Settlements (Repeal) Act, 1946, 9 & 10 Geo. 6, c. 37 (Eng.) and was given a Constitution by the Singapore Colony Order in Council, 1946, Stat. R. & O. 1946/464 (Eng.).
2. In 1953, a Constitutional Commission headed by Sir George Rendel was set up and charged with review of the Constitution. The British passed the State of Singapore Act on 1 August 1958 (State of Singapore Act, 1958, 6 & 7 Eliz. 2, c. 59). The elections of 1959 saw the emergence of the People's Action Party (PAP) who won forty-three out of fifty-one seats. The new constitution came into force on 3 June 1959.
3. In 1963, merger was realized and Singapore became a member of the Federation of Malaysia on 6 September 1963. A new State Constitution was granted to Singapore by The Sabah, Sarawak, and Singapore (State Constitutions) Order-in-Council, 1963, S.I. 1963/1493 (U.K.), as published in the State of Singapore Government Gazette (Sp. No. S1 of 1963). However, the merger was transient. Separation was effected by the Independence of Singapore Agreement signed on 7 August 1965. Singapore ceased to be a state of Malaysia on 9 August 1965 and became a sovereign and independent state.
4. It has to be left for another occasion to deal with Singapore's regulatory model and control regime of the broadcast media and the Internet in an in-depth manner.
5. Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 147th out of 167 countries in its annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index in 2004.
6. See REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, THIRD ANNUAL WORLDWIDE PRESS FREEDOM INDEX (2004), available at http://www.rsf.org/ IMG/pdf/Asia-index-Eng-2004.pdf. In 2005, Singapore was ranked 140th.
7. See REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, THIRD ANNUAL WORLDWIDE PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2005 (2005), available at http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/CM-2005-As-Eng.pdf. In 2006, Singapore was ranked 146th, twenty-two above the lowest ranked North Korea at 168th.
8. See REPORTERS WITHOUT BORDERS, THIRD ANNUAL WORLDWIDE PRESS FREEDOM INDEX 2006 (2006), available at http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/cm2006-as-2.pdf. Freedom House in 2006 placed Singapore at position 148 out of 194 in its world press freedom index, therein labeling Singapore's status of press freedom as "not free" alongside sixty-six other countries.
9. See FREEDOM HOUSE, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 2006 (2006), available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/PFS/PFSGLOBLETables2006.pdf.
10. See also Ong Soh Chin, Corruption in Govt? Straits TIMES Sure to Expose It: Vivian, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 23 Mar. 2007.
11. See CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE. See generally Kevin Tan Yew Lee, The Evolution of Singapore's Modern Constitution: Developments from 1945 to the Present Day, 1 SING. ACAD. L.J. 1 (1989).
12. See, e.g., Cheong Seok Leng v. Pub. Prosecutor, [1988] 2 Malayan L.J. 481, 487 (High Ct.) (Sing.).
13. Attorney General v. Lingle, [1995] 1 SING. L. REP. 696, 709 (High Ct.).
14. Teo Soh Lung v. Minister for Home Affairs, [1989] 1 SING. L. REP. 499, 516 (High Ct.). For Singapore's legal history, see generally: Andrew Phang, The Singapore Legal System-History, Theory and Practice, 21 SING. L. REV. 23 (2001).
15. L.A. Mills, British Malaya 1824-1867, 33 J. MALAYAN BRANCH ROYAL ASIATIC SOC'Y. Pt. 3 (1960).
16. Kevin Y.L. Tan, A Short Legal and Constitutional History of Singapore, in ESSAYS IN SINGAPORE LEGAL HISTORY 27 (Kevin Y. L. Tan ed., 2005).
17. C.M. TURNBULL, A HISTORY OF SINGAPORE 1819-1975 (1977).
18. YEO KIM WAH, POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT IN SINGAPORE, 1945-55 (1973).
19. S. JAYAKUMAR , SINGAPORE LAW SERIES (No. 1)-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW , wITH DOCUMENTARY MATERIALS (1976).
20. "From my experience, Constitutions have to be custom-made, tailored to suit the peculiarities of the person wearing the suit. Perhaps, like shoes, the older they are, the better they fit. Stretch them, soften them, re-sole them, repair them. They are always better than a brand new pair of shoes." Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, quoted in 43 PARL. DEB. 1717, 1735 (1984) (Sing.) Freedom of the Press arguably, can be afforded similar protection under Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution, providing for a qualified freedom of speech and expression for every citizen in Singapore. Arguably, the Constitution of Singapore bears much more semblance to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which expressly provides for a qualification to the freedom of expression.
21. A number of administrative measures were inherited from the British colonial administration. Some of these illiberal laws include the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap. 67, 2000 Rev. Ed. Sing.) and the Internal Security Act (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) which allow for detention without trial. Several laws can be used to impose penal sanctions on political speech: Penal Code (Cap. 224, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 505.
22. Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (Cap. 184, 1997 Rev. Ed. Sing.) §§ 13A, 13B.
23. Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.). Clause 70 of the proposed Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 2006 seeks to widen its coverage to include statements in electronic and other media.
24. See, e.g., Simon S. C. Tay, Human Rights, Culture, and the Singapore Example, 41 McGill L.J. 743 (1996).
25. Li-ann Thio, Rule of Law Within a Non-liberal 'Communitarian' Democracy, in ASIAN DISCOURES OF RULE OF LAW : THEORIES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RULE OF LAW IN TWELVE ASIAN COUNTRIES, FRANCE AND THE U.S. 183 (Randall Peerenboom ed., 2004).
26. J.B. Jeyaretnam became the first opposition member of Parliament in fifteen years (after 1965) when he won a 1981 by-election. Opposition parties won four parliamentary seats in the 1991 parliamentary general election; that was their best result ever.
27. At the last parliamentary general election in May 2006, the People's Action Party won a twelfth consecutive term in office-winning an impressive 66.6 percent of the overall votes and eighty-two out of a total of eighty-four parliamentary seats-showing neither sign nor hint of any weakening of its total grip and entrenched hold on political power in Singapore.
28. See Kevin Y.L. Tan, Fifty Years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: A Singapore Perspective, 20 SING. L. REV. 239, 240 (1999).
29. See generally, HAN FOOK KWANG ET AL., LEE KUAN YEW: THE MAN AND HIS IDEAS (1998). See, e.g., ALEX JOSEY, SINGAPORE: ITS PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE 188 (1979)
30. Eric Jones, Asia's Fate: A Response to the Singapore School, 35 NAT'L INT. 18 (1994), available at http://findarticles. com/p/articles/mi-m2751/is-n35/ai-15353273.
