New York Times curiously apologises over Singapore comments 29, March 2010
Posted by thegulfblog.com in Random.Tags: authoritarian Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, New York Times, New York Times Singapore apology, Singapore, Singapore courts, Singapore government
trackback
Forgive me for quoting at length here, but things have been put rather well already and this area of the world is outwith my expertise (such as it is).
A few days ago the New York Times ran the following apology.
In 1994, Philip Bowring, a contributor to the International Herald Tribune’s op-ed page, agreed as part of an undertaking with the leaders of the government of Singapore that he would not say or imply that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had attained his position through nepotism practiced by his father Lee Kuan Yew. In a February 15, 2010, article, Mr. Bowring nonetheless included these two men in a list of Asian political dynasties, which may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this inference was not intended. We apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong for any distress or embarrassment caused by any breach of the undertaking and the article.
This is a curious thing. Firstly, that a reporter would be help to account for some kind of undertaking made 16 years ago. Secondly, that the NYT really cared that much to print such an apology. Third, that, as Outside the Beltway put it:
Is there any question whatsoever that Singapore, despite having had elections for decades, is authoritarian by Western standards? Or that nepotism and other forms of personal loyalty plays a stronger role in Singapore than in true representative democracies? Or that Lee Kuan Yew played and continues to play an outsized role in Singapore and People’s Action Party politics?
Joyner, the author of the above comment, then clarifies via a quick email from a friend:
The reason the New York Times issued that correction is that if you print something about the Lee family, they will sue you in Singapore courts, which they control, and then they will win, and then they will seize any assets you happen to have in Singapore. For the New York Times, this is an issue.
If you have ever wondered about the strange kid-gloves treatment the rather noxious family gets in the international media, that’s why.
It makes sense, actually. And as Steven Taylor notes in the comments below and CJ Morton speculates via Twitter, it’s quite possible that NYT wrote the correction in the way they did precisely to elicit the reaction they did from readers paying attention. That is, they simultaneously met their obligation to the Singapore autocrats and thumbed their noses at them.
The Gulf blog 
Actually, the apology was published pursuant to a demand from the Lees. In addition, NYT had to pay US$114,000 in damages.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N26D20100324
Of course it was published at the behest of the Lees…isn’t that the whole point?
Well, your article made it sound like the NYT decided to do it of their own initiative in order to forestall a possible defamation suit. The point is that they did it after an actual legal demand from the Lees and also had to pay a large damage settlement as well.
I do agree, however, that the apology insinuates what it appears to deny. I wonder if the wrong use of the word “infer” to mean “imply” was intentional as well. I find it unlikely that such a mistake would escape NYT editors.
Ok, thanks for making things so clear.
Indeed, I think the NYT have been clever about it too. Good for them.
Welcome to Uniquely Singapore and I live here. There are no protest permitted, and citizens are open to defamation suits by its leaders. The 30 highest paid politicians are from Singapore and oh, there is no corruption here. The newspapers is owned & controlled by the government.
נחמד! רק רציתי להגיב. אני לגמרי אוהבת את ההודעה שלך. תמשיכו את העבודה נהדר.