Singapore Emergency (Essential Powers) Act

[DerekLeung]

Emergency (Essential Powers) Act
Essential Information (Control of Publications and Safeguarding of Information) Regulations

Under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act is subsidiary legislation that relates to the press. More specifically, these fall under the Essential (Control of Publications and Safeguarding of Information) Regulations.

Regulation 6 prohibits any member of the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) from communicating to newspapers unless they have been authorised to do so. Such communication includes:
any information, opinion, observation or comment on any matter affecting any aspect of the SAF or concerning any military subject;
any report of any incident or occurrence involving the SAF;
any matter which is likely to cause ill-will or misunderstanding between the Government or the SAF on one hand, and any member(s) on the other;
any matter which disparages, discredits or denigrates any aspect of service in the SAF, or which is likely to lower morale, or be prejudicial to discipline; or
any grievance, complaint or other matter affecting the person’s position as a member of the SAF (or that of any other member).

Under regulation 7, pressmen - which include the editor, proprietor, manager, or printer of the newspaper, or "any officer or employee thereof" - who receive such communication must first ascertain or verify:
the name and identity of the source;
his place of residence; and
the armed force to which he is attached.

If these cannot be verified, the communication cannot be published without consent of the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Defence. Also, pressmen are under a legal duty to disclose such information to the Ministry of Defence when the latter so requires. A breach of this regulation can result in a fine of not more than $4,000 or imprisonment for not longer than one year, or both.

The Essential (Control of Publications and Safeguarding of Information) Regulations were invoked in 1973, under the Emergency (Essential Powers) Act. The respondent editor of the Nanyang Siang Pau had published a letter signed by “a group of soldiers”, who had asked how they could be discharged from National Service earlier so as to enter University. As he did not make any enquiries after receiving the letter, the editor was charged for not verifying the names and particulars of those who wrote the letter, and for not establishing that the letter was in fact written by such members. Accordingly, he was also charged for failing to give the Ministry of Defence the information it requested regarding this “group of soldiers”.

http://presspedia.journalism.sg/doku.php

 

[DerekLeung]

The Business Times

The Business Times was launched on October 1, 1976 and is Singapore's only financial daily. The paper received a daily average circulation of 31,361 copies in 2005, according to its current parent company, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH).

The paper came about as The Straits Times strengthened its business coverage in the late 1970s. The Straits Times began the practice of attaching young staff for training with the Financial Times in London. The paper then incorporated a 'Times Business' Section which grew from four to six pages. The group later decided to create a new newspaper company, Times Business Publicaitons, which began the publication of a daily financial newspaper, The Business Times.
About the paper

The paper publishes in the morning, once a day, 6-days a week. It has a Saturday edition which is known as The Business Times Weekend.

The paper was last revamped on Sept 1, 2004 and given a new masthead. Several sections were added to the paper including an Economy Watch page, with news on the local economy and Singapore's key economic partners like China and India as well as daily columns from overseas correspondents on trends in the region.

The Monday edition of the paper also has interviews with corporate chiefs who give their take on the economy, business outlook or emerging corporate trends in Views From The Top. A Three-Minute Digest-a daily summary of the news-was also added.

The Business Times also has an online edition. It is the first paper among the SPH's stable of newspapers to go on the Internet. The online version was introduced in June 1995 together with AsiaOne - Singapore Press Holdings' World Wide Web portal. The service is however only available on through paid-subscription.

The paper has been known to be involved in a high profile case with the government when its editors were charged with breaching the Official Secrets Acts. The Business Times had then published a report on June 29, 1992 citing the official flash estimate of Singapore's economic growth in the second quarter of the year, ahead of the release of official data.

The defence argued argued that there was no intentional leak and those charged came upon the information and passed it on to others as part of their normal work.

After a long and well-publicised trial, all five accused - which included then director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore's economics department, Tharman Shanmugaratnam and The Business Times editor, Patrick Daniel - were found guilty and fined. The journalists retained their posts throughout the trial and after the sentenced was passed though and the company met handled fines.

So you now know where our Finance Minister orginated !