31. See also policy statement by Wong Kan Seng, Minister for Foreign Affairs, The Real World of Human Rights, Statement at the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna (16 June 1993), reprinted in Singapore and International Law, 1993 SING. J. LEGAL STUD. 602, 605-10 (1993)
32. Melanie Chew, Human Rights in Singapore: Perceptions and Problems, 34 ASIAN SURV. 933 (1994)
33. Kishore Mahbubani, The Dangers of Decadence: What the Rest Can Teach The West, 72 FOREIGN AFF. 10, 14 (1993).
34. Kishore Mahbubani, The United States: Go East, Young Man, 17 WASH. Q. 5 (1994)
35. Bilahari Kausikan, The "Singapore School," 36 NAT'L INT. 107 (1994).
36. Bilahari Kausikan Governance That Works, 8 J. Democrac y 24, 26 (1997).
37. Bilahari Kausikan, Asia's Different Standard, 92 FOREIGN POL'Y 24 (1993).
38. Bilahari Kim Hee P. S. Kausikan, An East Asian Approach to Human Rights, 2 BUFF. J. INT'L L. 263 (1995-1996).
39. Tommy T. B. Koh, Will There Be a Clash of Cultures? in THE UNITED STATES aND EAST ASIA: CONFLICT aND CO-OPERATION 90 (Tommy T.B. Koh ed., 1995).
40. See also White Paper on Shared Values (Cmd. 1 of 1991), 2 Jan. 1991 (Sing.).
41. In SEARCH OF SINGAPORE'S NATIONAL VALUES (Jon S. T. Quah ed., 1990).
42. BENG-HUAT CHUA, COMMUNITARIAN IDEOLOGY AND DEMOCRACY IN SINGAPORE (1995)
43. Yash Ghai, Asian Perspectives on Human Rights, 23 H. K. L. J. 342 (1993).
44. Eugene Kheng-Boon Tan, Law and Values in Governance: The Singapore Way, 30 H. K. L. J. 91 (2000).
45. See e.g., Effective Leadership, Singapore-Style, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 19 Oct. 2000; Not Drifting with the Tide but Evolving with Each Step Forward, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 7 Oct. 2006. See also Chew, supra note 8.
46. For a small nation with an estimated population of 4.5 million, Singapore's Gross Domestic Product was ranked forty-fourth by the International Monetary Fund in 2006 and forty-first by the World Bank in 2005. In United States dollars, its GDP per capita was ranked twenty-fifth out of 180 members of the International Monetary Fund, at close to US$30,000. At GDP at purchasing power parity per capita, Singapore was ranked seventeenth out of 179 members by the International Monetary Fund in 2006.
47. Singapore's efficiently-run economy and political stability have brought in an impressive amount and array of investments. Government-led island-wide industrialization has created a modern economy, with electronic and high-value manufacturing and services, finance, and international trade occupying significant force in its vibrant economy. In a region beset by a series of political turmoil, Singapore has enjoyed uninterrupted political stability since 1965. In contrast, Thailand has suffered a series of coup d'états in Thailand, the latest of which removed Prime Minister Thaksin in September 2006. Indonesia has faced numerous challenges: the 30 September 1965 incident followed by the violent anti-communist purge and the rise of Suharto's "New Order" administration; the 1998 financial crisis, followed by the Reformasi agitation; and a change of three presidents before the 2004 direct presidential election. The Philippines, too, has faced challenges to its political stability. It has had conflicts with various rebel groups since 1946. Marcos' authoritarian rule was marred by unmitigated, pervasive corruption, cronyism, and despotism from 1972-1986. More recently, the current Arroyo administration has had to suppress various attempted coups.
48. It was ranked fifth in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2006. In the same index, Malaysia was ranked forty-fourth, Indonesia 130th, Thailand sixtythird, and the Philippines 121st. It was also ranked fifth in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2005. In the same index, Malaysia was ranked thirtyninth, Indonesia 137th, Thailand fifty-ninth, and the Philippines 117th. See Transparency International, available at http://www.transparency.org/news-room/in- focus/2006/cpi-2006-1.
49. See, e.g., Douglas Sikorski, Effective Government in Singapore: Perspective of a Concerned American, 36 ASIAN SURV. 818, 818-832 (1996)
50. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORTS 2007/2008 (Country Fact Sheets-Singapore), available at http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/ country-fact-sheets/cty-fs-SGP.html.
51. See LEE KUAN YEW, FROM THIRD WORLD TO FIRST 190 (2000) ("Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.").
52. FRANCIS T. SEOW, THE Media ENTHRALLED: SINGAPORE REVISITED 26-27 (1998).
53. "The Singapore government's policy-making is based on scientific and rational thinking. But the policies must be to seek maximum benefit for the majority of the people. The freedom of the minority can be overlooked." Shao Yu-Min, SM Lee-A Revolutionary Who Makes Waves, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 4 Oct. 2000.
54. See generally Tan Chwee Huat, Confucianism and Nation Building in Singapore, 16 INT'L J. SOC. ECON. 5 (1989).
55. See, e.g., How Free Should a Free Press Be?, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 1 Nov. 2005
56. Chin, supra note 1.
57. See generally Ivan Lim, The Singapore Press and the Fourth Estate, in PRESS LAWS AND SYSTEMS IN ASEAN STATES 101, 105 (Abdul Razak ed., 1985).
58. See 33 PARL. DEB. 905, 913 (1974) (Sing.)
59. 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 369 (1986) (Sing.)
60. 48 PARL. DEB. 400, 406 (1986) (Sing.).
61. See also Chin, supra note 1.
62. See Cherian George, Newspapers: Freedom from the Press, Paper Presented at the Conference on the Limits of Control: Media and Technology in China, Hong Kong and Singapore, Graduate School of Journalism, North Gate Hall, University of California, Berkeley (2-3 Apr. 1998), available at http://www.singapore-window.org/80402cg.htm.
63. See Chin, supra note 1.
64. See How the Press Can Best Serve Singapore-Be Fair, Be Truthful, Be Part of a Virtuous Cycle, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 16 July 1995 [hereinafter How the Press Can Best Serve Singapore].
65. See, e.g., Chua Hian Hou, Press Freedom as Seen from East and West, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 26 June 2007.
66. The origins of the Internal Security Act can be traced as far back as 1948, during the Malayan Emergency in response to a communist uprising, where a set of emergency regulations were passed to allow arrest without warrant and detention without trial. In 1960, three years after Malaya Independence, the Internal Security Act was enacted to retain the power of the emergency regulations after the emergency was declared over. Upon Singapore's secession from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore conveniently retained the Internal Security Act. See Warren Fernandez, A-Z Guide to People & Things Singaporean, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 9 Aug. 1992.
