New York Times to pay damages to Singapore leaders SINGAPORE — The New York Times Company has agreed to pay 160,000 Singapore dollars (114,000 US) in damages to Singapore's leaders over an article about political dynasties, the leaders' lawyer said Thursday.
The newspaper's global edition, the International Herald Tribune (IHT), had printed an apology Wednesday over the article.
It said the piece may have implied that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, the son of the city state's founding father Lee Kuan Yew, did not get his job on merit.
The elder Lee is a senior adviser in his son's cabinet with the title of "minister mentor". An apology was also issued to former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, who is now senior minister.
The New York Times said in its online edition Thursday that it "had settled a claim by Singapore's government that they were smeared" by an article written by Hong Kong-based columnist Philip Bowring.
Davinder Singh, the lawyer for the Singaporean leaders, said the newspaper and Bowring would pay 60,000 dollars in damages to Prime Minister Lee and 50,000 dollars to both the elder Lee and Goh. They will also pay legal costs.
"They have an agreed period to pay the damages," Singh told AFP.
The Bowring article, entitled "All In The Family", was published last month in the IHT and included the Lees in a list of Asian political dynasties.
The Singapore leaders, alleging the article was libellous, demanded an apology, damages and legal costs.
"We apologise 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," the newspaper said.
It said Bowring's article "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," it said.
The article has since been removed from the IHT's website, according to the New York Times.
Bowring declined to comment to AFP.
The Bangkok-based Southeast Asian Press Alliance said it was saddened by the apology.
"This continuing line of major media organisations too quick to offer contrition and money is a sad sight, and a persisting insult on legitimate journalism, fair commentary, free speech, and the rights that Singaporeans deserve," SEAPA executive director Roby Alampay told AFP.
Bowring was involved in a similar case in 1994 when he wrote an article in the IHT that referred to "dynastic politics" in East Asian countries such as Singapore.
Lee Kuan Yew, the junior Lee, who was deputy prime minister at that time, and Goh, the then prime minister, threatened legal action, alleging defamation.
The newspaper published an apology, saying it had implied the junior Lee got his job because of nepotism.
As part of an undertaking at that time, the newspaper and Bowring promised not to make the same allegations in future.
Singapore's leaders have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages in defamation cases against critics and foreign publications that they say are necessary to protect their reputations from unfounded attacks.
Last year, Hong Kong-based Far Eastern Economic Review and its editor paid over 400,000 dollars to settle a defamation suit filed by Prime Minister Lee and his father.
A Wall Street Journal senior editor was fined 10,000 Singapore dollars in March 2009 for contempt of court over three articles that allegedly insulted the city-state's judiciary.
The fine followed a 25,000-dollar judgement against the business newspaper's publisher Dow Jones Publishing Company (Asia) Inc. in November 2008 over the same articles.
Copyright © 2010 AFP. All rights reserved.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love these two sentences from the article, and how they were deliberately arranged together.
"It said Bowring's article "may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr. Lee did not achieve his position through merit".
The elder Lee is a senior adviser in his son's cabinet with the title of "minister mentor". An apology was also issued to former prime minister Goh Chok Tong, who is now senior minister."
The paper is obviously trying to infer that the Singapore government takes the local readers of the International Herald Tribune as idiots.
All I have to say is, if I believe the family is a political dynasty, reading this article will merely reinforce a belief, and even if you state otherwise I won't believe you.
If I don't believe so, reading the article won't simply make me believe the claim just because some journalist said so.
I believe Singapore's leaders are too quick to sue sometimes, in the mistaken belief that it will shut people up. Well, people do shut up in front of you, but the talk will be all over internet forums, the coffeeshops, in the taxis, and in homes. And the government is wondering why no one engages in politics here.
What's wrong with the term political dynasty? The Kennedys are a political dynasty too. So are the Roosevelts. So are the Gandhis. And you know what's the common link between all their political systems?
They are all democracies.
And after that, there's this.
"Singapore's leaders have won hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages in defamation cases against critics and foreign publications that they say are necessary to protect their reputations from unfounded attacks."
This is like the most loaded paragraph in the whole article, which leaves no doubt as to what they really feel about the whole issue. It's stated like a fact, but by putting "that they say" in the sentence, they are trying to imply that this is a stand that no one endorses but Singapore's leaders.
The power of words and implied meanings. People get rich on them.