Letters: Singapore and press freedom
Your editorial endorsed Mr Alan Shadrake's book as "legitimate and ... largely accurate" (Press freedom: The Singpore grip, 17 November). Mr Shadrake had alleged, without any basis, that the Singapore courts conspired with state agencies to suppress material evidence. Such a statement would be considered to be in contempt of court in many common law jurisdictions, including England, Australia, Ireland, Canada and Hong Kong.
This was why Mr Shadrake was charged for contempt of court. The court found that he had made grave allegations against the independence and integrity of the Singapore judiciary, without rational basis and with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsehood. You quoted Mr Shadrake's statements confirming emphatically that his book questioned the independence and probity of the judiciary. Yet his lawyer argued in court that Mr Shadrake had not intended to allege any cover-up "by the high echelons of the judiciary". This duplicity was not lost on the court.
The trial, along with Mr Shadrake's comment that it was a fair hearing, was fully reported by local, international and alternative media. The judgment has been published and is available for public scrutiny. Every society strikes its own balance between the rights of the individual and society. The death penalty has been and continues to be openly and vigorously debated in Singapore. But it is an issue for Singaporeans to decide, and the majority support the death penalty.
The World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report (2009-10) rated Singapore first out of 133 countries for public trust of politicians and transparency of government policymaking, and 19th out of 133 countries on judicial independence, ahead of Japan, France, Belgium and the US. You yourself acknowledge Singapore's successes. Part of the reason is that we have sensible rules that maintain the standing of our courts.
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High commissioner of Singapore