Singapore has ban Far Eastern Economic Review
-
By Jackson Sawatan
SINGAPORE, Sept 28 (Bernama) -- Singapore has revoked the circulation and distribution approval to the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) magazine for failure by its publisher to comply with conditions under the republic's Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA).
The conditions required FEER, a magazine published by Dow Jones & Co Inc, to appoint a representative authorised to accept service of any notice or legal process on behalf of the publisher, and submit a security deposit of S$200,000.
"FEER had not complied by the Sept 11 deadline, nor has it complied till today, despite a reminder," the Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts said in a statement.
With the revocation, which took effect Thursday, it will become an offence for any person to sell or distribute the magazine in the republic, or import it or possess it for sale or distribution.
The ministry said: "It is a privilege and not a right for foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore. If any foreign newspaper fails to comply with the law, including the NPPA, they cannot expect to enjoy this privilege".
Singapore gazetted FEER as "a declared foreign newspaper" on Dec 26, 1987 "for interfering in the domestic politics of Singapore" and later classified it as an offshore newspaper following an amendment to the NPPA.
In December 2004, FEER changed from a weekly to a monthly publication and, as a result, it ceased to be an offshore newspaper and was allowed to circulate in Singapore without having to comply with the conditions for offshore newspapers.
The magazine, with a circulation cap of 10,000 copies, however remained "a declared foreign newspaper" but in August, the ministry said: "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 newspapers".
Following that, the government issued notice to FEER to comply with the conditions under the NPPA by Sept 11.
FEER is currently being sued by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, over an article pertaining to opposition leader Dr Chee Soon Juan, which was published in the July issue of the magazine.
-- BERNAMA -
FEER/Danish Aid issues - we could handle it better!
Dr. Alamgir Hussain
Singapore!
When the horrendous handling of the FEER article issue still attracting a lot of flaks, our Govt again went about the Danish Aid withdrawal issue in its most callous way, just what was expected from our political guardians? I just wonder if we are ever going learn the educated way of handling of things.
The banning of FEER and taking them to court immediately without giving any look into the allegations have only brought shame to the country in the international arena. Now we are again going to the length of challenging the Danish Govt to prove their allegations. I hope the Govt donÂ’t go to the length of taking Danish Govt to court on defamation charges. I just wonder why we canÂ’t just be a little more rational and learn to handle such issues in a civilized way.
I donÂ’t believe just a FEER article can bring shame to our country if we are really not what as being reflected in the article, the truth is bound to prevail and we must have come out clean if appropriate steps being taken. It is rather the GovtÂ’s unthoughtful reactions to these issues which is bringing added shame and unforeseen consequences, which can very grave, to our nation.
I donÂ’t wish to give any knowledge to our Govt which is pointless anyway but I just want to cite a couple of examples which can, I think, make our Govt and people give a rethink to their attitude. Malaysia has long been targeted by the US as everybody knows and the post 9/11 period was definitely not smooth for Mahathir.
Two major allegations were made against Malaysia during that period which I believe were graver than the FEER allegation. Firstly Whitehouse sought to take over-n-covert actions in Malaysia (along with Indonesia), similar way in Afghanistan, alleging the presence of Al-Qaida cells inside their territory. What was MahathirÂ’s response, a cool one: We donÂ’t think we need AmericaÂ’s assistance to fight terrorism; if they have any intelligence data we will definitely look into it.
Second allegation was, when the CBI investigation found out a Malaysian national was closely involved in the 9-11 attack, white house came out with this sensation-creating allegation that ‘Malaysia was the launching-pad for the Sept-11 attack’. Mahathir’s reply was again simple, ‘I don’t think just one person’s involvement makes Malaysia the launching-pad for the attack when all the terrorist got their training and everything inside the US’. Of course Malaysia had arrested the terrorist even before America found his link to the attack.
Even after such wild allegations, I believe MalaysiaÂ’s impression has only brightened to the world and even to Whitehouse after the Sept-11 tragedy and Mahathir getting frequent invitations and meetings with Mr Bush. I just wonder, if those kind of wild allegations were made against our country how our mindless Govt could have reacted! I just donÂ’t understand why the judicious guardian of the country couldnÂ’t initiate an investigation and ask FEER as well as the Danish Govt to assist in it instead of going for such wild and ferocious rejections of the allegations.
After the investigation if we were truly clean FEER and Danish Govt must have withdrawn their allegations and we could prove it to the world. Now I think every door has been closed to show our cleanness with unknown consequences to hang on over our shoulder. We need those money and aid and with such uncivilized behaviour on display, who is going to come to show sympathy to our country. ItÂ’s twenty first century and I think itÂ’s time we learn some civility and rationality. Else we are doomed to be an isolated state like the TalibanÂ’s Afghanistan, SaddamÂ’s Iraq or KhomeiniÂ’s Iran. Do we afford that?
