From Francis Wong, first editor of the Herald

Published on Page One, May 19, 1971

MR. LEE Kuan Yew's recent references to the Singapore Herald cannot but cause the public to suspect that the paper was founded by foreigners to make trouble in the Republic, and that I myself was, or am, some kind of foreign agent.

To erase this unjust impression, I wish to place on record an account of the beginnings of the Herald, its relations with the Government during the period when I was its editor and the developments which led to my resignation at the end of February this year.

In particular, I wish to clear up the mystery which has been created around Heeda Ltd. and Dato Donald Stephens, and to shed new light on the assertion that the Herald "took on" the Government.

The Herald was originally conceived by three journalists, Singapore citizens all. They were myself, the present Editor-in-Chief, Mr Ambrose Khaw, and the late Norman Siebel (former Straits Times Sports Editor) who, to our great grief, died before the launch.

The idea took firm shape in our minds early in 1968 and among the first things I did was to write to the Prime Minister to inquire if we could count on a licence. This was a necessary precaution in my case, as I had incurred Mr. Lee's displeasure in the late fifties and early sixties when I had been editor of the Sunday Mail.

I stated, in my letter, that we had in mind a paper with a thoroughgoing Singapore orientation, circulating exclusively in Singapore. By way of indicating our editorial stance, I made a number of points which I summarise below:

1. IN SINGAPORE on its own, there was no help for it but to pursue efficiency within the laws of capitalist development. The positions of the extreme left had lost all reality.

2. MALAYSIA'S very difficult racial problems were being made worse by opportunists of all communities and trouble very likely was on the way. As this could spill over into Singapore, it was necessary that Singaporeans should be properly informed.

3. HOSTILE elements in Malaysia needed to be disabused of the notion that Singapore could be pushed around, but, thereafter, Singapore should do its share, and perhaps more than its share, to build co-operation based on equality and mutual benefit. I was referred to the Foreign Minister, Mr. S. Rajaratnam. I told the Minister that I had made contact with a Hongkong publisher (not Miss Aw Sian) who was known to him, but explained that we wished to capitalise the project as far as possible in Singapore.

I also tried to get a feel of the editorial scope we could expect. At the end of a wide-ranging conversation, Mr. Rajaratnam said we could proceed.

My associates and I got down to detailed planning. Our task was complicated by a falling out with the Hongkong publisher. When we finally completed a project presentation in March of 1969, I made contact, through the good offices of friends, with groups of Singapore businessmen. (Note added by A. Khaw, not published: Including Wee Cho Yaw).

The initial response was extremely encouraging and we had reason to believe, around the end of April, that we would be able to raise in Singapore the bulk of the funds we needed.

Then came the May 13 riots in Malaysia. The resultant business uncertainties spread inexorably to Singapore. Our portfolio of potential investors began to crumble. Within a month, it had become clear that we would not be able to achieve our original capital target locally; indeed, might not be able to find enough money from any source to finance even a scaled-down project.

By this time, our group had been joined by Mr. J. J. ("Jimmy") Hahn, then general manager for Reuter in South-East Asia and now managing director of the Herald. Jimmy suggested that he might be able to engage the interest of his good personal friend Dato Donald Stephens – at that time, a stranger to me.

He made soundings, obtained a favourable first reaction and brought me into the picture. Together, we presented the project to Dato Stephens on a commercial basis and, on that basis entirely, secured his participation. Naturally enough, Dato Stephens asked many questions about our editorial policy. I said the journalists in our group felt that the Singapore Government had the right answers on all the big questions and that this belief would be reflected in our paper.

I added that the public utterances of the Prime Minister, my own conversations with other senior Ministers and the fact that Singapore was stable politically and doing well economically persuaded me that there would be scope for the kind of reasoned dialogue and debate that makes for lively journalism.

With regard to Malaysia, I said we had a duty to report the facts straight and to interpret events from a Singapore standpoint, but had no interest in political sniping. Basically, we would stand for good relations.

Dato Stephens thought these positions very reasonable and readily agreed that there should be an instrument of the Board of Directors giving me full control of editorial policy.

I was, and am, completely convinced of the Dato's bona fides. It occurred to me, however, that his open association with the firm might be exploited to embarrass our claim to a Singapore orientation. It struck me, too, that the Dato might find himself in an awkward position if, through no fault of his, we should incur the displeasure of the Malaysian Government.

And so I suggested that he make his investment through a holding company. The choice of the name Heeda Ltd. and the decision to register in Hongkong were his; the original suggestion was mine. And there is no more mystery to it all than that.

Moreover, the Singapore authorities were put fully in the picture by common insistence. I placed all the facts before Mr. Rajaratnam. He said he would consult his colleagues. Subsequently, he told me there were no objections. (And a licence to publish was granted).

