Time, Newsweek, the International Herald Tribune, Far Eastern Economic Review and the Financial Times would have to post a security deposit of S$200,000 and name their respective representatives here who could be sued if they want to continue doing business here.
The foreign publications were previously exempt from the city-state’s media code, but Singapore’s Ministry of Information, Communication and the Arts said it lifted the exemption as reporting by the publications on political developments here and in the region became regular.
Selling a foreign publication in this country "is a privilege, not a right, and it is a business," Information Minister Vivian Balakrishnan told a group of visiting Southeast Asian journalists here yesterday afternoon. "In exchange for circulating and making money in Singapore, we ask that (foreign journalists) do not interfere in local politics."
Interference basically means "biased and inaccurate" reporting, Balakrishnan explained. Singaporeans, he said, are "obsessed with integrity," and if that integrity is impugned in a news report, they demand the "right of reply," with a clear mechanism for seeking redress. Hence the requirement for a S$200,000 deposit and the appointment of a publisher’s representative.
What is restricted, he emphasized, is the affected publications’ number of copies with advertisements.
"We’re not restricting access to information by our people," Balakrishnan told us. "What we care about even more than editorial freedom is business."
The controversy once again thrusts into the spotlight the dissonance in concepts of press freedom between the West and parts of Asia, notably this city-state that is renowned for its experiments in social engineering.
Still, Filipinos tired of our rambunctious brand of democracy and the exuberantly free Philippine press may agree with some of the points raised by Balakrishnan.
"I don’t think the Western press likes us very much," he said, noting that Singapore is considered "an affront" to the Western definition of press freedom.
"We do not accept the press as a fourth estate" that acts as a watchdog and provides checks and balances to the government, he said.
Members of their parliament are elected and are directly accountable to the people, he pointed out; journalists are not. Transparency and the integrity of elected officials make for a better system of checks and balances, Balakrishnan explained. The people of Singapore themselves see to it that officials who are corrupt or incompetent lose their jobs. "That’s the original concept of press freedom - many eyes watching," he said.
Singapore’s press, he emphasized, must not be a government mouthpiece. But he said their press is urged "to be part of nation-building" – to inform, educate, and to some extent entertain – in an accurate and responsible way.
"We created a country out of nothing... Singapore is a figment of political will," and the press helps express that will, Balakrishnan said.
But Balakrishnan insists that unlike in other countries where there is press censorship, his ministry does not control the flow of information, and he jokes that it should be given a more innocuous name – ministry of culture and communication, perhaps.
"I don’t think you can control information. With modern technology, you cannot cover facts, you cannot hide," he told us. "I believe there is no cover-up (of official wrongdoing) in Singapore."
Publications such as Playboy and Hustler are banned in Singapore. But even the city-state’s efforts to control pornography on the Internet amount to nothing more than "ceremonial censorship," he pointed out, with only 100 porn sites blocked and thousands of others accessible.
Not for Singapore, he said, are the measures implemented by the Chinese to control the flow of information, such as pre-screening by a few seconds the content of live TV programs and blipping out "offensive" portions.
And Balakrishnan is proud of the Singapore press. "The editors know where they are coming from," he said. "One thing they must achieve is credibility – to be fair and accurate. . . . I’m very proud of The Straits Times. I have no apologies. It is a world-class newspaper."
We met yesterday with the top editors of that newspaper, this country’s largest, at the swanky main office of Singapore Press Holdings Inc. And the editors didn’t seem to have a problem with the way the role of the press is perceived in their country.
In a country such as ours, who provides checks and balances when corruption is endemic in all three branches of government? Corruption, I must admit, is prevalent even in our mass media.
In Singapore, Balakrishnan pointed out, ministers have been sent to prison or have committed suicide over allegations of corruption. "We have a very, very strict, almost samurai code" of honor, he said.
He admitted that his government’s rules on foreign publications could affect Singapore’s efforts to attract tourists and investments.
"We need them," he said, referring to foreign journalists. "We need them for our survival. We need them to tell the world that there is this little place called Singapore."
For now, however, Singapore isn’t compromising on its media rules.
Balakrishnan urged us to talk to their citizens and see for ourselves if they are happy with their mass media.
"Judge for yourself," he said. "We have nothing to hide. But not everyone will agree with us."