67. See also Internal Security Act (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).
68. Historically, Singapore takes racial and social harmony seriously because of its history of racial riots in the 1960s. The Sedition Act (Cap. 290, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.)-along with other legislation such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap. 167A, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.)-aims to safeguard the country's religious and racial harmony by proscribing certain behavior that may harm public peace by inciting violence between different racial groups in Singapore.
69. The Official Secrets Act was also inherited from the British colonial administration (Cap. 213, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.). It was first legislated as the Ordinance 25 of 1935. See Adrian Kwong, A Duty to Communicate: The Public Interest Defence to Offences Under Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 20 SING. L. REV. 177, 178 (1999). Its purpose was to protect the national interests from any detriment arising from any disclosure of official and sensitive information in the public.
70. See 73 PARL. DEB. 1817, 1934 (2001) (Sing.) ("the Official Secrets Act (OSA) guards against disclosure of official documents and information as this can be detrimental to national and public interest")
71. 26 PARL. DEB. 21, 57 (1967) (Sing.) ("The Official Secrets Act is an Act designed to ensure that the official secrets of the nation are not parted with for the benefit of any foreign power.").
72. Historically, the Internal Security Act has been sparingly invoked by the government against individuals in Singapore. In 1963, a joint Malaysian-Singaporean "Operation Cold Store" was launched to arrest 115 opposition party and labor union leaders.
73. See Yeo Lay Hwee, Electoral Politics in Singapore, in ELECTORAL POLITICS IN SOUTHEAST AND EAST ASIA 203, 217 (Aurel Croissant et al. eds., 2002). In 1966, Chia Thye Poh, a Barisan Socialis (Socialist Front) member, was detained without trial for twenty-three years and placed on an additional nine years of house arrest under the Internal Security Act. In 1987, twenty-two Roman Catholic Church members, social activists, and professionals, suspected to be part of a Marxist plot, were arrested and detained under "Operation Spectrum." More recently, the Internal Security Act has been invoked to arrest and detain suspected terrorists belonging to the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) militant group. See Damien Cheong, Enhancing National Security Through the Rule of Law: Singapore's Recasting of the Internal Security Act as an Anti-terrorism Legislation, 5 AsiaRights J. 1, 7-13 (2005), available at http://rspas.anu.edu.au/asiarightsjournal/Cheong.pdf.
74. Chee Soon Juan, Pressing for Openness in Singapore, 12 J. DEMOCRACY 157, 161 (2001)
75. Chia Thye Poh a Free Man, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 27 Nov. 1998
76. 49 PARL. DEB. 1427, 1431-514 (1987) (Sing.)
77. most recently, Sue-Ann Chia, 'Self-Radicalised' Law Grad, 4 JI Militants Held, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 9 June 2007.
78. See 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 372 (1986) (Sing.): Some people said that this amendment is unnecessary. They said that the way to deal with these foreign publications which meddle with our domestic politics is to use the existing laws-like the Undesirable Publications Act, the Sedition Act, the Internal Security Act and the Penal Code. Let there be no delusion that the Government will hesitate to use the appropriate laws to deal with foreign publications when the situation demands ⋯ But there is a Chinese saying ⋯ The English version is: "There is no need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly." Therefore, while there are existing laws which can deal with the problem of foreign press interference in Singapore's politics, they may not be the most appropriate tool.
79. See id.
80. Internal Security Act (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 8.
81. Nanyang Siang Pau, Eastern Sun, and Singapore Herald were accused of involvement in "black operations" against Singapore's security. See Yew, supra note 14, at 215-18.
82. T.S. SELVAN, SINGAPORE: THE ULTIMATE ISLAND (LEE KUAN YEW'S UNTOLD STORY) 105-28 (1990)
83. 48 PAR. DEB. 319, 372 (1986) (Sing.)
84. 33 PARL. DEB. 905, 913-14 (1974) (Sing.).
85. See Singapore Press, Nanyang Siang Pau, available at http://singaporepress.pbwiki.com/Nanyang%20Siang%20Pau.
86. Internal Security Act (Cap. 143, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 20. We shall see that the 1986 amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act incorporated the idea of gazetting publications "engaging in the domestic politics" of Singapore. See 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 369-84 (1986) (Sing.)
87. 48 PARL. DEB. 385, 400-40 (1986) (Sing.).
88. By virtue of the passing of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, No. 12 of 1974 (Sing.).
89. More on this in Part IV. This has been termed a "behind the scenes" approach to tighten the government's grip on the press in Singapore, rather than "outright government ownership or blatant censorship" of the newspapers. See Singapore Press-Pedia, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, available at http://presspedia.journalism.sg/ doku. php?id=newspaper-and-printing-presses-act.
90. Other than the 1971 detention of four executives of Nanyang Siang Pau, the government has never invoked the Internal Security Act to detain any person in circumstances involving the press. However, the government maintains that the Internal Security Act must remain in force in the laws of Singapore, explaining that, apart from communist threats which are today negligible, "there are also other security threats such as communalism, religious extremism, international terrorism, espionage and subversion from sources other than the communists." 54 PARL. DEB. 663, 686-87 (1989) (Sing.).
91. See also 63 PARL. DEB. 89, 201 (1994) (Sing.)
92. Cheong, supra note 23.
93. See 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 372 (1986) (Sing.).
94. See Official Secrets Act (Cap. 213, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.).
95. See id. § 3(1)(c).
96. See also Tan Ooi Boon, What is an Official Secret?-Test is Whether Info is Authorized, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 25 July 1997.
97. Pub. Prosecutor v. Manu s/o Bhaskaran, Magis. App. No. 79/94/01, 29 Aug. 1995 (Unreported Subordinate Ct. case) (Sing.).
98. See Peter Seidlitz, Sense of Responsibility Must Follow Power of Press: BG Yeo, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 12 Aug. 1993.
99. See also Kwong, supra note 24, at 220-21.
100. The argument that the widely drafted section 5(1) of the Official Secrets Act is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution has been judicially considered and rejected. See Pub. Prosecutor v. Phua Keng Tong, [1986] 1 SING. L. REP. 168, 173 (High Ct.), per Thean J.
101. See also Bridges Christopher v. Pub. Prosecutor, [1997] 1 SING. L. REP. 406 (High Ct.), per Yong C.J.
102. Sedition Act (Cap. 290, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 3. Again, this is inherited from the British colonial administration. See Skeletons in My Closet: The Sedition Act, Posting of Roy Chui to Chronicles of the Beast, available at http://cyclops686.blogspot.com/2005/10/skeletons-in-my- closet-sedition-act-16.html (16 Oct. 2005).
