Abstract
Singapore is perennially a “not free” nation, according to global press freedom rankings. The news media does not occupy a watchdog role in Singapore, where “freedom from the press,” in the words of Professor Cherian George of Hong Kong Baptist University, informs government–press relations. As the Singaporean Court of Appeal, the country’s highest court, has stated, “[T]here is no room in our political context for the media to engage in investigative journalism which carries with it a political agenda.”
The law on the books and the law in practice are notably close to each other in Singapore because the government uses its restrictive law to keep journalists and the media nonadversarial. Regardless, what kind of laws and regulations are in place for the media industry in Singapore? How have they been interpreted and enforced? These questions are informatively examined in Media Law in Singapore as “a concise and practical reference guide” for media students and practitioners.
Over the years, Singaporean press law and related issues have attracted growing attention. In the late 1990s, the Asian Media Information Communication Centre (AMIC) published Mass Media Laws and Regulations in Singapore. This 576-page monograph reprints 50-plus statutes wholly or in part. ARTICLE 19, a London-based freedom of expression advocacy organization, prepared a comprehensive report of 80-plus pages on media freedom in Singapore. Singapore is included in International Libel and Privacy Handbook (4th ed., 2016), Carter-Ruck on Libel and Privacy (6th ed., 2010), and International Handbook of Social Media Laws (2014).
Media Law in Singapore has been substantially revised and expanded for its fourth edition. The book by Attorney Teo Yi-Ling, of IP Academy in Singapore, has been a welcome addition to the still limited English-language Asian media law literature, since its first edition of 2003.
Part 1 of the book focuses on the constitutional and statutory framework that affects free speech and the traditional and new media. Teo’s discussion of the Singaporean Constitution is too brief to contextualize the “qualified” free speech right as a matter of constitutional law. It should have been more expansively considered, given that Singaporean courts, more often than not, interpret freedom of speech as a constitutional issue. Furthermore, if Part 1 had an overview of the main sources of law and the judicial system in Singapore, the author’s discussion would be easier to follow.
Teo highlights the key provisions of a wide range of statutes. Her statutory discussion is illuminated by judicial interpretations and administrative rules and regulations. Singaporean media law draws considerably on international law as a positive or negative frame of reference. A number of foreign court cases and legislative sources are illustrated in Media Law in Singapore. In her defamation chapter, for example, the author discusses a 2010 Court of Appeal case in Singapore in connection with the U.K. principle of “responsible journalism” as a libel defense, which the court rejected. Equally significant, the Singapore Court of Appeal in 1993 declined to adopt the more media-friendly U.S. “actual malice” test of New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).
Some discerning readers might wonder why Teo only notes that “criminal defamation . . . is not discussed” in her book, although defamation is a civil wrong and at the same time a criminal offense in Singapore. The author’s unexplained decision to forgo criminal defamation altogether is somewhat puzzling. As ARTICLE 19 has observed (in a 2005 report, “Freedom of Expression and the Media in Singapore”), “The threat of potentially ruinous civil defamation suits or possible criminal prosecution is an obstacle to the legitimate expression of political dissent and independent public reporting generally” (emphasis added).
Media Law in Singapore is distinguished from other media law books such as Hong Kong Media Law (2nd ed., 2014). Teo devotes nearly 300 pages of her 467-page text to data protection, copyright, contracts, and managing rights and content. Her exhaustive treatment of contract, media business, and rights management is a strong point of the book. Those topics are rarely treated as in depth in standard media law books as they are in Media Law in Singapore.
However, Media Law in Singapore would be more relevant to journalism scholars and practitioners if its author had delved into other worthy topics, including privacy, freedom of information, and the journalist’s privilege. The “right to be forgotten,” which is an emerging global issue, also might have been touched on in the data protection chapter of the book. It is not clear why few of these topics are referenced in the book. Probably, Singaporean media law is still evolving, so none of them merits a systematic analysis in the book. Or perhaps they are nonissues in Singapore for one reason or another.
Overall, Media Law in Singapore should be a valuable reading to mass communication scholars interested in foreign law as a case of “reverse perspective.” Its lopsided emphasis on nontraditional topics notwithstanding, the book’s discussion of Singaporean defamation law and other media laws will help explain how the laws operate in Singapore as a rule-by-law country.