Government rebuts Economist report
By Chong Zi Liang, The Straits Times, 18 Mar 2017
The Government has refuted an article in The Economist on free speech in Singapore, which said critics continue to be penalised for speaking out even as leaders called for more naysayers.
The magazine, in its March 11 issue, cited the High Court's recent upholding of the conviction of three people who protested against the CPF in Hong Lim Park in 2014.
In a letter published in The Economist's March 18 issue, Singapore High Commissioner to Britain Foo Chi Hsia said: "They were not charged for criticising the Government, but for loutishly barging into a performance by a group of special education-needs children, frightening them and denying them the right to be heard."
This is the second time in a week that the Government has responded to a foreign publication that misrepresented the case.
On Saturday, Reuters news agency wrote that six people "were charged with creating a public nuisance while protesting against a compulsory tax savings scheme".
But the police clarified a day later that their protest had disrupted a charity event at an adjacent lawn. The six, who included blogger Han Hui Hui, were charged with public nuisance with common intention in October 2014, and later convicted.
By Chong Zi Liang, The Straits Times, 18 Mar 2017
The magazine, in its March 11 issue, cited the High Court's recent upholding of the conviction of three people who protested against the CPF in Hong Lim Park in 2014.
In a letter published in The Economist's March 18 issue, Singapore High Commissioner to Britain Foo Chi Hsia said: "They were not charged for criticising the Government, but for loutishly barging into a performance by a group of special education-needs children, frightening them and denying them the right to be heard."
This is the second time in a week that the Government has responded to a foreign publication that misrepresented the case.
On Saturday, Reuters news agency wrote that six people "were charged with creating a public nuisance while protesting against a compulsory tax savings scheme".
But the police clarified a day later that their protest had disrupted a charity event at an adjacent lawn. The six, who included blogger Han Hui Hui, were charged with public nuisance with common intention in October 2014, and later convicted.
Last month, the High Court upheld the convictions and sentences of Han and two others .
In her letter, Ms Foo said The Economist's report, titled "Grumble And Be Damned", had "alleged a lack of free speech in Singapore".
But she noted that Singaporeans have free access to information and the Internet, including to international news outlets such as The Economist and the BBC.
Opposition politicians have also successfully gone to court to defend their integrity and correct falsehoods purveyed against them, she noted.
"In no country is the right to free speech absolute," she said. "When this right is extended to fake news, defamation or hate speech, society pays a price. Witness the Brexit campaign and elections in America and Europe.
"Trust in leaders and institutions, including journalists and the media, has been gravely undermined, as have these democracies. In contrast, international polls show that Singaporeans trust their government, judiciary, police and even media," she added.
"Singapore does not claim to be an example for others, but we do ask to be allowed to work out a system that is best for ourselves," she said.
"Trust in leaders and institutions, including journalists and the media, has been gravely undermined, as have these democracies. In contrast, international polls show that Singaporeans trust their government, judiciary, police and even media," she added.
"Singapore does not claim to be an example for others, but we do ask to be allowed to work out a system that is best for ourselves," she said.
Free speech in Singapore
“Grumble and be damned” (March 11th) alleged a lack of free speech in Singapore. Yet Singaporeans have free access to information and the internet, including to The Economist and the BBC. We do not stifle criticism of the government. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the cover of free speech, nor will we protect hate or libellous speech. People can go to court to defend their integrity and correct falsehoods purveyed against them. Opposition politicians have done this, successfully.
You cited the case of three protesters convicted for creating a public nuisance at Speakers’ Corner. They were not charged for criticising the government, but for loutishly barging into a performance by a group of special-education-needs children, frightening them and denying them the right to be heard.
In no country is the right to free speech absolute. When this right is extended to fake news, defamation or hate speech, society pays a price. Witness the Brexit campaign, and elections in America and Europe. Trust in leaders and institutions, including journalists and the media, has been gravely undermined, as have these democracies. In contrast, international polls show that Singaporeans trust their government, judiciary, police and even media. Singapore does not claim to be an example for others, but we do ask to be allowed to work out a system that is best for ourselves.