103. See also Michael Hor & Collin Seah, Selected Issues in the Freedom of Speech and Expression in Singapore, 12 SING. L. REV. 296, 335 (1991).
104. See Sedition Act (Cap. 290, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 3(1)(d).
105. See id. §§ 4(1)(c), 4(1)(d), 9.
106. In Pub. Prosecutor v. Koh Song Huat Benjamin, [2005] SGDC 272 (Dist. Ct.) (Sing.), per Richard Magnus (Senior Dist. J.), esp. ¶ 8.
107. See also Chong Chee Kin, 2 Charged with Making Racist Remarks on Net, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 13 Sept. 2005
108. T. Rajan, Warning for Blogger Who Posted Cartoon of Christ, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 21 July 2006.
109. See Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 2006 (Sing.) cls. 38-39. See also Ministry of Home Affairs, Consultation Paper on the Proposed Penal Code Amendments (8 Nov. 2006), available at http://www.agc.gov.sg/ publications/docs/Penal-Code-Amendment-Bill-Consultation-Paper.pdf.
110. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.). The Act underwent several amendments in its legislative history: Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 6 of 1977 (Sing.)
111. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 9 of 1981 (Sing.)
112. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 1986 (Sing.)
113. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of 1988 (Sing.).
114. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 19 of 1990 (Sing.)
115. and Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 20 of 2002 (Sing.). Consequential amendments were also made to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) by the Media Development Authority of Singapore Act 2002, No. 34 of 2002, § 68 (Sing.) and the Customs (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of 2003, § 26 (Sing.).
116. The Printing Presses Act was repealed following the enactment of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in 1974. See Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, No. 12 of 1974, § 35 (Sing.). See generally Anjali Mohan Ramchand, Freedom of the Press: Regulation Under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, 1974, 11 SING. L. REV. 130 (1990).
117. See 33 PARL. DEB. 905, 913-14 (1974) (Sing.).
118. See id.
119. See id. at 913-32.
120. See id. at 914.
121. See Singapore Press-Pedia, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, supra note 31.
122. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 3(1), 21.
123. Id. § 21(3)(a).
124. Id. § 10(1)(b); Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, No. 12 of 1974, § 9(1)(b) (Sing.).
125. Id. § 10(11); id. § 9(8).
126. Id. §10(1)(c); id. § 9(1)(c).
127. Id. § 10(2); id. § 9(2).
128. Id. § 10(3); id.
129. See id. § 10(11); id. § 9(8).
130. The shareholding limit was 3 percent prior to the Companies (Amendment) Act, No. 21 of 2005 (Sing.).
131. See also Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 11(1). In 2002, the numeral "3 percent" was substituted by the words "substantial shareholder" bearing the same definition under the Companies Act (Cap. 50, 2006 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 81 and Banking Act (Cap. 19, 2003 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 2(1). See Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 2002 (Sing.) cl. 3, inserting § 10A(1).
132. See also 75 PARL. DEB. 1, 130 (2002) (Sing.).
133. See Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 1977, No. 6 of 1977 (Sing.) cl. 2, inserting § 9A(1).
134. See 37 PARL. DEB. 47, 67 (1977) (Sing.).
135. See also R.H. Hickling, Liberty and Law in Singapore, 21 MALAYA L. REV. 1, 10 (1979).
136. See Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 9 of 1981 (Sing.) cl. 2, inserting §§ 9A(1), 9A(2)
137. 40 PARL. DEB. 1223, 1284-286 (1981) (Sing.).
138. It seems that the 3 percent restriction does not apply to government holding companies such as Temasek Holdings and MND Holdings for reasons grounded in the nation's financial investment interests.
139. See 61 PARL. DEB. 660, 680 (1993) (Sing.). Equally unsettling is the fact that although Government-owned companies (GLCs) remain restricted to a holding of not more than 3 percent of the ordinary shares issued by a newspaper company, these are only applied in terms of individual GLCs and not as a whole, thereby creating the possibility that several GLCs may hold a substantial percentage of the ordinary shares of a newspaper company cumulatively, something which is contrary to the monopolistic argument articulated by the government during the enactment of the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act.
140. See 61 PARL. DEB. 660, 681 (1993) (Sing.).
141. See Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 20 of 2002 (Sing.) cl. 3, inserting § 10A(3)
142. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 11(3).
143. See Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) §§ 10(11), 10(15); Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, No. 12 of 1974, §§ 9(8), 12 (Sing.).
144. SPH is a publicly-listed company, which has been the dominant publisher of newspapers (in all four official languages) since it was formed by a merger between Times Publishing Bhd, the Straits TIMES Press group, and SNPL. The publication arm of MediaCorp, the main government-owned broadcasting corporation in Singapore, is the MediaCorp Press. It ran the publication of the free newspaper Today in Singapore from 2000 until the newspaper was acquired by SPH in 2004, following merger operations between SPH and MediaCorp.
145. See ARTICLE 19, Freedom of Expression and the Medi a in Singapore 6 (2005), available at http://www.article19.org/pdfs/publications/ singapore-baseline-study. pdf.
146. See also Seah Chiang Nee, It's Back to Media Monopoly, MALAYSIA STAR , 19 Sept. 2004 available at http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040919st.htm.
147. See 33 PARL. DEB. 905, 914 (1974) (Sing.).
148. Such persons include Lim Kim San, Tony Tan, and S.R. Nathan, the current President of Singapore, who occupied the position of executive chairman for SPH at its inception. See Singapore Press-Pedia, Singapore Press Holdings, available at http://presspedia. journalism.sg/doku.php?id=singapore- press-holdings; How the Press Can Best Serve Singapore, supra note 21.
149. ARTICLE 19, supra note 66, at 33.
150. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was subsequently amended several TIMES (discussed above).
151. CHERIAN GEORGE, ASIA RESEARCH INST., CALIBRATED COERCION AND THE MAINTENANCE OF HEGEMONY IN SINGAPORE 14-15 (2005), available at http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs/wps/wps05-048.pdf. For an extensive account, see generally Seow, supra note 14.
152. Singapore Press-Pedia, Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, supra note 31.
153. See 33 PARL. DEB. 905, 913-14 (1974) (Sing.).
154. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 10(1)(a).
155. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act 1974, No. 12 of 1974, § 9(1)(a) (Sing.).
156. Id § 19(2); id § 10(2).
157. See 48 PARL. DEB. 369, 370 (1986) (Sing.)
158. 48 PARL. DEB. 674, 675 (1986) (Sing.).
159. 48 PARL. DEB. 369, 369 (1986) (Sing.).
160. See also 48 PARL. DEB. 400, 422 (1986) (Sing.).
161. 48 PARL. DEB. 369, 370 (1986) (Sing.).
