Singapore's press policy

The Singapore courts continue to defend the government's unique methods of dealing with the Press.

But the latest costly decision against the International Herald Tribune also points out how distinctively the island republic insists it be treated.

The international newspaper, which publishes an edition in Singapore, for distribution to many countries, reportedly will pay the largest libel judgment in the country's history.

The decision that a September, 1994 article libeled three of Singapore's leading politicians will cost the Herald Tribune almost 16 million baht ($640,000).

Two of the three, senior minister Lee Kuan Yew and his son, have another suit pending against the same newspaper, which also has been found in contempt of court in a third case.

Despite the trials of the Paris-based International Herald Tribune, there is no suggestion of a vendetta against this single newspaper.

Indeed, the three cases against it only highlight a long- standing confrontation which involves the Singapore government and its view of all non-local media.

Singapore has banned or restricted many foreign publications in the past generation.

The list has even included the daily New Straits Times newspaper, printed in next-door Malaysia.

Several of Asia's most widely read and popular international magazines and newspapers also have been banned or restricted in recent years.

Singapore's view of foreign publications, broadcasts and other sources of information are seen as idiosyncratic by many.

In the most recent case, for example, the libel suit was launched and upheld even though none of the three men who sued the newspaper was named in the story.

It had said that dynastic politics rule Singapore.

In addition to Mr. Lee and his son, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong will share the damages.

In today's small world, all media are international media.

To be sure, this is not a license to libel or to incite rebellion.

It also implies no freedom to disseminate material distasteful to any given society, such as religious hatred, racial or national bigotry, or pornography.

It is arguably a better solution that civilized nations share a general outlook about the Press and other information sources.

Constant rounds of bans, restrictions, court cases, apologies and other friction are wearying.

In the end, however, such constant antagonism is counter- productive to all concerned, but especially to the government and its image.

-- The Bangkok Post