I turn now to the suggestion that the Herald "took on" the Government. The phrase implies that we deliberately sought a confrontation. It ascribes to us more courage, or foolhardiness, than we actually possessed.

What is true is that -- more out of considerations of survival than of heroics -- we did not always do what we were told. (See posting: A rush of blood to the head).

Our difficulties began shortly after we went into publication in July, in connection with the expulsion from Singapore of Miss Shirle Gordon, Director of the Malaysian Sociological Research Institute.

The Prime Minister's Press Secretary, Mr. Li Vei Chen, telephoned three times to tell us not to print the story, on the third occasion conveying from Mr Lee the laconic message: "Don't cross swords."

My colleagues and I did not at all wish to "cross swords," being only too conscious that we possessed none. We were equally aware, however, that if we suppressed news of events which large numbers of people already knew about we would forfeit the confidence of the public.

The situation was the more vexing in that we had received not a word of explanation as to how the public good required a news black-out.

We did have independent knowledge that Miss Gordon was stage-managing things to achieve a heightened sense of drama, but we had no intention of falling for that. Finally, after a long discussion, I decided that we had to publish, but would deal with the story in such a way that no harm could possibly come of it.

And no harm did come of it. But the Prime Minister never forgave us that act of "defiance." The Herald was denied Press releases and barred from Press conferences. All official news sources were switched off. As these facilities were more privileges than rights, we had no real grounds for complaint. So we carried on quietly, hoping that as tempers cooled we would be given a chance to explain.

Eventually, on the eve of the Prime Minister's departure on his world tour, I was granted an interview with Mr. Rajaratnam. There was an air-clearing session and all restrictions were lifted.

For the next three months, during the Prime Minister's absence, the Herald's relations with officialdom were tranquil, occasionally even warm. As soon as Mr. Lee returned, however, we found ourselves once more enveloped in a rather tense and spooky atmostsphere.

We heard on the grapevine that the Prime Minister had levelled against us in private charges that he has since made public -- that we had stirred up trouble over national service and encouraged "permissiveness." And yet all that we did on these two questions is on record.

It is true that the Herald (along with other papers) opened its columns to complaints from national servicemen and their parents. We did so in the belief that this would help the Government to make adjustments and raise morale. And, indeed, much was done with precisely this effect.

When the ground had been covered, and the letters began to be repetitive, the Herald closed the subject -- long before laws were introduced to strengthen Queen's Regulations and without knowledge that this was in the offing.

The Defence Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, has said in Parliament that the Press has not been a hindrance to him.

As for "permissiveness," we examined the hippie phenomenon and deplored it in rather stronger terms than the Prime Minister himself has used, though we did point out that people with long hair are not necessarily hippies and did suggest that the Government should hesitate to lay down what people may or may not do with parts of their own bodies.

At all events, we were again under a cloud. The incidents which brought things to a head I shall summarise below:

A week or so before the Conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government, an American Negro and his Swedish fiancee called at the Herald office to complain of what struck them as discriminatory treatment at the hands of airport immigration authorities.

They came on a Sunday. Though they told us they had already been to an American news agency, we waited until Monday to get an official comment before printing the story. There were rumbles from City Hall.

A couple of days later, the entire Negro complement of a ship's crew lodged complaints of discrimination with the U.S. Embassy. The situation was highly perturbing.

The Commonwealth conference was around the corner. Negroes were passing through Singapore every day. Unless the confounded regulation that was enraging them was amended there was bound to be a first class row when a dozen African Heads of Government and three hundred foreign journalists were in town.

We made repeated attempts to obtain official clarification and then printed the story, though in very subdued form. We were accused of damaging Singapore's image abroad.

On the eve of the Commonwealth conference, the Herald got wind of the news that a document containing a plan for retaliation against Britain should she sell arms to South Africa -- and originating from the Zambian delegation -- was circulating among the African delegates.

Our reporter swore that he had sighted the document, whose putative contents, in any case, merely reflected a speech which President Kenneth Kaunda had made in Lusaka the day before. We printed the story.

It was denied (expectedly in all the circumstances) by a Zambian spokesman. We were accused of trying to wreck the Commonwealth conference.

During the conference, we carried a photograph of the West Samoan delegates under a heading which likened the lower part of their national costume to a midi skirt. We were accused of showing disrespect to visiting dignitaries and continuing our campaign to wreck the conference.

(I would be the first to admit the headline was in questionable taste. Before we learned of City Hall's disapproval, I told the person responsible that the headline placed us at the mercy of the sense of humour of its subjects. As it happened, the gentlemen from West Samoa were admirably broadminded and declared themselves more pleased than otherwise that they had been given credit for educating the West in the matter of sartorial style and comfort. That may not excuse the headline. But the motives attributed to us were hyperbolic, to say the least.)