162. Id.
163. Id.
164. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 24(1).
165. See 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 370 (1986) (Sing.).
166. See 48 PARL. DEB. 369, 373-74 (1986) (Sing.).
167. See also 50 PARL. DEB. 445 (1988) (Sing.).
168. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 24
169. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No.22 of 1986 (Sing.) cl. 4, inserting § 18A. Examples of foreign publications that have been gazetted by the Minister and their circulation cut include: Asian Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, the Far Eastern Economic Review, Time Magazine, Asiaweek (now defunct), and The Economist.
170. See Garry Rodan, Singapore: Information Lockdown, Business as Usual, in LOSING CONTROL: FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN ASIA 169 (Louise Williams & Roland Rich eds., 2000).
171. Asian Wall Street Journal had its circulation reduced from 5000 copies to 400 copies a day in 1987.
172. See Michael Haas, The Politics of Singapore in the 1980s, 19 J. Contemp. Asia 48, 52 (1989). Asiaweek, in 1987, had its circulation reduced from 10,000 copies to 500 copies a week but was subsequently raised to 7500 copies a week after Asiaweek repented. In 1995, its circulation was again reduced to 3000 copies a week following publication of a review of a book, which the Singapore government took serious offense, with.
173. See Francis T. Seow, Newspapers: A Ban Is Not a Ban Unless Restricted, available at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/ documents/APCITY/UNPAN002550.pdf. Far Eastern Economic Review had its circulation reduced from nearly 10,000 copies to 500 copies a week in the 1980s. The Economist's circulation was not reduced after it published a letter of reply by the government in full without omissions but was capped at 7500 copies per issue in 1993.
174. See also Wendy Bokhorst-Heng, Newspapers in Singapore: A Mass Ceremony in the Imagining of the Nation, 24 MEDIA, CULTURE & SOC'Y 559, 566 (2002). It was later de-gazetted and the cap of 7500 copies per issue lifted in 1994. Time Magazine had its circulation reduced from 18,000 copies to 9,000 copies a week in 1986 and subsequently to 2000 copies a week in 1987.
175. But there has been a tendency on the part of a few foreign publications, a very small minority, which try to stir up Singaporean feelings on local issues⋯ . I am not talking about these publications writing one or two unbalanced reports. They may have published these reports based on some incomplete information from which mistaken beliefs and conclusions were formed. We would overlook this if the mistake was genuine. But if the foreign publications resort to a pattern of reporting which seeks to distort the truth on local issues and to arouse the feelings of our people, then it is a different matter.
176. 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 370-71 (1986) (Sing.). However, it remains unclear what would constitute a "pattern" that would invite government intervention in the circulation of foreign publications in Singapore.
177. "Circulation [of foreign publications] in Singapore is a privilege granted by the Singapore government on Singapore's terms. The terms are that they should report us as outsiders for outsiders, i.e. do not become a partisan in our domestic Debate. If they do not want to accept these conditions, they do not have to sell in Singapore." Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore and the Foreign Press, in PRESS SYSTEMS IN ASEAN STATES 117, 123 (Achal Mehra ed., 1989).
178. See also 56 PARL. DEB. 365, 403-04 (1990) (Sing.).
179. See 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 373 (1986) (Sing.).
180. See also 49 PARL. DEB. 670, 672 (1987) (Sing.).
181. 48 PARL. DEB. 385, 408 (1986) (Sing.)
182. 48 PARL. DEB. 400, 422-23 (1986) (Sing.).
183. 56 PARL. DEB. 365, 402 (1990) (Sing.).
184. In 2006, the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) was banned in Singapore after a failure to comply with the payment of $200,000 security bond and appointment of a Singaporean representative under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 23(3)(c)
185. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 1990 (Sing.) cl. 4, inserting § 15A. This was preceded by a defamation action. See Lee Hsien Loong v. Review Publishing Company Ltd and Another and Another Suit, [2007] 2 SING. L. Rep. 453 (High Ct.), [2007] SGHC 24, per Menon J.C.
186. See also Stephen Wright, FEER Misses Deadline for Singapore Representative, Bond, Dow Jones Newswires, available at http://singabloodypore.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/feer-misses-deadline-for- singaporerepresentative-bond/.
187. Aaron Low, PM and MM Sue FEER for Defamation, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 14 Sept. 2006
188. Aaron Low, Gov't Revokes Permit for Circulation, Sale of FEER, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 29 Sept. 2006.
189. Zakir Hussain, FEER to Appeal Against Court Decision to Proceed with Suit, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 30 Nov. 2006; Court Rejects FEER's Final Appeal Attempt, Magazine Has Less Than Two Weeks to File a Defence, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 4 Aug. 2007.
190. Zakir Hussain, FEER's Defence Frivolous, Say Lawyers for PM, MM, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 29 Aug. 2007
191. 56 PARL. DEB. 365, 403 (1990) (Sing.).
192. Newspaper and Printing Presses(Amendment) Act, No. 19 of 1990 (Sing.) cl. 4, inserting § 15A
193. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 23.
194. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 23(7).
195. Id. §§ 23(7)(a), 23.
196. Id. § 23(7)(a).
197. Id. §§ 24(1)-(4).
198. Id. §§ 2(1), 24(1).
199. Dow Jones Publishing Co (Asia) Inc v. Attorney General, [1989] 1 SING. L. REP. 70, 89 (Ct. App.) (Sing.).
200. Parliament in 1986 also gave examples -though not exhaustive- of what could constitute engagement in the domestic politics of Singapore. 48 PARL. DEB. 319, 371 (1986) (Sing.).
201. Id.
202. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 1988, No. 4 of 1988 (Sing.).
203. See also50 PARL. DEB. 425, 445 (1988) (Sing.).
204. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act 1988, No. 4 of 1988 (Sing.) cl. 2, inserting § 17. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 25(2)-25(3).
205. See Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 4 of 1988 (Sing.) cl. 2, inserting § 17.
206. See also 50 PARL. DEB. 425, 447-48 (1988) (Sing.).
207. See 49 PARL. DEB. 663, 671 (1987) (Sing.).
208. Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (Cap. 206, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 24(3).
209. Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 1986 (Sing.) cl. 4, inserting § 18A(3).
210. 50 PARL. DEB. 425, 446 (1988) (Sing.).
