press freedom While freedom of speech is enshrined as a fundamental liberty in Article 14 of the Constitution, this right is subject to any restriction that Parliament ‘considers necessary or expedient’ in the interests of security, public order or morality, and to protect against contempt of Parliament, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence. The press is not free to act as the fourth estate. The position of the People’s Action Party (PAP) on press freedom was clearly stated by Lee Kuan Yew in 1971: ‘Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.’

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) of 1974, the cornerstone of which is a discretionary licensing system, governs the press. A legacy of colonial rule, licensing laws require would- be newspaper publishers to apply for an annual permit which can be withdrawn at any time. Applications must state the nature of the publication and the kinds of content it will carry. Critics say licensing partly accounts for Singapore’s lack of a vibrant alternative press— small independent publications representing non- mainstream political and cultural communities. Large publications have also felt the brunt of licensing laws. In 1971, the government used this mechanism to close down the ten- month- old Singapore Herald after accusing it of ‘black operations’ against the republic’s security. However, the controversy surrounding this and other crackdowns prompted a rethink of the largely inherited tools— the Printing Presses Act of 1920, and the earlier Gagging Act— for managing the press. The 1974 Act introduced deeper and subtler controls.

In addition to a new ban on foreign ownership, the NPPA made it mandatory for newspaper companies to be publicly listed, and to create management shares to be held by government nominees. Public listing— with ordinary shareholders limited to a 3 per cent stake after a 1977 amendment to the act— meant that newspapers would have to answer to anonymous business interests, rather than to individual owners who might have idiosyncratic ideological motivations for bankrolling a newspaper. Management shares provided a mechanism for the government to influence a newspaper’s workings without interfering with ownership, which could be left to the stock market. They were allocated to banks and other establishment individuals. Management shares have 200 times the voting rights of ordinary shares, giving them effective control of the board and top editorial positions. This system has enabled the PAP to achieve near- watertight supervision of the press without either nationalizing ownership of the media or brutalizing journalists. Newspapers have been allowed enough independence to make handsome profits and create rewarding careers for professional journalists. There is no mechanism of censorship or vetting of articles by officials prior to publication. However, editors are sensitized to political limits through their long experience and close on- going discussions with government leaders.

The NPPA includes special provisions for foreign- based newspapers circulating in Singapore. Such periodicals, which include weekly news magazines, can be declared to be ‘engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore’ and subjected to quotas. The stated rationale is not to deny Singaporeans free access to information and ideas, but to prevent offending publishers from commercially exploiting the relatively lucrative Singapore market. In practice, publications are deemed to be interfering in domestic politics if they deny the Singapore government the right to an unedited reply to any offending article. Many foreign publications circulating in Singapore— including TIME, the Asian Wall Street Journal and The Economist— have fallen foul of this requirement and been gazetted at some time. At the World Congress of Newspaper Publishers in 1987, Lee Hsien Loong said: ‘The Singapore Government is not against the free flow of information. But it will not allow the foreign press full license to misinform, subvert, or campaign in Singapore.’

Publishers and journalists are subject to numerous other laws. The Internal Security Act, which allows arrest without warrant and detention without trial, was used against four executives of Nanyang Siang Pau who were accused of inciting Chinese racial sentiments in 1971. The act has not been used against the press in recent decades. Contempt of court legislation has been used against allegations that the Singapore judiciary is not independent. The Official Secrets Act, which makes it a crime to receive or publish government information without proper authorization, has been levelled at The Business Times, whose editor and a correspondent were fined. Singapore’s defamation laws do not follow the American tradition, in which plaintiffs who are public officials must show ‘actual malice’ on the defendant’s part. Courts in Singapore have ruled against defendants in most libel actions brought by politicians of the ruling party. However, the main targets of such litigation have been opposition politicians rather than the mainstream press. In 1998, for example, Singapore courts awarded plaintiffs $265,000 for a libellous article published in The Hammer, the newsletter of the Workers’ Party.

All broadcast media in Singapore are state- owned, and satellite television is largely banned. The Internet is the only medium not subject to discretionary licensing. However, Internet communication is subject to defamation and other laws applying offline. In 2005, for example, three people were charged under the Sedition Act for making racist comments online. Regulations require Internet service providers to route all Internet traffic through proxy servers that allow filtering. In practice, however, the filtering is aimed at blocking pornographic sites. Political and news sites have not been blocked.

While the government has pledged greater openness and transparency, there has been no move towards reforming press laws and regulations. Gradual liberalization has instead taken the form of greater tolerance of alternative viewpoints. Comments and questions that would not have surfaced a decade earlier are now aired openly in the mainstream media.

See also newspapers, radio broadcasting, television broadcasting and Undesirable Publications.