Singapore’s High Commissioner to London claims the government never banned the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER). Here’s exactly how they did.

Singapore’s leaders have never been too good with accepting criticism so it comes as no surprise that one of our diplomats in a faraway land should, out of some patriotic fervour, or perhaps a misplaced sense of justice, find it necessary to correct The Economist on so minor a point. Actually, the point isn’t as minor as the attempt to correct it is. Does this diplomat seriously think he will succeed in preserving the non-existent reputation of Singapore as the epitome of media freedom? Nonetheless, here are the facts.

In a report on the demise of the Far Eastern Economic Review, “Without FEER or favour“, The Economist pointed out something very few of us would disagree with.

Partly because it was a must-read, strongmen took exception to its plain talk. Correspondents have been jailed in China, Malaysia and Singapore. The Review has a long history of being taken on by Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore’s courts. Indeed, it is currently appealing against a libel ruling in favour of Mr Lee, Singapore’s “minister mentor”, and his son, the prime minister. Not for the first time, the Review is banned in Singapore.

Yet Michael Eng Cheng Teo, Singapore’s High Commissioner to London, felt such a great sense of indignation that he had to write in to The Economist to protest. Here’s the letter to The Economist which was published in the very next print edition of the magazine. (I like how The Economist really respects the right to reply.)

Singapore’s media laws

SIR – Banyan’s column wrongly stated that “not for the first time” the Far Eastern Economic Review “is banned in Singapore” (September 26th). The journal has never been banned in Singapore. At one time its circulation was restricted, but copies with the advertisements blanked out were circulated freely. This ensured the free flow of information, but prevented the Review from profiting commercially from engaging in our domestic politics.

Under our laws, offshore newspapers wishing to circulate in Singapore must post a security bond and appoint a local representative for service of legal process. The weekly Review had complied with these rules, as The Economist currently does itself. Unfortunately, in 2006 the monthly Review declined to comply and voluntarily discontinued circulating in Singapore.

Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High commissioner for Singapore
London

Michael Eng claims that the FEER was “never banned in Singapore”. Yet a ban would mean that the publication was forbidden by law to continue circulating in Singapore and that precisely was what happened; the law was tweaked to force FEER to post a S$200,000 deposit or have its circulation curtailed.

What really happened

There was a brief exchange of letters which was in summary, an attempt by FEER to placate the Lees by offering them an unedited right of reply, which was rejected and pee’d upon (for lack of a better word), then followed by a notice that legal proceedings would be initiated and a request for the name of FEER’s Singapore lawyer. Of course FEER didn’t have a Singapore lawyer since having no legal presence in Singapore, it had no need for local counsel. Instead FEER requested that the trial take place in New York or Hong Kong. Lee’s legal counsel did not reply to this request. I don’t know what he did with the letter, but one might think he used it to smoke pot instead. (Pure speculation, but if you read the responses this lawyer gave to FEER, you would really think he was high on something).

Barely 10 days later, Singapore’s Ministry of Information and Communications informed FEER that it had decided to standardize its legal approach to foreign publications and was therefore imposing a new set of conditions on FEER in order for it “to operate on consistent principles with other offshore newspapers”. This condition was as the High Commissioner rightly pointed out, to “post a security bond and appoint a local representative for service of legal process”, except he left out the part that this condition was imposed only 10 days after the Lees’ received notification that FEER was unwilling to have the trial in Singapore.

The Lees had probably also discovered by then that FEER had very little assets in Singapore for them to confiscate as damages once they won the lawsuit. Hence the FEER was forced to place a $200,000 security deposit as liability costs “that might arise” in connection with the publication of the newspaper in order to corner them into either “voluntarily” giving up their circulation rights in Singapore or place $200,000 at the mercy of Singapore’s judiciary. Is it any wonder then that they chose to cut their losses instead?

By claiming that the FEER was never banned even though it’s circulation was effectively curtailed by the government’s new conditions, Michael Eng seems to be implying that though the FEER was eventually prohibited from circulating in Singapore, the government never intended to specifically target the FEER. Really? What of the excellent timing and the ingenious $200,000 deposit then?

In fact, the deliberate nature of this move only points to the government’s intention to specifically target the FEER. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was amended in 1990 to require foreign publications to retain local counsel and post a $200,000 security deposit. Several news publications, including FEER were initially exempted from thee requirements. However by 2004 the FEER had revamped its editorial structure, transforming itself from a weekly to a monthly publication. The 1990 amendments which only applied to dailies and weeklies should therefore no longer have applied to the FEER, now a monthly publication.

Yet the conditions were imposed anyway and the Ministry tried to explain that “it is an anomaly for the FEER, which is a declared foreign newspaper, not to be subjected to the conditions that apply to the other declared foreign newspapers[sic].”

Hence it is disingenuous of the High Commissioner to claim that the Singapore government never banned the FEER when it actually went to great lengths to curtail its circulation by undemocratic albeit legal means. It is also misleading to say that the FEER ”declined to comply and voluntarily discontinued circulating in Singapore” as it gives the false impression that the FEER willingly decided to stop its circulation in Singapore. We all know that’s not what happened. 

Everyone calls it a ban anyway

I really don’t see why Michael Eng sees the need to cover up what Singapore did in The Economist. (Maybe it’s the “just so you know I’m watching you” kind of thing) After all, everyone calls it a ban! Let’s count the number of times the word ban appears.

Singapore: CPJ condemns ban on Far Eastern Economic Review

New York, October 2, 2006—The Committee to Protect Journalists today condemned a ban on the Far Eastern Economic Review, which has been hit with a criminal defamation lawsuit by the Singapore leadership for an article about an opposition politician.

“Singapore’s ban on the Far Eastern Economic Review is nothing but retaliation for critical news coverage,” said Joel Simon, CPJ’s executive director. “Singapore’s leaders should not resort to such an outdated and undemocratic tool as criminal defamation. We call on the authorities to lift the ban on the Review, drop their defamation prosecution, and allow all international publications to be distributed.”

An information ministry official told journalists after announcing the ban on the Review that the distribution of foreign publications in Singapore was a “privilege not a right.”

Here’s one from the FEER blog. Even FEER thinks they have been banned. Maybe Michael Eng ought to shoot them a letter too.

Statement on Singapore banning the Review

The 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…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.

Still keeping an eye on The Economist?

I’m very intrigued as to how Michael Eng reads The Economist so thoroughly. The main point of that article, “Without FEER or favour”, wasn’t Singapore. In fact, only one short paragraph in the entire 2-page long article was devoted to the sunny island, yet Michael Eng had the eyes of an eagle, or perhaps vulture would be more accurate.

I bet that every day this man searches relentlessly through the potentially subversive reports of international publications, looking out for the things which do not fit into his ideal image of his beloved government, and when he spots them, he turns into the hulk, goes all green and angry, and starts penning an angsty letter to keep the offender on his toes. It seems like the PAP just can’t get enough of intimidating foreign newspapers.

Note to the High Commissioner: This is nothing personal Sir. I don’t want to get stuck at immigration when I go to the UK.