211. See also 49 PARL. DEB. 663, 672 (1987) (Sing.).
212. See Rules for Broadcasters on Politics Here, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 20 Apr. 2001.
213. See Rules for Broadcasters on Politics Here, supra note 104.
214. Michael Haas argues: A governmental "right of reply" is indeed odd. The concept of political rights can be traced to 18th century philosophers ⋯ who argued that government's primary justification was to guarantee to individuals certain basic rights that would be denied in a condition of either anarchy or autocracy⋯. It is a non sequitur for a government to declare a "right," especially a government with all the power of the one in Singapore. Governments asserting that a right to restrict information takes precedence over the right of the people to get information are indeed called "totalitarian." Haas, supra note 84.
215. See, e.g., How the Press Can Best Serve Singapore, supra note 21
216. Chin, supra note 1.
217. Not Drifting with the Tide but Evolving with Each Step Forward, supra note 9
218. Singapore "is an unusual country, we run it our way," STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 20 Aug. 1997
219. Chua Mui Hoong, Govt-Media Relations: Aim for Mutual Respect, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 11 Nov. 2005.
220. Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, Conquer the Enemy Within, Outlive the One Without, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 9 May 1997
221. Striving for Credibility and Trust, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 26 June 2007
222. Cheong Yip Seng, Press Must Help to Improve Economic Edge of the Nation, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 3 Dec. 1994
223. Chua Lee Hoong, Singapore, in WALKING THE TIGHTROPE: PRESS FREEDOM AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS IN ASIA 142, 148-55 (Asad Latif ed., 1999).
224. See Of OB Markers and Growing Open Spaces, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 10 Jan. 2004
225. Minister Yeo on OB Markers and Internet, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 26 May 1999, available at http://www.singapore- window.org/sw99/90526st.htm.
226. See the allegations made in JAMES GOMEZ, SELF-CENSORSHIP: SINGAPORE'S SHAME (2000).
227. See, e.g., Lim Jim Koon, Responsible Journalism-A Viable Alternative to Western "Press Freedom," STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 12 Nov. 1995.
228. See Peh Shing Huei, Embrace Talent, Technology to Secure S'pore's Future: PM, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 21 Aug. 2006.
229. See Today Paper Suspends Blogger's Column, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 7 July 2006.
230. See also Hoong, supra note 107.
231. See e.g., Francis Low Pooi Fong, Commentary, in SPACE, SPACES and SPACING 36-38 (1996).
232. Chua Beng-Huat, Still Awaiting New Initiatives: Democratization in Singapore, 21(2) Asian Stud. Rev. 120, 123 (1997).
233. See, e.g., 48 PARL. DEB. 385, 407 (1986) (Sing.).
234. See Special Role Media Play in Singapore, NEW STRAITS TIMES (Malay.), 30 Sept. 2000, available at http://www.singapore-window.org/sw00/000930ns.htm, which quoted Ivan Lim, President of the Singapore Confederation of ASEAN Journalists, as saying, "Newspaper editors are also co-opted to serve in the nation-building political agenda of the ruling People's Action Party" and "In the context of Singapore's media, [Singapore] not only have full-fledged journalists but also former bureaucrats who understand government policies and are very loyal to the government."
235. See Zakir Hussain, Faces May Change but Malay Voice Stays, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 19 Apr. 2006.
236. On the dynamics of judicial-executive relations in Singapore and the allegations made therein, see generally Ross Worthington, Between Hermes and Themis: An Empirical Study of the Contemporary Judiciary in Singapore, 28 J. L. & SOC'Y. 490 (2001).
237. See, e.g., Tan Tarn How, S'pore 2002-How the International Press Saw It, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 28 Dec. 2002; ARTICLE 19, supra note 66, at 51.
238. See, e.g., Eric Ellis, Singapore Authorities use Libel Law to Silence Critics, THE AUSTRALIA, 26 Sept. 2002, available at http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020926au.htm.
239. See Lee Kuan Yew v. Jeyaretnam J B (No 1), [1990] 3 Malayan L.J. 322 (High Ct.) (Sing.), [1990] 1 SING. L. REP. 688, [1990] SGHC 51.
240. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1990] 2 Malayan L.J. 65 (Ct. App.) (Sing.).
241. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1992] 2 SING. L. REP. 310 (Ct. App.), [1992] SGCA 27.
242. Attorney-General v. Pang Cheng Lian & Ors., [1972-1974] 1 SING. L. REP. 658 (High Ct.), per Wee C.J.
243. Attorney-General v. Wain & Ors. (No. 1), [1991] 1 SING. L. REP. 383, 393, 398 (High Ct.), per Sinnathuray J.
244. Attorney-General v. Chee Soon Juan, [2006] 2 SING. L. REP. 650 (High Ct.), [2006] SGHC 54, ¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 29, per Lai J.
245. Attorney General v. Lingle & Ors., [1995] 1 SING. L. REP. 696, 701 (High Ct.), per Goh J.
246. See New York TIMES Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
247. Lingens v. Austria, App. No. 9815/82, 8 Eur. H.R. Rep. 407 (1986)
248. Reynolds v. TIMES Newspaper Ltd., [2001] 2 A.C. 127 (H.L.) (U.K.).
249. Jameel and Others v. Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 A.C. 359 (U.K.).
250. Jacob Rowbottom, Libel and the Public Interest, 66 CAMBRIDGE L.J. 8-11 (2007).
251. Frederick Schauer puts it most succinctly in Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry 173-74 (1982).
252. See also Hector v. AG of Antigua and Barbuda, [1990] 2 A.C. 312, 318 (P.C.) (appeal taken from Ant. & Barb.) (UK), per Lord Bridge.
253. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1992] 2 SING. L. REP. 310 (Ct. App.), [1992] SGCA 27, per Thean J.
254. Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1998] 1 SING. L. REP. 97 (Ct. App.), [1997] SGCA 52, ¶¶ 117-118, per Thean J.App.
255. See also Lee Hsien Loong v. Singapore Democratic Party and Others and Another Suit, [2007] 1 SING. L. REP. 675 (High Ct.), [2006] SGHC 220, ¶ 76.
256. Amended by Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, No. 11 of 1991 (Sing.). See the Statutes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (Commencement) Notification, No. S527 of 1991 (Sing.), with effect from 30 November 1991.
257. See also Defamation Act (Cap. 75, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.)
258. Lee Kuan Yew v. Jeyaretnam J B, [1978-1979] 1 SING. L. REP. 429 (High Ct.), [1979] SGHC 35, ¶ 48, per Chua J.
259. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1992] 2 SING. L. REP. 310 (Ct. App.), [1992] SGCA 27, ¶ 72, per Thean J.
260. Lee Kuan Yew v. J B Jeyaretnam (No 1), [1990] 3 Malayan L.J. 322 (High Ct.) (Sing.), [1990] 1 SING. L. REP. 688, [1990] SGHC 51, ¶¶ 46, 51, per Lai J.
