Saturday, August 05, 2006

State of Media (foreign editon)

After rumbling on the effects of blogging on the mainstream media, let's us explore the foreign media in Singapore.

Ministry for Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) announced that the five foreign publications would be classified as "offshore newspapers," Of the five, Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) has to comply the conditions as such by Sep 11. As an offshore newspaper, FEER has to appoint a legal representative in Singapore to deal with any lawsuits that may arise against the publisher. It will also have to post a security deposit of S$200,000. For the other four publications - the International Herald Tribune, Financial Times, Newsweek and Time - will be subjected to the same rules once their current licences expired.

To quote the now very familar Ms K Bhavani, press secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts.

"We are rectifying an anomaly for FEER, which has been a declared foreign newspaper since December 1987. It was an administrative oversight not to have subjected FEER to the conditions which are required for declared foreign newspapers to circulate in Singapore,"

"When FEER became a monthly publication in December 2004, it ceased to be an offshore newspaper but it continued to be a declared foreign newspaper. We should have continued to subject FEER to the same conditions as other declared foreign newspapers, namely the Wall Street Journal Asia and offshore newspapers,"
I would ask why FEER is singled out among the other four papers? and how does this oversight happened? Well, some had pointed to the recent article that FEER had published in its most recent edition (July/August 2006) for the reason. The article can be summarised with 2 words - Dr Chee. Yes, him again. The liar, the bad egg and political gangster. The magazine had refered Dr Chee to a national "martyr" due to the numerous lawsuits against him. In the article itself, Dr Chee had made some uncomplimentary observations on the Singapore Government. It certainly could be regarded as pro opposition and "hostile" or "libellous".

This kind of article while nothing new at all might have attracted special attention because it seeks to paint the Dr Chee in a "softer light" in the same way Singapore Rebel attempted to. It wouldn't fit very well with the image that the local press had bulit on him and might change Singaporeans impressions. Hence, that might be why the article had invoked the same stern reaction as Singapore Rebel. The full article can be found here

What I don't understand is why the government would seek action against FEER in such unseemly haste. Firstly, many would not have notice the article otherwise. FEER has a circulation cap of only 10,000 copies locally. It wouldn't get more than 50,000 eyeballs at the very most. I would go further and say that I don't even know of the existence of this esteemed paper before the accouncement. For this reason, I am not sure it's the best of moves.

This kind of high handed restriction might not sit very well with the young Singaporeans and might stir their rebellious spirit for more of the same. Worse, it certainly attract more attentiion to the offending magazine than it would otherwise had. The local mainstream media would have to bear some degree of responsibilty for such behaviour because of it's tendency to report only the "good news", thus driving them to seek more independent news.

Of course, the above is just baseless internet batter and coffeeshop talk. The MICA might be doing its routine cleanup and the timing is just unfortunate.

Meanwhile, the Reporters Without Borders had condemned the Singapore government for intimidating foreign publications to censor themselves. The media watchdog had ranked Singapore 140th out of 167 countries in its 2005 worldwide press freedom index.


Updated: A reader had pointed out to me that FEER had been served with papers and asked to apologise as well as pay damages before the accouncement.


Technorati: , , , , ,

posted by wert | Saturday, August 05, 2006 | Email This!


1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes it woundn't fit with what the local media description of Chee and that might change Singaporeans impression of him. The government refuses to let people know the real truth.

Actually ,Chee is not really that bad as the local press had protrayed him to be. The endless stifling of the freedom of speech in Singapore is not doing the nation any good in the long term.

Mon Aug 07, 04:54:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Disclaimer: This blog is not intended to be authorative or clever in any way. It was based on rambling of a half crazed creature, so treat it as such and let it be! I was asked to keep my dangerous thoughts and unbalanced views all in one safe place , and so I did. Objectivity, Accuracy, Responsiblity and any High Standards are certainly not part of this blog's features. However, I must stress that I do not strive to mislead people, confuse people, and much less undermine our national strategy.