Edition: U.S. / Global

Singapore Libel Case Casts Shadow on Press

Published: December 4, 1995

To the Editor:

Re your Nov. 29 news article on the Singapore libel case: By paying the $214,285 fine and waiving the right to appeal, The International Herald Tribune accepts liability for flimsy charges by Government leaders in Singapore and throws into doubt the freedom of expression that should transcend American borders.

The most disturbing aspect of this issue is not the settlement itself but the reasons behind it. The importance of Singapore in Asia cannot be underestimated, but the survival of the newspaper in that country seems to overshadow the traditional values of journalism. Now that the newspaper will strive to toe the authorities' line, it would be unrealistic to expect objectivity in its coverage of that country.

If similar charges were brought about by, say, President Daniel arap Moi of Kenya, who has been blistered by adverse publicity in American newspapers, the reaction would be a lot less conciliatory, if not caustic and vicious.


Simply, the country's geopolitical and economic importance seems to come first and journalistic principles and ethics follow.

As a journalist I am disappointed that within weeks of each other, CBS's "60 Minutes" and The International Herald Tribune have demonstrated that where money and power are involved, objectivity and truth take a back seat. If these news media can be swayed, the ideals of journalism are in danger of being eroded.

MARTIN A. MBUGUA Flushing, Queens, Nov. 29, 1995