WEBwww.AsiaSentinel.com
Image RSS mobile
Wednesday
Feb 10th
  • Email Alerts
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

Asia Sentinel



Home arrow Politics arrow We’re Sorry Singapore, the Financial Times Says
We’re Sorry Singapore, the Financial Times Says Print E-mail
Tag it:
Delicious
Furl it!
Mister.Wong
NewsVine
Reddit
YahooMyWeb
Technorati
Digg
Written by John Berthelsen   
Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Singapore’s Lee family once again finds an insult where there appears to be none, and collects money for it


The lawsuit-happy family of Singaporean Patriarch Lee Kuan Yew has forced the Financial Times into an apology and monetary settlement for a story in which there appears to be no libel.


The apology comes just as the International Bar Association, which according to its website prides itself on believing “in the fundamental right of the world’s citizens to have disputes heard and determined by an independent judiciary and for judges and lawyers to practice freely and without interference,” is holding its biggest-ever convention in the city-state and is considering opening a permanent office there.   


The IBA delegates were met with a resolution from a flock of human rights advocates across the world, including the World Movement for Democracy, the Council for the Community of Democracies, Liberal International, the Club of Madrid, Reporters without Borders and the Asia Human Rights Commission, calling on the group to "express its concern at the lack of respect for the rule of law in Singapore" and to "urge the Singapore government to practice the rule of law and not the rule by law by signing and ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”


Victor Mallet, the Financial Times’ Asia editor, refused comment on the story, which ran on September 29, or on the FT’s settlement. The article, a column by Sundeep Tucker, dealt with the growth of so-called sovereign wealth funds, particularly a new Chinese fund that was unveiled at the end of September, and referred to growing concern over the acquisition of strategic industries by funds controlled by governments in Asia and the Middle East.


If anything, the article, and the rapid mea culpa, also point up in dramatic detail one of the dangers of sovereign funds and their growing use by governments.  News organizations that set out to report critically upon such funds in the countries of their origin can quickly find themselves sued for defamation or subject to other governmental harassment.


Tucker referred to Temasek, the Singapore state investment fund, and described some of the problems Temasek has faced with the fallout from Temasek’s acquisition last year of Shin Corp, the Thai telecoms group owned by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, which ultimately contributed to Thaksin’s downfall. At the end of the article, the author referred to the fact that Temasek is run by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and concluded with these words:


“DBS Bank, whose biggest shareholder is Temasek, this week surprised many by announcing that US-born Jackson Tai would step down towards the end of the year. Mr Tai was said to be keen to ‘spend more time with his family.’


“Last week Jimmy Phoon, Temasek's chief investment officer, announced he was leaving ‘to take a break and spend some time with the family.’


“Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the reasons. Singapore, after all, is built on strong family values. Lee Kuan Yew, founding father of the city-state, must be proud to see Lee Hsien Loong, his son, occupy the role of prime minister.


“Mr Lee (Jnr) himself will be pleased Ho Ching, his wife, has helped turn round the performance of Temasek after being appointed chief executive in 2002.


“The rumour mill now suggests Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother, could replace Mr Tai at DBS. The younger Mr Lee earned his spurs as chief executive of SingTel, also part of the Temasek firmament.”


That caused an apparent explosion among the Lees, and allegations of libel. The FT quickly complied, with this published apology:


“We recognise that the article meant or was understood to mean: that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his son, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, as Prime Minister, for nepotistic motives; that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong secured, or was instrumental in securing, the appointment of his wife, Ms Ho Ching, as the Chief Executive Officer of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited for nepotistic motives; and, that Ms Ho Ching is promoting her brother-in-law Lee Hsien Yang’s interests by securing or helping to secure his appointment as Mr Jackson Tai’s replacement at DBS Bank for nepotistic motives.


“…We admit and acknowledge that these allegations are false and completely without foundation. We unreservedly apologise to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Ms Ho Ching for the distress and embarrassment caused to them by these allegations. We undertake not to make any further allegations to the same or similar effect.


“…We have agreed to pay Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Ms Ho Ching damages, by way of compensation, and costs incurred by them in connection with this matter.”


No member of the Lee family has ever lost a case in a Singapore court as far as can be determined.  The Lees are also suing the Far Eastern Economic Review for defamation and the government has banned the publication over a 2006 interview with Chee Soon Juan, the head of the Singapore Democratic Party, in which Chee said the authoritarian city-state would only change direction after the elder Lee’s death.


At one point, Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon refused to allow the Review’s lawyer, Australian Tim Robertson, permission to sit in on the hearing because Robertson had made comments critical of Singapore in 2005 over Singapore’s decision to execute a convicted drug trafficker.


These issues have escaped the apparent notice of the International Bar Association.

Comments (8)add
...
written by ramya , October 17, 2008
two things:

firstly, the comment 'A Singaporean's View' doesn't acknowledge the part of the article that states the Far Eastern Economic Review has been banned because of libel allegations. The right to sue is not one and the same as the right to censor: the first is a private issue between the two parties, and the second is an infringement in the sense that it affects parties other than the two principals.

secondly, perhaps the question isn't about rights at all: (A) has the right to publish what it wants, and (B) has the right to sue. fine, both are within their rights. the point is, why the defensiveness? there are 2 possible explanations for the kneejerk, sue-everyone-who-dares-say-anything-against-us approach of the Lee family. One is that they don't think Singaporeans are intellectually advanced enough to read a variety of sources and opinions and make their own decisions, or to be able to tell the difference between a piece of Commentary, and a News item (note the language used by the FT writer in the closing paragraphs- it clearly reads as an opinion, rather than Fact.)

And the second.. should be obvious.

or to put it another way, i can't afford to be sued right now, at any rate.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Will you stand up for Singapore?
written by Jam , September 22, 2008
RE: Irene, can you please make yourself known in Singapore about issues like this? Please join a political party instead of lazing on a couch and type one-liners that any 3 year old can do.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
A Singaporean\'s View
written by a guest , August 14, 2008
You have the rights to publish, they have the rights to sue. Don't assume free speech and free press come without responsibilities or consequences. Standard, bias, western journalism.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
mr
written by wow , October 28, 2007
yes we are tired, i think you shuold put it this way (i'm sorry lky family) not i'm sorry singapore we singaporean feel shame
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
we\'re sorry singapore
written by Enlighten , October 18, 2007
That article definitely has intended libel. Chee Soon Juan is not an opposition welcome in singapore especially after all the gimmicks that he had performed in singapore and overseas
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Irene Puah , October 18, 2007
The Lee family are the scourge of our nation
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Lenox , October 18, 2007
As a lay person, I do read the subtle sarcasm and I am satisfied that there is intended libel.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Guff
written by Bart Hamilton , October 17, 2007
One rule for them... Do the people of the nation with a minimal amount of education never tire of this farcical situation?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -1
Write comment
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Alice Poon

Freedom of Expression Too Precious to Throw Away

Thursday, 04 February 2010 | Alice Poon

In a free society, there will always be more than one single opinion. In a free society, it is accepted that everyone should have an equal right to express his/her opinion without fearing...
Full Story

Previous posts:

Donate to Asia Sentinel

Enter Amount: