On the Singapore case study, it appears in the heat of this debate you have once again missed some major points I was trying to make - Unfettered press freedom does not exist in this world. The proper limits for press freedom should be decided by people in each country according to their local conditions. Imposing the Anglo-American (or the so-called liberal democracies) model of press freedom on others is over-simplistic and tantamount to cultural imperialism. The danger of unfettered press freedom during race riots, the questionable credibility of unelected media against elected government - key arguements among many from the Singaporean government to justify their approach are not without merits.

As to your five specific points, let me deal with them one by one:

1. Sideline or not, if a comment is racist or offensive, it should be condemned.
2. I repeat, Cafferty’s “goons and thugs” remark is NOT commentary. Be aware of the CNN PR spin.
3. FYI, CNN is NOT just for domestic consumption - CNN Int’l is worldwide and can be seen in thousands of 4-star above hotels all over China. “Situation Room” have loads of viewers in China.
4. If you study the links I provided earlier hard enough, you’ll find that the Singaporean government has indeed asked for and received open and written apologies for many times, and went on further with the lawsuits regardless of these apologies.
5. How do you explain the fact that millions of English-speaking Chinese nationals, overseas Chinese that need no translation and totally free from Chinese media influence, and many non-Chinese from English-speaking countries, all happen to see Cafferty’s remarks as referring to the Chinese people? (I personally agree with them, after carefully looking at the context of Cafferty’s whole outburst)
And as I have pointed out, even if we allow for a moment the remarks were meant for the government, categorizing 5-10 million Chinese civil servants all as “goons and thugs” is just beyond earthly comprehension. Cafferty might be dumb, but seriously is he that dumb?

Finally, I’d like to share with you and everyone interested in the topic the following links I came across lately which strike me as making a lot of sense (though the authors and commentators may not see eye to eye with me on everything):

http://www.chinavortex.com/2008/05/whats-wrong-with-the-economists-angry-china-article/

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8287/

http://www.zhongnanhaiblog.com/2008/05/just-so-we-get-this-clear.htm
(The comments in this blog are worthy of special notice)

http://chinalawpracticeblog.com/?p=22

Thanks for the links. The Murdoch Uni one mentioned foreign publications being taken to task for commenting on some of the unsavory aspects of the PAP gov - something which I have to say I would be very supportive of the journalists doing. Hey - if their system is so superior what harm could media criticism do it?surely people would see the criticism for what it was.

This is also quite a different situation to the Mcaferty saga. For starters - his comment came as a sideline to his criticism of the AMERICAN government. Secondly - it was a piece of commentary. He hadn’t gone out and done and expose of the CCP. Thirdly - it was for DOMESTIC consumption. It wasn’t said for the the Asia Wall Street Journal or some similar publication in Chin or even the region. Fourthly - I don’t see the SIngaporean Gov asking for apologies from these publications. lawsuits, yes, apologies, no.

A simple answer to your last round of questions would be - two wrongs do not make one right.

I’ve never said the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s approach is the one and only right solution. But to dismiss the Chinese demand for apology as ridiculous, childish, etc. surely is not the one and only right solution either.

According to what I have read about the Singaporean libel cases, Lee Kuan Yew, his son Lee Hsien Loong, and government ministers have won against a long list of reputable Western media outlets including WSJ, TIME, IHT, BLOOMBERG, FT, ECONOMIST, and BUSINESS WEEK.

For details, please refer to the following links I have come across, you’re also encouraged to do your own research on the topic.

http://www.pressreference.com/Sa-Sw/Singapore.html

http://www.asianz.org.nz/node/181

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN004067.pdf

http://wwwarc.murdoch.edu.au/wp/wp130.pdf

http://business.smh.com.au/singapore-libel-case-a-test-of-murdochs-bona-fides/20080106-1kg3.html?page=fullpage

For your info, the Chinese government is composed of some 5-10 million civil servants. Now, you guys tell me “why on earth, in a million freakin years, would sb be that friggin dumb” to call all these people “goons and thugs”?

Also please bear in mind, Cafferty is a TV commentator working for a serious mainstream news channel. As a pro, if he doesn’t know how to choose his words properly on air, he should be fired for incompetence if nothing else. I fully support the idea that politicians and governments should be subject to stricter media scrutiny, but please do not tell me that by CNN’s standard, name-calling is “robust opinion that generates debate”.

As for the question whether Cafferty is that ignorant and stupid to call more than a billion people on earth “goons and thugs”, I’m afraid that is something Cafferty himself have to explain. But one thing I do know about bigots is, carefree utterances sometimes best portray their subconsciousness or true state of mind.

And in case you are still wondering why the Chinese made a big fuss out of all this, I should probably share with you the knowledge that for many Chinese, what is more outrageous is not the bigotry in Cafferty’s remarks, but the length CNN has gone through to have the whole thing white-washed with a devious PR exercise, under the background of its repeated biased reporting on the riot in Tibet.

Another thing that seems to have been forgotten in this debate is, people in different parts of the world do have different ideas about how far free speech or press freedom can go. The laws on this, though similar in spirit, have marked differences in specific arrangments all over the world (even among the so-called Western democracies). As far as I know, the Singaporean government in the past has launched and indeed won quite a lot of libel lawsuits against some renowned Western media outlets.

One can debate whether these lawsuits have been used to stifle press freedom, but it is not really for the US to make decision for everyone on this planet as to what the proper limits for free speech should be. Quite frankly, telling the Chinese, who have been insulted in the first place, to just “chill out” for YOUR ieda of press freedom, does sound to me a bit patronizing.