 

[DerekLeung]

http://presspedia.journalism.sg/doku.php?id=cases:1996

1996
December 31: PAP vs Tang Liang Hong
Protagonists

Tang Liang Hong, then-opposition Workers' Party candidate for Cheng San GRC
Various PAP leaders and MPs, including:

Goh Chok Tong, then-prime minister,
Lee Kuan Yew, then-senior minister,
Lee Hsien Loong, then-deputy prime minister,
Tony Tan Keng Yam, then-deputy prime minister and minister for defence
Teo Chee Hean, then-second minister for defence
Ker Sin Tze,
Ow Chin Hock,
Ch'ng Jit Koon,
Chin Harn Tong,
Lee Yock Suan,
Seng Han Thong.

Background

Goh and other PAP members had publicly labelled Tang as "an anti-Christian and an anti-English-educated Chinese chauvinist", a "dangerous character with dangerous views", in the course of campaigning during the 1997 general elections, which was given prominent coverage in the local media.
The PAP leaders said the allegations were made because they took a very serious view of persons with such extreme views entering Parliament. The allegations were made based on:
Private and confidential views made by various PAP MPs (Ker, Ow, Ch'ng, Chin and Tay Eng Soon) to the Speaker in 1992, expressing their reservations about Tang's suitability as an Nominated Member of Parliament, namely:
Tang held radical views on the promotion of Chinese language, forming a group arguing for the number of hours spend teaching Chinese in primary schools to be substantially increased
Tang had said words in November 1991 to the effect that "the English-educated Chinese who did not have a good grasp of their culture were likely to lack respect for their own kind and confidence in themselves."
Tang had taken extreme positions on some issues such as Chinese language, culture and civilisation, and was inclined to speak like a Chinese chauvinist.
Tang's national day dinner speech at Zeng Yi Association in August 1994, which Teo said had "stated that there were too many English educated persons and Christians in government and had implied that this was not good."
Accusations
Tang denied allegations that he was a Chinese chauvinist and anti-Christian. He sent two lettes to Goh and Lee Kuan Yew on December 28th, saying that both of them had defamed him. Tang demanded a retraction and an apology. Goh and Lee rejected Tang's demands and invited him to sue.
Tang then threatened to sue the PAP leaders and MPs in an interview published in the Straits Times on December 30th, 1996, under the headline "I will sue, but not now as I have no time, says Tang".
The PAP members took offence at the following words in the article, which claimed that they were "liars" for branding Tang an anti-English education, anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist:
Of course I am going to sue them. Not only that. I am going to lodge a police report against them for criminal offence. They are telling lies. They are defaming, assassinating my character. They concocted lies and go on television and spread the lies.
The PAP say that they are people of good character. They are resorting to these 'below-the-belt' hitting tactic. What character are they talking about?
I do not want to be bogged down by all these things. They are trying to hurl all these things at me at the same time."
It is definitely damaging my election chances. That is their intention. I have faith in the decency of Singapore voters. Will they be taken in?
Actions Taken
Goh and Lee Kuan Yew commenced proceedings against Tang on December 31st, claiming damages for allegedly defamatory remarks made by Tang in the interview.
Defence
Tang filed his defence in both actions, in which he did not deny that the words were defamatory but pleaded a lower meaning.
Both Goh and Lee said lower meaning was in any event defamatory of them.
Tang filed two police reports on January 1st, 1997, stating that the PAP leaders and MPs had systematically on various occasions and on various dates alleged and made various statements to make or cause the public to believe that he was an anti-Christian Chinese chauvinist, anti-English-educated and that some of his statements will cause social and racial disharmony and disruption in Singapore.
He also said in the report that these actions were likely to incite religious extremists to hate him and cause harm to him and members of his family.
Outcome
Tang fled to Johor, Malaysia, after alleging that he had received death threats.
He also faced charges from the Inland Revenue Authority for tax evasion.
After Tang's departure, the PAP plaintiffs obtained an injunction against Tang, preventing him from disposing of his assets and requiring him to disclose the whereabouts of all his assets.
S$8,000,000 in damages was awarded to the PAP plaintiffs.
Source

Gomez, J. (2006). Restricting Free Speech: The Impact on Opposition Parties in Singapore. The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies, 23, 105 - 131.
Lee Kuan Yew v. Tang Liang Hong and other actions (1997). [1997] 2 Singapore Law Review 819.
Singapore Window. (n.d.). TLH: backgrounder. Retrieved January 11, 2008 from http://www.singapore-window.org/tangbck.htm.
Category of Repression
Civil defamation suit