TR EMERITUS

Written by Our Correspondent U.K. journalist Benjamin Bland who was "ejected" unceremoniously from Singapore after being denied a visa by the authorities have continued to criticize the Singapore government for its low tolerance for media freedom. Bland worked for a year as a freelance journalist in Singapore, contributing to publications such as the Economist, the Daily Telegraph and the British Medical Journal. His application to renew his work visa was rejected without warning, explanation or right of appeal despite intervention by the British High Commission in Singapore. Unhappy that he was barred from working in Singapore without any valid reasons, Bland who had since returned to England, wrote in a few international papers and blogs lambasting the Singapore government for its inexplicit actions. The Singapore government has yet to provide an official explanation on why Bland's visa was not renewed. The controversy was not reported in the state media either. Writing in The Guardian, a U.K daily, Bland poured scorn on Singapore's ambition to become a media hub: "Unfriendly reporters are jailed, assaulted or assassinated by the governments of Burma, Iran and Sri Lanka. Singapore, with pretensions to being a global “media hub”, prefers tools of repression that are more subtle, yet have the same chilling effect on free speech." Bland claimed that he did not dwell on any taboo topics which would cross the out-of-bound markers: "Although I reported on some sensitive issues such as rising crime, the ageing population and business links with Burma, I did not break any of the taboos that normally lead to a government reprisal – namely criticising Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, or his son, the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong," he said. He also launched a tirade against the repression of press freedom in Singapore: "As well as forcing out foreign correspondents, destroying the careers of local journalists and maintaining ownership over all the domestic newspapers and news broadcasters, the Singapore government is fond of using its stringent libel laws to further restrict the freedom of the press." Besides the Guardian, Bland also wrote about his predicament in The Asian Correspondent, Asia Sentinel and Index on Censorship. His case was highlighted by New York-based NGO Committee to Protect Journalists. Bland's protests are likely to fall on deaf ears. The Singapore government is unlikely to give him the explanation he is seeking and neither will it affect the editorial policy of media organizations in the country which have to toe the official line in order to remain in operation. As Bland himself puts it succinctly: "Such a heavy-handed approach may mean that the government loses the battle in the short term, coming under fire for showing such intolerance toward mild criticism from reputable publications. However, the government has won the war because international news organisations have, by and large, been silenced by the threat of having to pay substantial damages or having their access to the lucrative Singapore market curtailed." Law Minister Shanmugan criticized the Singapore media's pathetic ranking by Reporters without Borders as "absurd and quite divorced from reality." Its ranking will probably fall by another few notches next year after the callous treatment the Singapore government has dished out to Bland.  Read More →

By Ben Bland for Index on Censorship When Reporters without Borders released its annual press freedom index last month, the Singapore government was not best pleased to find the city-state ranked 133rd out of 175 countries, below the likes of Kenya and Congo. Singapore’s law minister, K Shanmugam, dismissed the low ranking as “quite absurd and divorced from reality”, insisting to a group of visiting American lawyers that Singapore is not “a repressive state” and does not “unfairly target the press”. “Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to condemn that,” he said. While reading his comments in the state-controlled Straits Times newspaper, I was busy packing my suitcase as I’d recently found out that I had become “the latest on a long list of foreign journalists who have been targeted by the government for their news coverage”, in the words of the Committee to Protect Journalists. After a year as a freelance journalist in Singapore, contributing to publications such as The Economist, the Daily Telegraph and the British Medical Journal, my application to renew my work visa was rejected without warning, explanation or right of appeal. The law minister’s comments might have appeared hypocritical to most people but if I had written as much while still in Singapore, I would have landed myself with a ruinous defamation suit. As well as forcing out foreign correspondents, destroying the careers of local journalists and maintaining ownership over all the domestic newspapers and news broadcasters, the Singapore government is fond of using its stringent libel laws to further restrict the freedom of the press. Two weeks ago, the soon-to-close Far Eastern Economic Review was forced to pay S$405,000 (£177,000) in damages and costs to the prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, and his father, Singapore’s founding father, Lee Kuan Yew, after being found guilty of defaming the Lees in a 2006 article based on an interview with Chee Soon Juan, an opposition politician. Rupert Murdoch’s Dow Jones, which owns the publication, denied any wrongdoing but said it was paying up to avoid a protracted legal battle. Dow Jones, which has chosen to locate the Southeast Asian headquarters of its newswire division in the tightly-controlled city-state, said that the ruling would not deter it from its core mission “to provide fair and timely reporting and commentary on matters of importance from around the world, including in Singapore”. However, most working journalists in Singapore agree that the government’s persistent use of libel suits against global news organisations such as The Economist, the International Herald Tribune, the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg has had a chilling effect on press freedom. Such a heavy-handed approach may mean that the government loses the battle in the short term, coming under fire for showing such intolerance toward mild criticism from reputable publications. However, the government has won the war because international news organisations have, by and large, been silenced by the threat of having to pay substantial damages or having their access to the lucrative Singapore market curtailed. Stories that quote an opposition politician or civil society expert are few and far between, while hard-hitting investigative journalism is virtually non-existent. The real victims of this repression are not foreign correspondents like myself, who can re-locate, or large news organisations such as Dow Jones, which can afford to bear the costs of an occasional libel suit, but Singaporeans. For the inevitable result of the government’s regular attacks on the foreign press and its exercise of direct control over the domestic media is that a corrosive atmosphere of self-censorship is all-pervasive. In researching this story, I spoke to many Singaporean and foreign journalists, trying to find someone who had a more positive view of the government’s approach to the press. But even those who support some of the government’s restrictions were not willing to comment on the record for fear of somehow upsetting the powers-that-be and jeopardising their livelihood. Although I wrote about some sensitive topics in Singapore such as rising crime and the challenges of an ageing population, I always believed that I was operating within the bounds of what was acceptable. However, the ruling People’s Action Party, which has maintained a vice-like grip on power since independence from Britain in 1959, deliberately refuses to clarify what journalists can and cannot write about. By keeping the boundaries of what is permissible opaque, the government ensures that most journalists and other commentators err on the side of caution — especially Singaporeans, who have much more to lose than their foreign counterparts if they fall foul of the authorities. This self-censorship is, in the words of Milos Forman, the Czech film director who lived under the yoke of the Nazis and the Communists, “the worst evil…because that twists spines, that destroys my character because I have to think something else and say something else, I have to always control myself.” - Index on Censorship Republished from Index on Censorship on 30 November 2009 Ben Bland is a freelance journalist. He was based in Singapore between October 2008 and October 2009. He blogs at http://www.asiancorrespondent.com/the-asia-file  Read More →

