Unfit to read in Singapore

Press, 24 February 1987, Page 20

Unfit to read in Singapore

Singapore’s people are to be less fully informed. Beginning on February 16, the circulation of the “Asian Wall Street Journal” — the Asian edition of America’s grey-faced national newspaper — was cut by order of the Singapore Government from around 5000 copies a day to 400. The cut is to last indefinitely. The offence of the “Asian Wall Street Journal,” according to the authorities, was to refuse to publish a Government reply to an article published in December about a new unlisted securities which opened on February 18. The article quoted criticisms that the market, the Stock Exchange of Singapore Dealing and Automated Quotation system (SESDAQ), will be used to “un-

load” securities of State-con-trolled and Government-backed firms.

Some business people sympathise with the Government’s unhappiness with what one foreign broker calls “a particularly snide article.” But that does not mean they like the punishment.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore says that the tone of the article revealed "bias” and “prejudice” and that there were errors of fact.

The newspaper has refused to publish the M.A.S.’s letter of complaint (while inviting it to write again) because “we don’t allow our columns to be used for baseless allegations or unfair attacks on our staff members.” It thus becomes the second foreign publication — after “Time” last October — to have its circulation restricted in Singapore. The paper may challenge the restriction in court, so the rights and wrongs of the piece may be debated further.

The irony is that SESDAQ is designed to further Singapore’s plan to become the top financial centre of South-East Asia. The printing in Singapore of “Time,” the “Asian Wall Street Journal” and other foreign publications (including the “Economist”) is meant to help advance the cityState as a centre of information and high-technology.

Neither aim seems well served by depriving bankers, brokers and businessmen of their daily paper.

Copyright — The Economist.