David Schlesinger: Sinkapore's courts of law are state-controlled

[dr.wailing]

In a live interview with the newsdesk of Al Jazeera two days ago, David Schlesinger, Chairman of Thomson Reuters says Sinkapore's courts of law operate the same way as those in Shanghai and Beijing. HK courts are different.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Stating the obvious.....阿媽係女人

 

[frenchbriefs]

thanks to one man who took away the jury.

 

[makapaaa]

You think like this can entrap me to sue? Only a fool will fight in a court not under his control! I smart leh? *hee*hee*​

 

[rushifa666]

Well said. Sue him then. Pit his fortune against yours, it will be entertaining

 

[cass888]

This is the reason why. Reporters are not tua pai Singapore. Who they think they are to have the right of confidentiality?


Singapore Appeals Court Orders Reuters To Disclose Source
Saturday, May 26 2007

Foreign Media in SGP and SGP Judiciary Pseudonymity 12:26 am
by Jonathan Lynn
SINGAPORE, May 25 (Reuters) – Reuters identified an anonymous source on Friday after Singapore’s Court of Appeal ordered a reporter for the international news agency to disclose the name and the source gave permission to do so.
The source released the reporter from her duty of confidentiality when it became clear that the reporter would face jail unless she complied with the court order, confirmed by the appeal court on Thursday.
Singapore law does not recognise the right of journalists to protect the identity of their sources, which is enshrined in the laws of many countries protecting freedom of expression, as well as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.
“It is Reuters policy to protect the confidentiality of our sources,” Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger said. “To defend this principle we challenged the order in court and fought it all the way to Singapore’s Court of Appeal, the highest court in Singapore.”
The reporter had been called to give evidence in a commercial case between two brokers in the city-state, Tullett Prebon and BGC Partners. Tullett Prebon had asked the reporter to identify a source quoted in a story about how the two brokers settled a dispute over the hiring of a team of traders.
The court order obtained by Prebon, and upheld by the appeal court, warned the reporter she faced imprisonment to compel her to comply with the order. Under these circumstances, the source did not want the reporter to break the law and defy the court. The source therefore consented to the disclosure.
“We believe confidentiality of anonymous sources must be protected as it is this trust between source and reporter that brings to light vital information and helps provide the transparency so necessary for the efficient working of markets in a free and vibrant society,” Schlesinger said.
“I regret that the courts ruled against this principle that I believe is so important not only for a free press but also for a clean, orderly and transparent market.”
Reuters uses anonymous sources only when it believes they can provide necessary information that cannot be obtained in another way.

##########​

Updated at 0920hrs with the following news report
Who is the source?
• Court orders media to reveal name • ST, BT give in after initial fight • Reuters refuses; case goes to highest court

In a live interview with the newsdesk of Al Jazeera two days ago, David Schlesinger, Chairman of Thomson Reuters says Sinkapore's courts of law operate the same way as those in Shanghai and Beijing. HK courts are different.

 

[frenchbriefs]

of course have to fight this case lah kum lan kia,if not next time everytime Singapore government suka suka ask for confidential information and reveal sources then must reveal to them?who the fuck PAP think they are?

This is the reason why. Reporters are not tua pai Singapore. Who they think they are to have the right of confidentiality?


Singapore Appeals Court Orders Reuters To Disclose Source
Saturday, May 26 2007

Foreign Media in SGP and SGP Judiciary Pseudonymity 12:26 am
by Jonathan Lynn
SINGAPORE, May 25 (Reuters) – Reuters identified an anonymous source on Friday after Singapore’s Court of Appeal ordered a reporter for the international news agency to disclose the name and the source gave permission to do so.
The source released the reporter from her duty of confidentiality when it became clear that the reporter would face jail unless she complied with the court order, confirmed by the appeal court on Thursday.
Singapore law does not recognise the right of journalists to protect the identity of their sources, which is enshrined in the laws of many countries protecting freedom of expression, as well as recognised by the European Court of Human Rights.
“It is Reuters policy to protect the confidentiality of our sources,” Reuters Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger said. “To defend this principle we challenged the order in court and fought it all the way to Singapore’s Court of Appeal, the highest court in Singapore.”
The reporter had been called to give evidence in a commercial case between two brokers in the city-state, Tullett Prebon and BGC Partners. Tullett Prebon had asked the reporter to identify a source quoted in a story about how the two brokers settled a dispute over the hiring of a team of traders.
The court order obtained by Prebon, and upheld by the appeal court, warned the reporter she faced imprisonment to compel her to comply with the order. Under these circumstances, the source did not want the reporter to break the law and defy the court. The source therefore consented to the disclosure.
“We believe confidentiality of anonymous sources must be protected as it is this trust between source and reporter that brings to light vital information and helps provide the transparency so necessary for the efficient working of markets in a free and vibrant society,” Schlesinger said.
“I regret that the courts ruled against this principle that I believe is so important not only for a free press but also for a clean, orderly and transparent market.”
Reuters uses anonymous sources only when it believes they can provide necessary information that cannot be obtained in another way.

##########​

Updated at 0920hrs with the following news report
Who is the source?
• Court orders media to reveal name • ST, BT give in after initial fight • Reuters refuses; case goes to highest court

 

[Tuayapeh]

of course have to fight this case lah kum lan kia,if not next time everytime Singapore government suka suka ask for confidential information and reveal sources then must reveal to them?who the fuck PAP think they are?

anybody wanna bet Tan Siong Thye will be hearing Pinky's case?????

 

[dr.wailing]

anybody wanna bet Tan Siong Thye will be hearing Pinky's case?????

Yes. I bet my big fat ass that a kangaroo will be hearing the case.

 

[cass888]

Siow! This is not asked by the government. It is asked by a litigant who subpoenaed Reuters.

of course have to fight this case lah kum lan kia,if not next time everytime Singapore government suka suka ask for confidential information and reveal sources then must reveal to them?who the fuck PAP think they are?

 

[Papsmearer]

Don't talk so much lah. Just sue Al jazeera if Gay Loong and the PAP got the balls. This is a very serious accusation broadcast to the world and very damaging to the govt.'s reputation. Sue small guy very garang. Try and sue the number one news source in the muslim world and see what will happen to them. Some iman will order a jihad on gay loong.