Reuters, 30 November 2009 John Demjanjuk, an 89-year-old former Nazi camp guard, is due to stand trial today on charges of helping to force 27,900 Jews into gas chambers in 1943. Demjanjuk is expected to appear in a wheelchair before a packed court in the southern city of Munich at what is likely to be Germany’s last major trial from the Nazi era. German state prosecutors believe Demjanjuk, who was top of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s list of most-wanted war criminals, assisted in murders at the Sobibor death camp, in what is now Poland, where at least 250,000 Jews were murdered. Jewish groups and victims’ families say it is never too late for justice to be done and that the case is symbolic. “We should not make the mistake of thinking that a case against one war criminal is a case against just one man,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean of the Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles. “When the bell tolls for John Demjanjuk, it is also tolling for every other war criminal. Even if it just gives them sleepless nights,” he told Reuters. Demjanjuk, who was born in Ukraine and fought in the Red Army before being captured by the Nazis and recruited as a camp guard, was extradited in May from the United States. He emigrated to the United States in 1951, becoming a naturalised citizen in 1958, and worked in the auto industry. He denies he was involved in the Holocaust and his family insists he is too frail to stand trail. Demjanjuk’s son said his father had been in hospital for five days in the last week to undergo a range of tests and had a blood transfusion due to a bone marrow disease. “They are forcing the trial to go forward regardless of my father’s condition,” John Demjanjuk Jr told Reuters in a statement. LIFE BEHIND BARS? Due to his weak condition, the hearings will be restricted to two 90-minute sessions per day. His lawyer, Guenther Maull, said Demjanjuk was in constant pain and suffered from periods of mental absence. The trial, expected to last until May, is due to start at 0900 GMT and sessions have been scheduled for three days from Monday for this week. Over 200 journalists have been accredited. If all goes to plan, the prosecution will read the charges today and Demjanjuk, who could be sentenced to spend the rest of his life behind bars, will have the chance to respond. Prosecutors plan to show the court documents, including an identity card, to prove he was at Sobibor and they will call about 20 witnesses. While the case has attracted enormous global interest, many Germans would prefer to draw a line under the Nazi past and focus on a Germany’s new-found role on the world stage. Although he has acknowledged being at other camps, Demjanjuk has denied he was in Sobibor, which prosecutors say was run by 20-30 Nazi SS members and up to 150 former Soviet war prisoners. In the Sobibor gas chambers, Jews died in 20 to 30 minutes after inhaling a toxic mix of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, say prosecutors, who argue that Demjanjuk was at the camp for about six months in 1943. — Reuters Republished from Reuters on 30 November 2009  Read More →