261. See CONSTITUTION OF THE RePUBLIC OF SINGAPORE art. 45(1).
262. See, e.g., GAIL DAVIDSON & HOWARD RUBIN, LAWYER's RIGHTS WATCH CANADA, DEFAMATION IN SINGAPORE: REPORT TO LRWC IN THE MATTER OF JOSHUA BENJAMIN JEYARETNAM AND TWO APPEAL IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE, available at http://www.lrwc.org/pub2.php?sid=18
263. Kelley Bryan & Howard Rubin, Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada, THE MISUSE OF BANKRUPTCY LAW IN SINGAPORE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE MATTER OF RE JOSHUA BENJAMIN JEYARETNAM, EXPARTE INDRA KRISHNAN, available at http://www.lrwc.org/pub2.php?sid=41.
264. AMNESTY INT'L, SINGAPORE: Defamation Sui ts Threaten Chee Soon Juan and Erode Freedom of Expression, available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA360102001?open&of=ENG-SGP. Amnesty Int'l, Singapore: J B Jeyar etnam, The Use of Defa mati on Sui ts for Politica l Purposes, available at http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ engASA360041997?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CSINGAPORE.
265. See also James Gomez, Restricting Free Speech: The Impact on Opposition Parties in Singapore, 23 COPENHAGEN J. ASIAN STUD. 105, 111 (2006).
266. See, e.g., Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. v. Tang Liang Hong & Ors. and Other Actions, [1997] 3 SING. L. REP. 91 (High Ct.) (Sing.), [1997] SGHC 138, ¶ 110, per Chao J.
267. Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. and Other Appeals, [1998] 1 SING. L. REP. 97 (Ct. App.), [1997] SGCA 52, ¶¶ 113-14, 118-19, per Thean J. App.
268. Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. v. Vinocur & Ors. and Another Action, [1995] 3 SING. L. REP. 477 (High Ct.), [1995] SGHC 201, ¶ 10, per Goh J.
269. Lee Kuan Yew v. Vinocur & Ors., [1996] 2 SING. L. REP. 542 (High Ct.), [1996] SGHC 73, ¶¶ 2-3, per Rajendran J.
270. See Economist Magazine Apologises to PM, REUTERS, 2 Sept. 2004, available at http://www.singapore-window.org/sw04/040902re.htm.
271. [1989] 1 SING. L. REP. 1063 (High Ct.), [1989] SGHC 111, ¶¶ 38, 137, per Thean J.
272. [1995] 3 SING. L. REP. 477, [1995] SGHC 201, ¶¶ 13, 67, per Goh J. The first and second plaintiffs were awarded S$300,000 each, and S$350,000 was awarded to the third plaintiff. Further, the second defendant was made jointly liable with the other defendants for the S$300,000 award and solely liable to the plaintiff for the additional S$100,000: Lee Kuan Yew v. Vinocur & Ors., [1996] 2 SING. L. REP. 542 (High Ct.), [1996] SGHC 73, ¶ 29, per Rajendran J.
273. See, e.g., Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. v. Tang Liang Hong & Ors. and Other Actions, [1997] 3 SING. L. REP. 91 (High Ct.), [1997] SGHC 138, per Chao J.
274. Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. and Other Appeals, [1998] 1 SING. L. REP. 97 (Ct. App.), [1997] SGCA 52, per Thean J. App.
275. The primacy of protecting institutional reputational interests over free speech is also evident in contempt of court cases involving imputations of the judiciary.
276. See, e.g., Attorney General v. Wain & Ors. (No. 1), [1991] 2 Malayan L.J. 525 (High Ct.) (Sing.), [1991] 1 SING. L. REP. 383, per Sinnathuray J.
277. Attorney General v. Lingle & Ors., [1995] 1 SING. L. REP. 696 (High Ct.), [1995] SGHC 31, per Goh J.
278. Sumiko Tan, Judge Explains Why All Defendants Were Found Guilty of Contempt, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 12 Jan. 1991
279. Cheng Shoong Tat, Don't Follow Britain's Free Speech Bias AG, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 12 Feb. 1990
280. Simon S. C. Tay, When Comment is Not Contempt Limits of Free Speech in S'pore, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 28 May 1996.
281. See also Attorney-General v. Chee Soon Juan, [2006] 2 SING. L. REP. 650 (High Ct.), [2006] SGHC 54, ¶ 25, per Lai J. Goh Chok Tong v. Chee Soon Juan (No 2), [2005] 1 SING. L. REP. 573 (High Ct.), [2005] SGHC 3, ¶ 69, per Kan J.
282. Lee Kuan Yew v. Chee Soon Juan (No 2), [2005] 1 SING. L. REP. 552 (High Ct.), [2005] SGHC 2, ¶ 93, per Kan J; Many People Around the World "Embrace Junzi Principle," STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 22 Aug. 1997
283. Leslie Koh, Govt Won't Let Reputation for Integrity be Tarnished: MM, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 29 Apr. 2006.
284. See, e.g., Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. v. Tang Liang Hong & Ors. and Other Actions, [1997] 3 SING. L. REP. 91 (High Ct.), [1997] SGHC 138, ¶ 110, per Chao J. Compare Goh Chok Tong v. Chee Soon Juan (No 2), [2005] 1 SING. L. REP. 573 (High Ct.), [2005] SGHC 3, ¶ 72 ("An award of $300,000 [to the Prime Minister] is appropriate in this case. This is higher than the $200,000 awarded in Suit No. 1459 as I took into account Mr. Goh's office, the number of statements made, the persistence and hostility shown when the statements were made, and the wider republication of the statements."), with Lee Kuan Yew v. Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] 1 SING. L. REP. 552 (High Ct.), [2005] SGHC 2, ¶ 96, per Kan J (awarding S$200,000 in damages in a defamation suit against the Minister Mentor).
285. See also Courts Here "Should Protect Political Leaders," STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 9 May 1997. Compare the awards of S$350,000 for the Prime Minister and S$300,000 for the Senior Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. v. Vinocur & Ors. and Another Action, [1995] 3 SING. L. REP. 477 (High Ct.), [1995] SGHC 201, ¶ 67, per Goh J. Also notable is the difference between an award of S$150,000 to the Deputy Prime Minister and S$130,000 to a Cabinet Minister in Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. and Other Appeals, [1998] 1 SING. L. REP. 97 (Ct. App.), [1997] SGCA 52, ¶ 189, per Thean J. Finally, compare the previous awards of S$120,000 and S$50,000 to an opposition member of Parliament.
286. See Chiam See Tong v. Ling How Doong & Ors., [1997] 1 SING. L. REP. 648 (High Ct.), [1996] SGHC 293, ¶ 90, per Sinnathuray J.