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Recent_Debate/feer_alamgir.htm -
LET THIS BE A WARNING TO ALL FOREIGN MEDIA TO THINK TWICE BEFORE CIRCULATING THEIR MAGAZINES IN SINGAPORE!!!
-
Then why they also ban Playboy... Playboy never say anything bad about them meh...
I wonder when will Playboy sell its first copy here... Even Indonesia have liao... we are still behind! -
Some minister said some countries marginalise this and that, I think that explains.Originally posted by zocoss:Then why they also ban Playboy... Playboy never say anything bad about them meh...
I wonder when will Playboy sell its first copy here... Even Indonesia have liao... we are still behind! -
the gahmen hates 'bunnies'.. didn't u know tat?Originally posted by zocoss:Then why they also ban Playboy... Playboy never say anything bad about them meh...
I wonder when will Playboy sell its first copy here... Even Indonesia have liao... we are still behind! -
Because we are a CLEAN, STRAIGHT, and TRANSPARENT country...Originally posted by zocoss:Then why they also ban Playboy... Playboy never say anything bad about them meh...
I wonder when will Playboy sell its first copy here... Even Indonesia have liao... we are still behind! -
I tot this is old news liao!
Unless kena banned again?
Mebbe FireIce is behind this.......... -
Statement of the Far Eastern Economic Review
September 28, 2006The 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.
2.we may have narrower scope of so called free expressions compared
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. TodayÂ’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 governmentÂ’s actions in the next issue of the magazine to appear on October 6.
with other banana countries,but our kids need not dig in trash mountain
nor i am forced to work in overseas.eg doctors become nurse,
architect become foreman ,teachers become maid,etc...
Thanks the Almighty,we have a bowl of rice to eat,though we
cant protest as we like,unless B... Sh... in Speaker Corner.
This is the small price we have to pay.
But to u,this kind of restrictions can over write every other
achievements of the system.Is it fair??
3.Will FEER do and talk somethings to help the banana countries
and leave this little red dot alone.
if we not happy,we can just emgriate legally.Thanks for your kind attention.
cos our profile dunt suite your mindset:
Not free political systems,but high GDP and standard of living,
Intervented economics ,but most diversified industries,
not to mention our billions of reserve....the result of the not-so-free
systems. -
The heading of this thread should have read as 'LKY ban Far Eastern Economic Review' - as it was the Lee's who have sought legal actions to stop foreign publications from commenting on Singapore internal politics'.
What is the implication of such a legislative move to have the foreign publications register itself in Singapore, placing a hefty sum as security deposit, and appointing a resident Representative in Singapore for the Foreign Publication ?
This is clearly an attempt to allow the POWER OF ONE to reach out to grab someone locally, and institute punitive actions to extract maximum examplary pecuniary punishments, so as to prevent any form of critical commentaries of local Singapore politics.
The following is an extract from the publication AsiaSentinel
Legal Warfare
John Berthelsen
19 September 2006
Singapore is again using the courts to harass the foreign media only this time the case could have an impact beyond its borders
Like Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah before his troops captured two Israeli soldiers and turned Lebanon into a conflagration, Far Eastern Economic Review editor Hugo Restall probably had no idea what he was starting when he interviewed often-sued and perpetually beleaguered Singapore opposition leader Chee Soon Juan in the Far Eastern Economic Review. The result was another form of asymmetrical warfare, the Review vs. Singapore.
The suit is significant because for the first time there could be a Singapore attempt to collect libel damages outside the city-state itself. That in turn could have far-reaching ramifications for press freedom in Hong Kong, where the Review is published.
The Far Eastern Economic Review, now a monthly magazine of commentary and opinion, is being sued by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, the countryÂ’s founder, and his son, Lee Hsien Loong, the current prime minister, for unspecified damages in connection with the interview, which among other things contained stinging observations about Singapore, the Lees and other issues.
Almost immediately after the article ran, the government slapped controls not only on the Review, which circulates about 3,000 copies there, but on four more foreign media companies publishing there -- the others being the International Herald Tribune, the Financial Times, Newsweek and Time Magazine, requiring them to post a security deposit of S$200,000 and appoint a local agent authorized to accept service of any notice or legal process on behalf of the publisher in the event that the government decides to sue, as it often does if it feels itself slighted.
The Lees followed up that action with a lawsuit filed Aug. 22 against Restall and the magazine, alleging, for instance, that the elder Lee had been “gravely injured in his character and reputation and {had} been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt” by references to him in the article.
Restall refused comment on the case.
