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 countrys 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 Lees 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 magazines 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 isnt a libel
suit that would be filed. It would simply be implementation
of a treaty allowing mutual execution of damages.
It isnt certain that the courts would automatically do that. A
Singaporean judgment would first have to be registered in Hong
Kongs 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 shouldnt 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)
