by Eric Feigenbaum
Singapore’s domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. We allow American journalists in Singapore in order to report Singapore to their fellow countrymen. We allow their papers to sell in Singapore so that we can know what foreigners are reading about us. But we cannot allow them to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America, that is, that of invigilator, adversary and inquisitor of the administration. No foreign television station had claimed the right to telecast its programs in Singapore. Indeed America’s Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 per cent of a TV or radio station. Only Americans can control a business which influences opinion in America. Thus, Rupert Murdoch took up US citizenship before he purchased the independent TV stations of the Metromedia group in 1985.
When Singapore’s Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew spoke these words to the American Society of Newspaper Editors meeting in 1988, he could scarcely have imagined how the Internet and eventually social media would dramatically affect the very nature of the press and increase the number of voices engaged in political and other discourse.
Today not only is media ubiquitous but choosing your news and information sources to align with your pre-existing political and social outlook is not only available, but the norm. If the role of the Fourth Estate as a credible source of information has been compromised, it is equally undermined by hostile voices and even less credible sources able to find megaphones through social media. The information age is a din of voices making it harder than ever to get clear, unbiased news.
Media itself is now a topic in our national discourse. On October 29th, the Pew Research Center published findings that “only 56 percent of American adults now say they have a lot of or some trust in the information they get from national news organizations – down 11 percentage points since March 2025 and 20 points since we first asked this question in 2016.”
Further, “fewer than half of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (44 percent) now say they have at least some trust in the information that comes from national news organizations. This is down from 53 percent in March and 70 percent in 2016, but it’s still above its lowest point in 2021, when 35% of Republicans expressed this level of trust in the national media.”
And Democrats?
Sixty-nine percent of Democrats have at least some trust in information from national news organizations. This is the lowest level recorded since Pew began asking the question, and down from 81 percent in March.
America continues to debate whether to believe the media, how to hold it accountable and to what degree that is even possible.
Singapore came to an answer on this topic decades ago. What proponents consider accountability of the press and critics consider repression comes down to how you see the use of two levers:
- Suing for libel
- Curtailing press circulation for publications and outlets that do not accommodate the government’s rebuttal on any given issue.
The ability to sue for libel is stronger and far more extensive in Singapore than in most developed, Western nations. While, as a rule, top-level American officials such as the president are generally considered unable to sue for libel for fear of chilling political speech, Singapore allows the Prime Minister, President, Cabinet and other officials to sue and win if the libel can be successfully proved. There is no concern for the ramifications to public discourse.
Throughout his career, Lee Kuan Yew sued many international publications and won – and then donated the awarded damages to charity, just to prove his point.
What does that look like? In Lee’s own words:
I took action against an American-owned weekly based in Hong Kong, the Far Eastern Economic Review, and its editor Derek Davies. He had refused to withdraw and apologize for quoting a renegade priest, Edgar D’Souza, who said that the government had attacked the Catholic Church by detaining 16 Marxist conspirators. I went into the witness box and was aggressively cross-examined by the Review’s QC for over two days. When it was the turn of the editor to reply, Derek Davies did not give evidence because he would have been cross-examined. Nor did he call D’Souza to support what he had printed. The judge found against the Review and its editor.
Sometimes it isn’t a singular leader, but the Government as an entity sues. And politicians have even sued one another for libel and slander over the years – including opposition candidates and lawmakers who felt wrongly maligned.
A major feature of the Singaporean system is that individuals – including leaders with public reputations – can hold one another accountable for what is said in public forums.
The second lever tends to be the more controversial. Singapore requires all media to give the government the right to rebut an allegation or point made against it. In other words, an article or broadcast critical of the government owes the government an opportunity to respond and to have its statements published or aired. Media who refuse to do this – which have historically been foreign – may have their circulations or rights to broadcast or stream suspended until they comply.
What does a restriction scenario look like? Lee explains:
The Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) in December 1986 printed an untrue story about our proposed second securities market, SESDAQ (Stock Exchange of Singapore Dealing in Automated Quotation Systems). It alleged that the government was setting it up in order to dispose of dud government-owned companies to its citizens. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) wrote to rebut these false allegations. The AWSJ not only refused to print this letter but claimed its article was fair and accurate, that such a dud company did exist and that our letter had defamed its correspondent. The MAS wrote again to point out further errors in the journal’s letter, and asked it to name the dud company and to indicate which specific passages in our letter had defamed its correspondent. We asked that it publish the correspondence so that readers could judge for themselves. It refused to name the dud company or point out the supposedly defamatory passages. In February 1987 the government restricted the AWSJ’s circulation from 5,000 to 400 copies and released the letters between the MAS and the AWSJ. The Singapore newspapers published them. We invited the journal’s correspondent to sue if he had indeed been defamed. He did not.
Singapore maintains that it does not owe any foreign media source the right to operate in Singapore- and just as the American FCC has regulations around standards of foreign media broadcast and distribution, so does Singapore.
