From Third World to First The Singapore Story pdfdrive com

Singapore Herald
.
Had I not attended, the assembly would have passed resolutions condemning
Singapore in my absence. I stated my position on the role of the media in a new
and young country like Singapore. I needed the media “to reinforce, not to
undermine, the cultural values and social attitudes being inculcated in our
schools and universities. The mass media can create a mood in which people
become keen to acquire the knowledge, skills and disciplines of advanced
countries. Without these, we can never hope to raise the standards of living of
our people.”
I recounted how, with Singapore’s different races, languages, cultures and
religions, press reports and photographs had caused riots with loss of lives, and
cited two examples. In the “jungle girl” riots in 1950, the 
Singapore Standard
had headlined a report of a Dutch girl, converted to Islam by her Malay foster
mother, kneeling before an image of the Virgin Mary. The anti-Chinese riots on
Prophet Mohammed’s birthday in July 1964 resulted from a sustained campaign
by a Malay newspaper, falsely alleging day after day that the Malay minority
were oppressed by the Chinese majority.

---

I said I did not accept that a newspaper owner had the right to print whatever
he liked. Unlike Singapore’s ministers, he and his journalists were not elected.
My final words to the conference were: “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.” I stayed resolutely polite in
response to provocative questions.
A few years later, in 1977, we passed laws to prohibit any person or his
nominee from holding more than 3 per cent of the ordinary shares of a
newspaper, and created a special category of shares called management shares.
The minister had the authority to decide which shareholders would have
management shares. He gave management shares to Singapore’s four major
local banks. They would remain politically neutral and protect stability and
growth because of their business interests. I do not subscribe to the Western
practice that allows a wealthy press baron to decide what voters should read day
after day.
In the 1980s Western-owned English-language publications became a
significant presence in Singapore. Our English-reading public was expanding
with the teaching of English in our schools. We have always banned communist
publications; no Western media or media organisation has ever protested against
this. We have not banned any Western newspaper or journal. Yet they frequently
refused us the right of reply when they misreported us. We decided in 1986 to
enact a law to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications which had
engaged in the domestic politics of Singapore. One of our tests for “engaging in
the politics of Singapore” was whether, after they had misreported or slanted
stories on Singapore, they refused to publish our reply. We did not ban them,
only restricted the number of copies they sold. Those who could not buy copies
could get them photocopied or faxed. This would reduce their advertising
revenue but did not stop their reports from circulating. They could not accuse us
of being afraid to have their reports read.
The first publication to breach this law was the American weekly 
Time
magazine. In an article in October 1986 it reported that an opposition MP had
been found guilty by Singapore courts on charges of disposing of assets to
defraud creditors and of giving false evidence. My press secretary sent a letter to
correct three errors of fact in the report. 
Time
refused to publish it and instead
proposed two versions, both of which changed its meaning. My press secretary

---

wanted the letter published unedited. When it refused, we restricted the sale of