I recall no "offences" other than those I have listed. I certainly had no sense of guilt about any of them, except the last. So although it was rumoured that we could expect a caning after the Commonwealth conference was over, I was not disposed to sacrifice the little sleep I had in those days in worrying about it.

The rumours were true. A week or so after the conference, the Herald came under the most draconian pressure. Government departments cancelled subscriptions and forbade their staff to bring the paper into the office. Government and quasi-Government organizations cancelled advertisements. All access to official news sources was totally denied us.

As luck would have it, these pressures were applied at a crucial juncture in our negotiations for additional finance. A local group, and a group headed by Miss Sally Aw Sian, were just about to sign on the dotted line.

The new investors were, understandably, perturbed. To restore their confidence it was necessary to normalise our relations with the Government. For this, there obviously had to be a price. I told my colleagues that if that price should turn out to be my resignation, then so be it. And so I left.

In the Prime Minister's version: "Finally, realising that its (the Herald's) position would become too exposed and untenable, the editor, who was instrumental in organising the paper, stepped down and went back to Kuala Lumpur." The first part of the sentence implies that some kind of unsavoury plot was nipped in the bud. The last clause is plain vicious. Like the Prime Minister, I am a citizen of Singapore, and Singapore is the only country to which I can "go back."

I now work in Kuala Lumpur because it has become impossible for me to practise at home the only craft I possess. I might add that before signing up with my present employers I secured their agreement that I should not be expected to write evaluative articles on Singapore which involved pejorative judgments.

In any case, I have long ago got over feeling bitter on my personal account. I only hope that a newspaper founded with the best of intentions will be given a chance to get on with the job.

FRANCIS WONG

Kuala Lumpur

Note from A. Khaw: Judge for yourself -- I think most reasonable people would agree that this was a more than adequate defence ... However, I had already written a Page One editorial giving my own views on Mr Lee's "black operations" charges -- this was published on the same day

The headline: The right to live with dignity

IT is time to clear the air between the Government and the Singapore Herald. It is time for the public to know just what is going on.

Since the first "Black Operations" broadside by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, we have given our diplomats a chance to seek a dialogue with the Government in an effort to clear our name. In the meantime, we held our fire.

Two replies were made by us to specific charges, but the Government continued to lay down a barrage of further charges.

Still we held our fire. For implicit in a proper defence would have been criticism of the Government's political judgment. Also, in a situation like this, disjointed judgments on Government decisions would only have added fuel to the fire and confused the issue with emotion.

But the time for watching and waiting is over. Unless we defend ourselves publicly, we may be forced to disappear from the Singapore scene under a clinging morass of half-truths, innuendoes and downright inanity. This newspaper has not suddenly conjured courage from thin air. Courage is not a word to be used in the context of our everyday existence.

Rather let it be truth -- truth to clear the mists that shroud the deep dark recesses of minds obsessed. Obsessed by what, we do not know.

And this we MUST make clear before we answer the charges against us. If there is any truth in the Government's charges that the Herald is a threat to the security of Singapore, the staff of this newspaper would be the first to aid the Government to uncover "black operations.'' LET THERE BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS.

Based on our own knowledge of the birth and struggles of this newspaper, we are convinced the Government's charges against us are ill-founded and that irreparable harm has been done by these accusations.

HARM has been done to our readers who have supported us for their own reasons in the face of high-level attacks not always publicized and a cutting-off of Government sources from our reporters;

HARM has been done to our advertisers, who, not unnaturally, have to think twice about their products being associated with a newspaper "undesirable" in the Government's eyes;

HARM has been done to our present and perhaps potential investors by the same association; and

HARM has also been done to honest journalists, both past and present, of Singapore who have practised their craft in an atmosphere that could never have been called amiable.

Doubt has been cast on their professional ability. Their honesty has been questioned.

Those are the brutal facts that make up a frightening indictment of this country's newspapers, and laid before its people in two terrible words: "BLACK OPERATIONS."

The Government has made the point that all this "tussle" does not involve the Freedom of the Press, but the Freedom of Singapore.

We believe a reply is absolutely vital, not only because these charges have not been proved, but because they never will.

Let us examine the specific charges laid down by Mr. S. Rajaratnam, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Labour, in a speech on Saturday, which deviated in parts from the text later supplied to the Press. They were:

1. The Herald's criticisms of the Government had become "a cover for eroding the will and attitudes of people in regard to fundamental attitudes."

2. Letters and editorials … eventually added up to a campaign against National Service.

3. Articles and letters, under cover of criticism, had worked up agitation over labour laws, the Internal Security Act, over Communist detainees, over the permissive society "and so on."

