SELF-CENSORED

I censored my blog today. I deleted an entry I had posted on Saturday, August 14. It was a link to an Economist piece that I described as “an exceptional article on the government investment arm Temasek.“

I had also posted a section of the item. I was mostly impressed by its rare analysis of the return on investment yielded by Temasek's portfolio. But I had also noted my surprise they used the 'n-word.'

My post concluded with me expressing hope that the Economist did not get sued because of that.

Well, they did:

THE Economist magazine has published an apology and is paying damages to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew for a defamatory article on Ms Ho Ching's appointment at Temasek Holdings.
The London-based weekly has agreed to pay (SGD) $210,000 to PM Lee and and (SGD) $180,000 to MM Lee, along with costs and expenses incurred in the matter.
The Lees are donating the sums to charity.
The magazine said the allegations made in the offending article were 'false and completely without foundation'.
The article appeared in its Aug 14 edition under the title 'Temasek, First Singapore, next the world'.
The report dwelt on the investment acquisitions of the Singapore investment company and the role of Ms Ho and her relationship to PM Lee and MM Lee.
In its latest issue out today and posted on its website, The Economist carried a note dated Sept 1 and titled 'Apology: Temasek'.
It apologized unreservedly for the Aug 14 article that meant or was understood to mean that PM Lee had appointed, or was instrumental in appointing, his wife, Ms Ho, to Temasek 'not on merit, but for corrupt nepotist motives for the advancement of the Lee family's interests'.

The Economist's apology is here. As it is actually libel to reprint a libel, my deletion of their item was necessary.

This is not the first time I self censored. I spent a fair bit of time reworking an item I wrote about Lee Kwan-yew's recent comments about Tiananmen. My initial (unposted) reaction was much harsher. I was still pleased with the final post. In truth, it was more reasoned and well written than my original reaction. But I admit to breaking Simon's 30th and 36th rules:

30. Just like in life, extremism beats moderation and emotion beats logic. If you want reasoned discourse prepare to dwell in oblivion. If you want invective and ill-considered responses, watch the hits come in.

36. Logic and reason are for the weak. Knee-jerk and off-the-cuff reactions are for the blogger.

That post still got links and hits, and it was also one of my first posts to end up on Simon's Asian blog review, so I don't think it is impossible to blog critically and politely. (though you will get far more hits if you are willing to show a little flesh and be willing to link-whore to an A-lister like Wonkette).

And I don't think bloggers are as at risk of libel action as the big media. Most of us don't have very deep pockets, so there would be little point in suing. Besides, filing a lawsuit against someone who gets about 50 hits on a good day would just attract attention to whatever statement the person is contending is libelous.

I have deliberately gone softer on local politicians than I do on politicians elsewhere – whom I typically refer to with terms such as: prick, empty suit, crook, fool, moonbat, hypocrite and heartless bastard. However, I don't think it's impossible to be critical in Singapore, if I did I wouldn't blog about local news at all.

For me, the first rule of S'pore blogging is cribbed from high-school debating club rules: avoid ad hominem attacks, you could get a penalty.

What I'm guessing is that attacking policies and such things as the slow pace of liberalization is fair game, but attacking personalities is off limits. That's not typical of the blogosphere and I fear that it might make some of my Singapore-focused writing a little stale. But it seems the safest way to play things.