« Singapore - Lee Kuan Yew | HomePage | Help for the poor: So close, yet so far »

08/05/2007

Singapore's media ranked 154th

Listen to this article Listen to this article

medium_fh2007.jpg

In advance of World Press Freedom Day, on May 3rd, Freedom House has released several critical tools to highlight data from its annual survey of global press freedom, and to help explain the newest findings in their historical context. The current edition of the survey, Freedom of the Press 2007, points to improvements in several countries such as Italy, Nepal, Colombia, and Haiti; however, it shows mixed trends in Africa, as well as a continuation of a longer-term pattern of decline in press freedom in Asia, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union.



Freedom House
04 May 07
http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362


Singapore
Status: Not Free
Legal Environment: 24
Political Environment: 24
Economic Environment: 21
Total Score: 69


Media freedom in Singapore is constrained to such a degree that the vast majority of journalists practice self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country’s criminal laws on permissible speech.

The Singapore constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14, but it also permits restrictions on these rights. Media freedom in Singapore is constrained by the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the Defamation Act, and the Internal Security Act, all of which allow authorities to restrict the circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere in domestic politics, or threaten public order, national interest or national security.

The government proposed a series of amendments to the Penal Code in 2006 that would cover offenses committed via electronic media. The draft amendments would not only provide jail terms or fines for defamation, “statements that would cause public mischief,” and the “wounding” of racial or religious feeling, they would also make it a crime for anyone outside the country to abet an offense committed inside the country, thereby allowing the authorities to prosecute internet users living abroad. Singaporean students studying overseas are the presumed targets of this amendment.

The Singapore government is quick to sue critics under harsh criminal defamation laws. In May 2006, for example, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, First Minister Kee Kuan Yew, filed criminal charges against the publishers of opposition newspaper The New Democrat, which is published several times a year by a committee of the Singapore Democratic Party.

The lawsuit started with an unsigned story that described as “secretive and non-accountable” the ruling party’s handling of a corruption scandal at the National Kidney Foundation.

Foreign media in Singapore are also subject to restrictive laws. In August, after the Far Eastern Economic Review published an interview with opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan, FEER and four other foreign publications were advised that they needed to post bonds and appoint legal representatives in order to continue to operate in Singapore. When FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked, thereby effectively banning the publication. Meanwhile, on September 14, the Prime Minister and his father filed defamation suits against FEER over the article.

Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, internet service providers, and cable television services are either owned or controlled by the state, or by companies with close ties to the ruling party. Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets, including political and religious web sites, have been used to inhibit criticism of the government.

Approximately two thirds of the population had access to the internet in 2006. Nonetheless, the government restricts internet access and Singapore has zero-tolerance for bloggers who challenge the government in any way. Prior to the May 6 Parliamentary elections, the Communications and Arts Minister warned bloggers and website managers that they do not have the right to back a particular candidate’s program or to express opinions on political issues. These same rules were applied to other new media, including podcasting and videocasting.

On April 26, the opposition Singapore Democratic Party was ordered to withdraw a podcast from its website. In June, popular blogger Lee Kin Mun (aka “Mr Brown”) was informed by state-owned Today newspaper that his weekly column, which had satirized the high cost of living, would be suspended. On November 6, a judge ordered Yap Keng Ho, a member of the opposition, to remove from his blog a video of himself speaking in public during the general elections.

Source
150
Cote d'Ivoire 68 NF
Malaysia 68 NF
Maldives 68 NF
United Arab Emirates 68 NF
154
Afghanistan 69 NF
Djibouti 69 NF
Gabon 69 NF
Singapore 69 NF
158 Iraq 70 NF
159 Bahrain 71 NF
Oman 71 NF
161 Chad 74 NF
Togo 74 NF
Venezuela 74 NF

11:05 Posted by soci | Permalink | Comments (7) | Email this | Tags: Singapore, Media, New Media

Comments

the index is based a composite quantitative measure that can be misleading because it misses the qualitative differences; putting singapore between gabon and iraq might give the impression that the situation in the three countries are similar, whereas the lack of viewpoint variety among singapore journalists is largely due to the unique business situation of SPH monopoly as information disseminator of Singapore Inc

Posted by: sgsociety.com | 08/05/2007

@sgsociety

oh give me a break you pap-apologistic hound.

Posted by: someone | 09/05/2007

hehe..you are quite mistaken about me; "SPH is the PR dept
of Singapore Inc" is a neutral statement, between "SPH is
a propaganda outfit" and "SPH is a fully commercial news
organization whose journalists are free to exercise their
own professional judgement"

one reason for the PAP's success was its opponents are so
poor at the job of opposing; they keep fightting the
wrong enemies and causes

Posted by: sgsociety | 09/05/2007

what a joke about our press freedom?
Special circumstances eh? Before we know
it, our special circumstances would not enable
enable us to rank in Planet Earth.
Perhaps we could rank No 1 on Mars

Posted by: JACK | 09/05/2007

jokes are meant to be funny; I dont think there is anything funny about the topic

about ranking: I have seen university ranking lists in which NUS was higher than Columbia and Cornell, and others in which it was 100+; all these ranking lists claim to be very scientific; funny? maybe

but these are actually just side issues; the more important point is whether SPH/Mediacorp, given their prescribed role in singapore inc, can do a better job; I find the news coverage of ST generally OK; the weak part is the commentary; it is of course easiest to say "it is all rubbish; I never read it"; if one prefers to opt out, why bother reading this blog?

Posted by: sgsociety.com | 09/05/2007

I don't understand how you can say that SPH is the PR department and claim that it is a neutral statement when the purpose of PR is to handle negative issues and put them in a good light. A look at today's Today paper is a classic example of using the media to mask the negativity. Imagine the prime minister thinking that 6 months of bonus being the norm and thinking that this is across most industries. I work for a large MNC and the bonus for last year across the board was less than 2 months and even less than 1 months in some functions. This seems similar with most of my peers' bonuses as well.. Yet the "PR" department just focuses on the well-performing statistics. I don't think that you are being fair to the reporters working for the SPH. What do you think makes our situation so special that there is a monopoly on journalism? It is simply because they cannot and dare not offend the ruling regime and practice self-censorship. There simply isn't any reason to have another publication company unless they are allowed to print "the other side of the coin"

Posted by: desmon | 09/05/2007

a statement is neutral if (a) it is based on fact (b) it has no
shading or judgement added to the factual information

if you think my statement is not neutral, what bias do you
see? pro PAP? anti PAP?

Posted by: sgsociety.com | 13/05/2007

Post a comment