Foo Chi Hsia
High Commissioner for Singapore, London
Letters to the editor,
The Economist, 16 Mar 2017
“Grumble and be damned” (March 11th) alleged a lack of free speech in Singapore. Yet Singaporeans have free access to information and the internet, including to The Economist and the BBC. We do not stifle criticism of the government. But we will not allow our judiciary to be denigrated under the cover of free speech, nor will we protect hate or libellous speech. People can go to court to defend their integrity and correct falsehoods purveyed against them. Opposition politicians have done this, successfully.
You cited the case of three protesters convicted for creating a public nuisance at Speakers’ Corner. They were not charged for criticising the government, but for loutishly barging into a performance by a group of special-education-needs children, frightening them and denying them the right to be heard.
In no country is the right to free speech absolute. When this right is extended to fake news, defamation or hate speech, society pays a price. Witness the Brexit campaign, and elections in America and Europe. Trust in leaders and institutions, including journalists and the media, has been gravely undermined, as have these democracies. In contrast, international polls show that Singaporeans trust their government, judiciary, police and even media. Singapore does not claim to be an example for others, but we do ask to be allowed to work out a system that is best for ourselves.
Foo Chi Hsia
High Commissioner for Singapore, London
Letters to the editor,
The Economist, 16 Mar 2017
Reuters report on Speakers' Corner protest 'misleading'
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 13 Mar 2017
The Singapore Police Force yesterday said it was "regrettable" that a report by news agency Reuters on a protest held last Saturday contained "unsubstantiated allegations", and described it as an attempt to stoke fears about the use of the Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park.
The news agency had published a report last Saturday about a protest over the upcoming water price hike which was attended by about 100 people at the free-speech zone.
A line in the report read: "The organisers of Saturday's protest said more people would have turned up if they had not feared a police crackdown."
It also stated that in 2014, six people "were charged with creating a public nuisance while protesting against a compulsory tax savings scheme".
In a statement last night, police rebutted the two points, saying it was "regrettable" that the news agency ran a report containing "unsubstantiated allegations from the (protest) organisers".
The report presented a "false and misleading picture" on the use of the Speakers' Corner in Singapore, it said, noting that a police permit is not required for events held at the free-speech zone, as long as they do not cause racial or religious enmity, or pose any law-and-order risks.
Many large-scale events involving thousands of participants have been held at the Speakers' Corner, the police added.
On the six people who were charged, the police said their protest had disrupted a charity event at an adjacent lawn.
By Pearl Lee, The Straits Times, 13 Mar 2017
The Singapore Police Force yesterday said it was "regrettable" that a report by news agency Reuters on a protest held last Saturday contained "unsubstantiated allegations", and described it as an attempt to stoke fears about the use of the Speakers' Corner in Hong Lim Park.
The news agency had published a report last Saturday about a protest over the upcoming water price hike which was attended by about 100 people at the free-speech zone.
A line in the report read: "The organisers of Saturday's protest said more people would have turned up if they had not feared a police crackdown."
It also stated that in 2014, six people "were charged with creating a public nuisance while protesting against a compulsory tax savings scheme".
In a statement last night, police rebutted the two points, saying it was "regrettable" that the news agency ran a report containing "unsubstantiated allegations from the (protest) organisers".
The report presented a "false and misleading picture" on the use of the Speakers' Corner in Singapore, it said, noting that a police permit is not required for events held at the free-speech zone, as long as they do not cause racial or religious enmity, or pose any law-and-order risks.
Many large-scale events involving thousands of participants have been held at the Speakers' Corner, the police added.
On the six people who were charged, the police said their protest had disrupted a charity event at an adjacent lawn.
The six, who included blogger Han Hui Hui, were charged and convicted of public nuisance with common intention in October 2014.
"(The Reuters report) was clearly an attempt to stoke fears about the use of the Speakers' Corner and sow distrust of the police," said the police in their statement.
"A more objective reporting would have shown that the Speakers' Corner has been, and remains, an avenue for Singaporeans to participate freely and responsibly in public speeches and demonstrations."
AGC orders blogger Han Hui Hui to take down scurrilous posts; Han Hui Hui's allegations of prison treatment 'baseless and false': MHA
MHA: Han Hui Hui’s Allegations in Blog Post False -14 Mar 2017
CPF protesters heckle special needs children
No comments:
Post a Comment