"An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered." - G. K. Chesterton
***
An amusing series of letters:
October 1st
Singapore’s media laws
SIR – Banyan’s column wrongly stated that “not for the first time” the Far Eastern Economic Review “is banned in Singapore” (September 26th). The journal has never been banned in Singapore. At one time its circulation was restricted, but copies with the advertisements blanked out were circulated freely. This ensured the free flow of information, but prevented the Review from profiting commercially from engaging in our domestic politics.
Under our laws, offshore newspapers wishing to circulate in Singapore must post a security bond and appoint a local representative for service of legal process. The weekly Review had complied with these rules, as The Economist currently does itself. Unfortunately, in 2006 the monthly Review declined to comply and voluntarily discontinued circulating in Singapore.
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High commissioner for Singapore
London
October 15th
Something to FEER
SIR – Singapore typically plays with words in claiming it never banned the Far Eastern Economic Review (Letters, October 3rd). On December 26th 1987 [Editor's note: This date originally read December 26th 1988] its circulation, previously about 10,000 a week, was cut to 500 to be distributed as officials directed. The magazine declined to circulate on this basis. In an attempt to show it was not “banning” it, Singapore sponsored a sloppily printed, advertisement-free pirate version distributed selectively and very hard to find on newsstands. As in Maoist China and North Korea, a favoured few were always allowed to read it.
Philip Bowring
Former editor
Far Eastern Economic Review
Hong Kong
October 22nd
Rights, and wrongs, of reply
SIR – Philip Bowring’s account of the Far Eastern Economic Review’s encounter with the Singapore government is inaccurate (Letters, October 17th). In 1987 the government restricted the circulation of the Review after it had engaged in Singapore’s domestic politics. But an advertisement-free version was distributed widely at bookshops and supermarkets, and sold more than 1,000 copies. In March 1988 the Review applied to produce a similar version. The government agreed, subject to a ceiling of 2,000 copies, but the Review refused its offer. Would this have happened in Maoist China and North Korea?
Michael Eng Cheng Teo
High commissioner for Singapore
London
SIR – You will be tempted to give the Singapore government the last word on its censorship strategy—as its “right of reply” policy demands—but this will neutralise the criticism of Mr Bowring and others. Readers will simply assume you agree with the government. Assuming you don’t, please print this alongside its next rebuttal, to expose this subtle yet powerful manipulation of the press.
Duncan M. Butlin
Chichester, West Sussex
[Ed: This is a great way to get your letter published]