287. Chiam See Tong v. Xin Zhang Jiang Restaurant Pte Ltd, [1995] 3 SING. L. REP. 196 (High Ct.), [1995] SGHC 109, ¶ 11, per Lai J.
288. See Lee Kuan Yew v. Jeyaretnam JB (No. 1), [1990] 3 Malayan L.J. 322 (High Ct.) (Sing.), [1990] 1 SING. L. REP. 688, 709, per Lai J.
289. See also Cheng Shoong Tat, PM Lee Awarded $260,000 in Damages, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), 4 Aug. 1990
290. Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. and Other Appeals, [1998] 1 SING. L. REP. 97 (Ct. App.), [1997] SGCA 52, ¶ 128, per Thean J. App.; Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1992] 2 SING. L. REP. 310 (Ct. App.), [1992] SGCA 27, ¶ 84, per Thean J.
291. Jeyaretnam J B v. Lee Kuan Yew, [1979] 2 Malayan L.J. 282, 285 (Ct. App.) (Sing.), [1978-1979] 1 SING. L. REP. 197, [1979] SGCA 13, ¶ 19, per Wee C.J.
292. See also Tang Liang Hong v. Lee Kuan Yew & Anor. and Other Appeals, [1998] 1 Sing, L.R. 97 (Ct. App.), [1997] SGCA 52, ¶ 128, per Thean J. App.
293. For a discussion of aggravated damages, see Lee Kuan Yew v. Chee Soon Juan (No 2), [2005] 1 SING. L. REP. 552 (High Ct.), [2005] SGHC 2, ¶ 89-94, per Kan J.
294. Goh Chok Tong v. Chee Soon Juan (No 2), [2005] 1 SING. L. REP. 573 (High Ct.), [2005] SGHC 3, ¶ 65-70, per Kan J.
295. See also Goh Chok Tong v. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin, [1998] 1 SING. L. REP. 547 (High Ct.), [1997] SGHC 243, ¶ 200, per Rajendran J.
296. Goh Chok Tong v. Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin and Another Action, [1998] 3 SING. L. REP. 337 (Ct. App.), [1998] SGCA 42, ¶¶ 51, 55, 59, per Yong C.J.
297. Defamation Act (Cap. 75, 1985 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 12, The Schedule.
298. See Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 1999 Rev. Ed. Sing.) § 7(1).
299. See Attorney-General v. Chee Soon Juan, [2006] 2 SING. L. REP. 650 (High Ct.), [2006] SGHC 54, ¶ 36, per Lai J.
300. See also F.A. Trindade & H.P. Lee, Freelance Journalists and Contempt of Court, 17 MALAYA L. REV. 233 (1975).
301. [1972-1974] 1 SING. L. REP. 658, 659, 667 (High Ct.), per Wee C.J.
302. Id. at 660.
303. See Workers' Party v. Tay Boon Too, [1972-1974] 1 SING. L. REP. 621 (High Ct.), [1974] SGHC 18, per Chua J.
304. Attorney-General v. Pang Cheng Lian & Ors., [1972-1974] 1 SING. L. REP. 658, 666, per Wee C.J.
305. See also Trindade & Lee, supra note 141, at 237.
306. [1991] 1 SING. L. Rep. 383, 387, 399, 400 (High Ct.), per Sinnathuray J.
307. See Lee Kuan Yew v. Davies & Ors., [1989] 1 SING. L. REP. 1063 (High Ct.), [1989] SGHC 111, [1990] 1 Malayan L.J. 390, per Thean J.
308. [1991] 1 SING. L. REP. 383, 397 (High Ct.), per Sinnathuray J.: [I]t is settled law that any publication which alleges bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge in the exercise of his judicial function which has terminated is a contempt of court ⋯: . [I]t is sufficient to prove that the words complained of have the inherent tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
309. [2006] SGHC 54 (High Ct.), [2006] 2 SING. L. REP. 650, ¶ 31, per Lai J.
310. [1995] 1 SING. L. Rep. 696, 699, 702, 703, 710 (High Ct.), per Goh J. The contentious paragraph reads: The intolerant regimes of the region reveal considerable ingenuity in their methods of suppressing dissidents. Techniques range from outright imprisonment, or worse, to relying upon a compliant judiciary to bankrupt opposition politicians or buying out enough of the opposition to take control in a "democratic" fashion not to mention crushing unarmed students with tanks. By contrast, trade unionists in Europe seldom face such pressures.
311. Christopher Lingle, The Smoke Over Parts of Asia Obscures Some Profound Concerns, INT'L HERALD TRIBUNE, 7 Oct. 1994, available at http://www.iht.com/articles/1994/10/07/chis.php.
312. [1991] 1 SING. L. Rep. 383, 398 (High Ct.), per Sinnathuray J. See the reaffirmation of this position in: Attorney General v. Chee Soon Juan, [2006] SGHC 54 (High Ct.) (Sing.), [2006] 2 SING. L. REP. 650, ¶ 44, per Lai J.
313. See [1995] 1 SING. L. REP. 696, 701 (High Ct.), per Goh J.
314. See id Attorney General v. Chee Soon Juan, [2006] 2 SING. L. Rep. 650, 663-664, ¶ 42 (High Ct.), [2006] SGHC 54, referring to Ambard v. Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago, [1936] A.C. 322, 335 (P.C.) (appeal taken from Trin. & Tobago) (U.K.).
315. Attorney General v. Lingle & Ors., [1995] 1 SING. L. REP. 696, 697, 701 (High Ct.), per Goh J.
316. Attorney General v. Wain & Ors. (No. 1), [1991] 1 SING. L. REP. 383, 395 (High Ct.), per Sinnathuray J.
317. [2006] 2 SING. L. REP. 650 (High Ct.), [2006] SGHC 54, ¶ 31, per Lai J.
318. A range of international bodies have made harsh allegations questioning the integrity of Singapore's legal system. See, for example the allegations made by the Bar Association of the City of New York: What emerges ⋯: is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual. Singapore is not a country in which individual rights have significant meaning.
319. Statement of Chee Soon Juan submitted to the High Court, Singapore at the Bankruptcy Petition Hearing on 10 February 2006, available at http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2006statements/431/.
320. See also International Commission of Jurists, Singapore-ICJ Condemns Parody of Justice in Singapore, available at http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id-article=3334&lang=en ("These legal actions, before compliant courts, which result in political opponents being silenced through crippling awards of damages, undermine the rule of law and infringe the right to freedom of expression.")
321. AMNESTY INT'L, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2007, available at http://report2007.amnesty.org/eng/ Regions/Asia-Pacific/Singapore.