The LeeÂ’s lawyers first sent a letter to Review Publishing on July 18, demanding that the Review remove the offending article from its website, apologize and pay unspecified damages by July 24. The Review responded by offering to post the letter on their website and to publish an interview with Lee Kuan Yew although the magazine refused to post the S$200,000 bond required by the government, which probably means the magazineÂ’s next edition will not be allowed to circulate.
The plantiffs, however, charged that the Review was attempting to profit from the libel through the interview, which theoretically would give the magazine wider circulation than it normally enjoys.
No government official has ever lost a lawsuit in Singapore, and it is improbable that they would lose this one. The question now is whether the Lees and Singapore intend to carry their threat outside the city-state itself.
The negligible amount of assets the Review holds in Singapore makes it unlikely that the Lees or Singapore could recoup significant damages within the country itself. Firewalls erected between sister companies mean that Dow Jones Corporation, which owns the publication, would probably be protected from any defamation judgment case as well.
In this case, the government could take advantage of a Commonwealth statute that allows for reciprocal enforcement of damages and ask the Hong Kong courts to order the Review to pay up.
Many critics say the plaintiffs would be laughed out of any country with a rational legal system. But in this case, it isnÂ’t a libel suit that would be filed. It would simply be implementation of a treaty allowing mutual execution of damages.
It isnÂ’t certain that the courts would automatically do that. A Singaporean judgment would first have to be registered in Hong KongÂ’s Court of First Instance, where it would be enforced like a local judgment. The Review would have the right to raise objections and set out reasons that the judgment shouldnÂ’t be honored. And in that action lies serious concern for press freedom in Hong Kong.
“The worst case is if the Hong Kong court accepted the conclusion and sought to extract damages from the Review,” said David Plott, a former Review editor and current deputy director of Journalism and Media Studies at Hong Kong University. “The ability of the Singapore government to see its standards of press freedom spread to someplace else like Hong Kong would be doubly alarming.”
In fact, Plott said, given rising concerns about press freedom in China, where the government has increasingly gone after both domestic and foreign journalists for critical reporting, “the greatest irony would be if Singapore rather than China would end up the greatest threat to press freedom in Hong Kong.”
(continue below) -
(continuating post]
Singapore and the Lee family have long been famous for producing lawsuits against journalists, both foreign and domestic. The media watchdog organization Reporters Without Borders, ranks Singapore 140th out of 167 surveyed countries in terms of freedom of the press. The country has been kicking foreign journalists out for writing critical articles about the republic since the early 1970s.
The Singaporean media, largely government-linked corporations, treat the government with kid gloves.
The proclivity to hit foreign media organizations in their pocket, though, has not only paid dividends in Singapore, where foreign media based there have largely left the government alone. The concept has spread to other countries, including Thailand, where Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has filed a massive libel action against his most vocal critic, Sondhi Limtongkul, the media magnate who controls Manager Group. In Malaysia various political figures have used libel laws to bat down pesky journalists and in the Philippines, Jose Miguel Arroyo, the scandal-tarred husband of President Gloria Arroyo, has brought suit against six politicians, two publishers and 12 editors and writers and is threatening to sue three more journalists and, a congressman.
The practice is also catching on in China where, according to an exhaustive study of libel actions by Benjamin L. Liebman in the Harvard Law Review, cases are being brought “by local public officials, government and Communist Party entities, or corporations to punish and control the increasingly aggressive Chinese media. In these cases, courts serve as state institutions at the local, as opposed to central, level to restrict and retaliate against the media and to block central oversight.”
In other cases, Liebman found, “persons without power or party-state ties sue the media, which, despite widespread commercialization, virtually all continue to be linked to the Chinese Party-state. Many such cases are brought by ordinary persons against Communist Party mouthpiece newspapers. (These cases) thus represent a deployment of the courts by ordinary citizens against state entities. Empirical evidence from 223 defamation cases studied in this Article indicates that the media lose the overwhelming majority of cases on both tracks.”
In Singapore’s case, however, the controversy comes as the government is also embarrassing itself by refusing to allow any protests at the meeting of 16,000 delegates to the World Bank/International Monetary Fund annual conference. Instead of showing itself as a hospitable, modern city, Singapore has reneged on a pledge to the international financial organizations, exiling protesters to Batam, an Indonesian island across the Strait of Malacca from the city state. That earned the government a rebuke from the leaders of the two financial organizations. World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz called the government “authoritarian” and said that “a lot of damage has been done, and it’s self-inflicted.”
Ultimately, faced with pressure from the two organizations, the government had to back down in its effort to bar 27 representatives of foreign nongovernmental organizations from the conference. It let in 22 of them although protests have been muted at best in a heavily guarded city that pressed 10,000 law enforcement officials into service to guard the well-being of the delegates. -
Playboy Indonesia is just like FHM and FHM is already in Singapore. What kind of Playboy you want?