In his weekend speech, Mr Rajaratnam deviated from the text supplied to answer publicly a question we had been asking in private over the past week.

The question was about the standard of proof required for the serious charges the Government had chosen to level at the Herald.

The standard of proof for CRIMINAL cases is that the charge be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In CIVIL actions, the court passes judgment on the balance of probabilities. The standard of proof required for civil cases is not set as high as that for criminal cases because, in the former, a litigant only stands to lose money. In the latter, what you stand to lose is at least liberty, and at most your life.

In the cases of the Nanyang Siang Pau, the Eastern Sun and the Herald, Mr Rajaratnam declared: "This is a political judgment, not a legal one."

He said: "Because black operations are wholly secret and diffused, their detection is a matter of patiently putting together bits and pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. "Very rarely can you get all the pieces. Nor can a Government postpone action until it gets all the pieces. The chances are that by the time it has got all the pieces, it would be too late to act. The operation would by then have been successful."

We respectfully suggest that all the pieces of the jigsaw relating to the Singapore Herald are complete, right up to today's piece — No. 256 since we first appeared.

Those pieces are available for examination — in context — by anyone who wishes to wander into a library or this newspaper's office, where the files from our No. 1 issue will be opened to them.

And we defy anyone to show us an obvious, or even hidden, outline of any systematic plan to "take on" the Government at the levels they have mentioned:

1. THE CHARGE: "Eroding the will and attitudes of people in regard to certain fundamental attitudes." If we have in small part opened the minds of Singaporeans to the fact that there is a different way of life outside this tiny island, and that those ways are not necessarily dangerous to their own, but only different;

If we have, by showing them examples, both good and bad, of those attitudes so they can extract for themselves a knowledge of the working mind outside their own sphere of things and then adjust themselves IF THEY SO WISH to being better citizens of Singapore, we plead guilty to that charge.

2. THE CHARGE: "A campaign against National Service."

We have already made a preliminary reply to this as follows:

"National Service: like other newspapers we published letters from readers aggrieved over some aspects of the call-up. When remedial action was announced in Parliament the (Defence) Minister thanked the newspapers for their part in bringing these complaints to official notice. We took this to be recognition that efforts of this kind had helped to make National Service work better. That was and is our aim."

We believe that this newspaper can serve Singapore. If we gave space in our newspaper to letters from National Servicemen and parents so that the Government would be informed of any ill-feeling in the ranks and could cure those ills to make the Armed Forces more acceptable to those who have to serve;

If we, of our volition, closed the argument at a time when we considered all relevant points had been made, and those points made up "a campaign " against National Service, we plead guilty to that charge.

3. THE CHARGE: "Articles and letters, under cover of criticism, worked up agitation over labour laws, the Internal Security Act, over Communist detainees, over the permissive society "and so on."

Now here is an example of such a wide field of fire that the preparation of any proper defence brief is almost impossible. However, let us try to narrow the field down.

· LABOUR LAWS: We have taken the same editorial position as the NTUC on several issues, usually ahead of the NTUC. We know the NTUC cannot by any stretch of the imagination be accused of being anti-Government. So, if our crime is that we have spoken before they have given the cue, we plead guilty to that.

· THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT: We have commented on Suitability Certificates. We pointed out the inanity of requiring these for people entering tertiary institutions, but not for those who have to bear arms in the defence of this country.

· COMMUNIST DETAINEES: We have published letters, for and against. We promised in our first issue that we would provide a forum for intelligent discussion of issues of the day. We have kept faith.

· PERMISSIVE SOCIETY "AND SO ON…": Mr Rajaratnam suggested in his weekend speech that a picture of Castro (it was actually one of Che Guevera) in an artist's sketch of a low-cost decor scheme had some sinister intent.

The film "Che!" was passed for public exhibition in Singapore -- and our National Service friends tell us that they were encouraged to see the film. Our decor artist had only a tiny picture of Che as a wall decoration.

lf all that amounts to "agitation,'' we plead guilty to that charge also.

We repeat, the missing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that Mr. Rajaratn|m is searching for are in our files – all 256 of them.

But we have already been found guilty by the Government acting as prosecutor and Judge (sans jury).

There is a ray of hope, though. Mr. Rajaratnam himself has told us that the Government is not infallible "but if it must err, it is better to err on the side of caution."

We concede that this Government has shown admirable caution, skill and political judgment in the shaping of this nation.

But this is one case, we submit, in which the Government has erred beyond caution. If it remains unpersuaded of our honest intent, it is going to pass sentence of death on this paper -- a child of this nation, before it has had a chance to grow to adulthood and take its proper place in this society.

We ask only to be able to tell the truth and to have the right to live -- with dignity. (ends)