Repressive? Our people know better
Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam addressed the Seasonal Meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section in Singapore on Monday. We carry here an excerpt of his speech .
SINGAPORE has had a quite excellent relationship with the United States. This has resulted in many deep ties, including strong economic and strategic ties.
There are thousands of Americans living in Singapore. Several major American institutions have a significant presence in Singapore. Singapore and the US have a free trade agreement, which came into force in 2004. Singapore is America's 15th largest trading partner.
We see a sustained US presence as an important stabilising influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Our sentiments have been backed by concrete actions. When US bases in the Philippines were closed, we allowed US ships and aircraft to use Singapore's facilities.
Singaporeans of my generation and younger have been brought up on American TV and culture. Our universities have close linkages to the top universities in the US.
Between 2000 and 2007, about 2,000 Singaporean students were sent abroad on such government scholarships. Ninety per cent of them went to British or American universities. Increasingly, the trend is to favour the latter.
Ten out of our 21 ministers have had some education in the US. This would also be reflective of the upper echelons of the civil service. This education has made many of us admirers of many aspects of American society.
Over the foreseeable future, the opportunities in this region are going to multiply. Singapore is a natural place for Americans to locate. Why? Because we are a stable democracy with the following attributes:
We have a rational Government that is fundamentally pro-market. No expropriations, no unfair taxation, no U-turn on policies.
Our legal framework is ranked among the top in the world. You can get a case heard in the High Court within eight to 10 months. Appeals are disposed off within another five to six months. Our court system is recognised as effective, fair and one which men of commerce can trust.
We have low taxes. The top bracket for personal income tax is 20 per cent, and for corporate income tax, only 18 per cent.
Quality of life here is excellent. Mercer's 2009 report ranks us top in the world for city infrastructure and 26th overall. The Mori Report, based on a comprehensive survey, places us fifth in the world, after New York, London, Paris and Tokyo.
Our Internet connectivity is high. Singapore ranks among the top three connected cities in the world.
But if you read about Singapore in some American newspapers, you may not get the picture of a prosperous, modern city-state with a strong adherence to the rule of law. Instead, you may believe that it is a repressive state that controls the people's thoughts - as if that is possible in a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore - and that we unfairly target the press.
Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article. We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response. That irks the press no end.
If untrue statements are made - that a person is corrupt or that he lied - there will be a suit. Let the accuser prove it. But if it is said that someone is stupid or that policies make no sense and the policies are attacked vigorously, then you can't sue. There is public prerogative to comment on policies. In response, it will be sensible for us to defend the policies and ignore the attacks on our intellect.
Over the years, this approach has resulted in the Government and ministers having several tussles with news publications. The press is not used to this anywhere else in the world. And of course they don't like it one bit. So every lawsuit is met with the same reaction: We are out to silence the press. That feeling has been pervasive and has coloured the general reporting on Singapore.
How objective is the criticism of Singapore in relation to press freedom? Is it possible to have a modern, successful, open economy if the people are not empowered and educated?
There is an organisation called Reporters Without Borders. It comes out with a ranking of countries on press freedom. Last year, it ranked Singapore 144 out of 173 countries - somewhere below Ethiopia, Sudan, Guinea and Haiti.
Monday's International Herald Tribune carried a story on Guinea. It reported: 'One month ago, over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets, and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.'
Singapore is apparently below Guinea in press freedom. This year, we have behaved better - so Singapore has moved up to 133. Still below Kenya (which saw riots following a disputed election) and Congo (which continues to struggle with the aftermath of an armed conflict that has claimed more than five million lives), but above North Korea and Eritrea.
If you look at a different ranking - the Freedom House rankings for this year - Singapore is below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea, Pakistan and so on. We are 151 out of 195.
These are all countries which are trying to progress. My point is not that we are in any way superior to them. The question is whether a truly objective assessment will give us such a ranking.
Our approach has therefore been to ignore the criticisms which make no sense. The people of Singapore know better. And the investors who put in billions here every year know better as well.
They do not have to come here. We do not have any natural resources. Our main selling point is that there will be good value added when they invest here, their investments will be protected and that we are a stable democracy.
Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs K. Shanmugam addressed the Seasonal Meeting of the New York State Bar Association International Section in Singapore on Monday. We carry here an excerpt of his speech .
SINGAPORE has had a quite excellent relationship with the United States. This has resulted in many deep ties, including strong economic and strategic ties.
There are thousands of Americans living in Singapore. Several major American institutions have a significant presence in Singapore. Singapore and the US have a free trade agreement, which came into force in 2004. Singapore is America's 15th largest trading partner.
We see a sustained US presence as an important stabilising influence in the Asia-Pacific region. Our sentiments have been backed by concrete actions. When US bases in the Philippines were closed, we allowed US ships and aircraft to use Singapore's facilities.
Singaporeans of my generation and younger have been brought up on American TV and culture. Our universities have close linkages to the top universities in the US.
Between 2000 and 2007, about 2,000 Singaporean students were sent abroad on such government scholarships. Ninety per cent of them went to British or American universities. Increasingly, the trend is to favour the latter.
Ten out of our 21 ministers have had some education in the US. This would also be reflective of the upper echelons of the civil service. This education has made many of us admirers of many aspects of American society.
Over the foreseeable future, the opportunities in this region are going to multiply. Singapore is a natural place for Americans to locate. Why? Because we are a stable democracy with the following attributes:
We have a rational Government that is fundamentally pro-market. No expropriations, no unfair taxation, no U-turn on policies.
Our legal framework is ranked among the top in the world. You can get a case heard in the High Court within eight to 10 months. Appeals are disposed off within another five to six months. Our court system is recognised as effective, fair and one which men of commerce can trust.
We have low taxes. The top bracket for personal income tax is 20 per cent, and for corporate income tax, only 18 per cent.
Quality of life here is excellent. Mercer's 2009 report ranks us top in the world for city infrastructure and 26th overall. The Mori Report, based on a comprehensive survey, places us fifth in the world, after New York, London, Paris and Tokyo.
Our Internet connectivity is high. Singapore ranks among the top three connected cities in the world.
But if you read about Singapore in some American newspapers, you may not get the picture of a prosperous, modern city-state with a strong adherence to the rule of law. Instead, you may believe that it is a repressive state that controls the people's thoughts - as if that is possible in a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore - and that we unfairly target the press.
Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article. We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response. That irks the press no end.
If untrue statements are made - that a person is corrupt or that he lied - there will be a suit. Let the accuser prove it. But if it is said that someone is stupid or that policies make no sense and the policies are attacked vigorously, then you can't sue. There is public prerogative to comment on policies. In response, it will be sensible for us to defend the policies and ignore the attacks on our intellect.
Over the years, this approach has resulted in the Government and ministers having several tussles with news publications. The press is not used to this anywhere else in the world. And of course they don't like it one bit. So every lawsuit is met with the same reaction: We are out to silence the press. That feeling has been pervasive and has coloured the general reporting on Singapore.
How objective is the criticism of Singapore in relation to press freedom? Is it possible to have a modern, successful, open economy if the people are not empowered and educated?
There is an organisation called Reporters Without Borders. It comes out with a ranking of countries on press freedom. Last year, it ranked Singapore 144 out of 173 countries - somewhere below Ethiopia, Sudan, Guinea and Haiti.
Monday's International Herald Tribune carried a story on Guinea. It reported: 'One month ago, over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets, and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.'
Singapore is apparently below Guinea in press freedom. This year, we have behaved better - so Singapore has moved up to 133. Still below Kenya (which saw riots following a disputed election) and Congo (which continues to struggle with the aftermath of an armed conflict that has claimed more than five million lives), but above North Korea and Eritrea.
If you look at a different ranking - the Freedom House rankings for this year - Singapore is below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea, Pakistan and so on. We are 151 out of 195.
These are all countries which are trying to progress. My point is not that we are in any way superior to them. The question is whether a truly objective assessment will give us such a ranking.
Our approach has therefore been to ignore the criticisms which make no sense. The people of Singapore know better. And the investors who put in billions here every year know better as well.
They do not have to come here. We do not have any natural resources. Our main selling point is that there will be good value added when they invest here, their investments will be protected and that we are a stable democracy.