Naturally, Singapore has taken a beating in the foreign press for suppressing freedom of speech. Critics such as William Safire argued that with censorship through circulation and having only one party ever hold the majority in Parliament, Singapore’s claim to liberal democracy was really just the window-dressing of an autocratic regime.
During my time in Singapore, I never bought into that narrative. In fact, at election-time, I asked my then-girlfriend for whom she was planning to vote. Being young and holding college degrees from Australia and the United States I fully expected her to back an opposition candidate.
“No! You can’t trust the opposition to run this place! Things here work – you can’t risk that.”
Lee’s view was always that foreign interference was dangerous – a view America is beginning to wake up to for itself. He was also pragmatic and understood that a digital mediascape could not be held to account in the same ways as in analog days.
Advances in information technology, satellite broadcasting and the Internet will enable Western media networks to saturate our domestic audience with their reports and views. Countries that try to block the use of IT will lose. We have to learn to manage this relentless flood of information so that the Singapore government’s point of view is not smothered by the foreign media. The turmoil in Indonesia and the disorders in Malaysia in 1998 following the currency crisis are examples of the prominent role played by the foreign media networks, both electronic and print, in their domestic debate. We must work out ways to make sure that in the midst of this cacophony of voices, that of the Singapore government is heard. It is important for Singaporeans to know the official position of their government on major issues.
Interestingly, Lee felt the biggest cost of suing for libel and slander over the years was the toll it took on he and his family. Singapore uses British Common-law and its courts roll up to the Privy Council in London which acts as a Court of Appeals, still subordinate to the Singapore Supreme Court. Just as in Britain, the onus of a libel or slander case rests on the plaintiff and requires preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, it must be presented well enough that British judges would uphold the finding of libel on appeal. This is not a light or easy task.
Far from oppressing the opposition or the press that unjustly attacked my reputation, I have put my private and public life under close scrutiny whenever I appeared as a plaintiff in court. Without a clear record, it would have been an unnecessary hazard. Because I did this and also gave the damages awarded to deserving charities, I kept my standing with our people.
A newer question facing the world is how to discern truth online and especially within social media – especially when an account may not even be operated by a human. In 2019 Singapore passed the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) which creates both civil and criminal penalties for the posting of online falsehoods in Singapore from actors within or outside the city-state. Unlike previous laws, POFMA contemplates the use of bots and their creators who depending on the falsehood and method of sharing it may owe up to S$500,000 (roughly $385,000 USD) – but more likely S$30,000 or up to three years in jail.
Happily, Singapore doesn’t go straight to conviction. The POFMA office usually issues a demand for correction to the offending party who doesn’t even necessarily have to remove the problematic communication, but must post a correction. Failure to do so and disregard for the POFMA office’s communications then leads to legal action.
What does that look like? According to the BBC, a case in February 2020 looked like this:
Authorities said the States Times Review (STR) had in January put up a Facebook post which “falsely claimed that Singapore had run out of face masks”. The article was written in relation to the current coronavirus situation, which has seen many in Singapore scrambling to buy face masks.
Singapore, which has reported dozens of virus cases, has always said it has enough supplies and has made sufficient preparations to handle the outbreak.
It ordered STR to issue a correction direction – a notice stating that the information put up was false. However, these correction directions were ignored.
The Ministry of Communications and Information on 15 February ordered STR to carry a notice saying that it was a Declared Online Location. This meant anyone who visited the page would be “warned that [it] has a history communicating falsehoods”.
STR did not carry out the notice. Authorities said that it instead “changed the vanity URL of the page”, leading the ministry to instead issue a further directive to Facebook to block access to site for Singapore-based users.
Minister for Communications and Information S Iswaran said there was a particular need to “act swiftly” against falsehoods in light of the virus outbreak.
“If we don’t, these falsehoods can cause anxiety, fear and even panic,” he had said.
The States Times Review page has received at least three correction directions since November last year.
Facebook has previously added a correction notice to an STR post, after being ordered to do so. The notice said Facebook was “legally required to tell you that the Singapore government says this post has false information”.
The editor of the site, Australian citizen Alex Tan, had said last year that he would “not comply with any order from a foreign government”.
Passage of POFMA sparked criticism from major publications worldwide – particularly in Anglo countries such as the United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Australia. All found POFMA a tool easily abused by a government seeking to repress dissent. That is of course true. Such a law could be abused. It can also be used as a tool against another real threat to democracy – disinformation.
So why do Singaporeans not take issue with POFMA? Perhaps it’s because of how highly Singaporeans regard their government. The 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer showed a 77 percent trust of government – higher than any other institution including NGO’s and businesses. The US scored 46, by comparison – putting us in what Edelson labels the “distrustful” zone. Also in 2024, Transparency International rated Singapore the third least corrupt country in the world with a Corruption Perception Index score of 84 out of 100 – the highest ranking in Asia. The US was 28th with a score of 65.
It seems the issue is really a perception of which threat is most serious and imminent. In Singapore’s case, POFMA works because it trusts its government more than the foreign press or the often anonymous voices of social media.
***
Enjoying the content on 3QD? Help keep us going by donating now.