the(new)mediaslut

Its official. Singapore laws do not protect the journalists’ anonymous source.

So if a journalist comes up to you and say that you will be quoted as an anonymous source, the journalist would still have to reveal who you if ordered by the Singapore Courts.

A Reuters journalist recently faced the possibility of spending two weeks in a Singapore to jail for not disclosing her source who gave her information about a out-of-court settlement between two broking frims.

Reuters brought the case to the Singapore Court of Appeals against the decision to force the journalist to reveal her source. In light of good media relations, the source gave the Reuters journalist the permission to reveal his/her identity, thus spared the Reuters journalist from going to jail.

However, the agent responsible for the leaked was not identified.  

Singapore’s main dailies, The Straits Times and The Business Times, also reported on the same story from the source and revealed the identity of the source, the Public Relations agency who handled one of the broking firms.

From Today Online :

….Subsequently, both companies served court papers on the reporters to reveal their sources.

The court orders placed the reporters in a difficult situation as journalists in Singapore don’t have the legal privilege of protecting their sources, unlike their counterparts in countries such as Australia and United Kingdom.

After initially resisting, ST and BT reporters disclosed their respective sources to the High Court. Both pointed to Huntington,which is Prebon’s public relations firm.

Ms Shanley, however, held on. At a court hearing on May 17, High Court Justice Andrew Ang agreed with Prebon’s lawyers and ordered Ms Shanley to reveal her source.