Below is Gerald Giam’s speech at the Reel Revolution learning talk, organised by The Substation, on 12 July 2008.
Gerald Giam | Deputy Editor
Singapore was ranked 153rd out of 195 countries by Freedom House, in its 2008 report on media freedom. A similar report by Reporters Without Borders (RSF) ranked Singapore 141st out of 169 countries. RSF said that Singapore‘s low ranking stemmed from “the complete absence” of independent print and broadcast media and the opposition’s lack of access to those media.
My view is that while Singapore certainly does not have the freest local media in the world, there are plenty of alternative sources of news that Singaporeans can choose from.
Instead of despairing about how “unfree” our media is, I’d like to share with you how much more we, ordinary Singaporeans, can do with the freedoms we have, to carve out a more desirable media environment for Singapore.
Firstly, we need to realise that our media companies operate in an environment that simply does not allow them to be free, even if they wanted to.
For example, the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act empowers the government to approve or revoke a newspaper’s license. The approval of the Minister is required before any individuals can acquire what are known as “management shares”. Holders of “management shares” have 200 times the voting rights of ordinary shareholders with respect to any resolution relating to the dismissal of any journalist of a newspaper company.
This effectively forces the news media as organisations to toe the government line. But that does not automatically mean that all journalists are sycophants whose only agenda is to sing the praises of the government and cast the opposition in a bad light.
I have met many reporters, both young and old, who hardly fit that stereotype. Some are even more critical of the government than me, and others have expressed a desire to see a more credible opposition for them to report on.
Importance of media freedom
Many Singaporeans have become so used to a compliant press that we have no idea what the proper role of the press is anymore.
The government has its version of what the role of the press is: That is, to communicate and explain the government’s policies to the masses. The local press is expected to play their part to assist the government in “nation-building”.
Implicit in this expectation, is that they are not to criticize government policies too harshly. They may propose refinements to decisions already made, but they are not to go head-to-head with the government and question the fundamentals of its policies. Nation-building, therefore, is defined as rallying support for the government and not making their job more difficult.
I agree with this to a small degree. Any elected government needs the mass media to communicate with its citizens. Can you imagine if you only found out about a newly passed law by word of mouth?
But that’s not all that the press should do. The press has a responsibility to report fairly and objectively. Not simply cut and paste government press releases. We need journalists to be thought leaders who can analyze the news and present alternative viewpoints if necessary.
Another important role of the press is their role as the watchdog of those in power. Without a free press, those in power can easily cover up their misdeeds without any fear of being found out.
The media also needs to be the voice of ordinary men on the street, not just those in power.
Internet as a leveller
Fortunately, many of Singapore‘s harsh press laws do NOT apply to another powerful, up and coming media platform — the Internet.
Several years ago, the government promised to maintain a “light touch” in regulating activity on the Internet. As of now, most of us would agree that they have more or less kept to this promise.
Last year, the government appointed the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). As its name implies, AIMS was tasked to examine Singapore‘s Internet regulatory regime and recommend changes to meet the challenges of this dynamic new environment.
Many of us bloggers were worried that, given the controlling nature of this government, AIMS being a government-appointed committee, would end up recommending even stricter laws to govern the Internet.
So 13 of us got together and put together a proposal to the government, where we argued for the repeal of several laws that unnecessarily curbed media freedom. We also proposed a way forward in the form of community moderation.
In response, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA) told us that they were planning to adopt an even lighter touch to the Internet in the future. From my conversations with people in AIMS, I understand that they will probably be proposing an expansion of our freedoms, rather than clamping down further on free speech on the Net.
Seize the day
All the freedom in the world would be of no use if we the citizens do not make use of them, or worse, misuse them.
We have a tendency to cite the fear factor for not speaking up. But actually there are plenty of avenues to express ourselves, without getting into trouble, and without having our views disappear into a black hole and ignored. The fear that most people have is often due to ignorance of their rights under the law.
I guess many of us here already run our own blogs. That is definitely one way to express yourself.
Allow me to share with you some stories from my short experience in blogging.
I started blogging in June 2006, one week before leaving my civil service job. I could not do so earlier as civil servants are prohibited from publicly expressing views on any political matter.
At that time, my main purpose in blogging was to share my opinions on public policy issues in Singapore.
Besides being an outlet of expression for me, one of the hidden benefits of blogging, which I never imagined when I first began, is that I’ve greatly expanded my circle of politically-minded friends. Through my blog, I’ve gotten acquainted with many fellow political bloggers, civil society activists, journalists and even a long lost uncle!
I was approached — through my blog — in November 2006 by Andrew Loh, who told me then that he was thinking of setting up a new group blog called The Online Citizen (TOC). Since then, we have managed to bring on board many political bloggers to contribute articles to TOC. In the span of 17 months, TOC managed to rack up 1 million hits on our site. We now have about 3,000 to 4,000 unique visitors a day and growing.
In fact, the readership of TOC far exceeds the combined readership of each of the individual writers on their own blogs. My personal blog has barely hit 80,000 after two years of writing.
Why has TOC managed to gain so many eyeballs in such a short time? There are several factors.
One is content aggregation. Singaporeans are busy people. Not everyone has time to visit multiple blogs every day. Few are technically savvy enough to make use of RSS syndication to scan through blog posts. By providing an aggregation of views of many different Singaporeans, we have been able to provide a single website for people to click on to read alternative news.
Secondly, TOC has determined from the start to provide independent and alternative viewpoints, but not to the extent of engaging in the wild and irrational anti-government rhetoric that you see on many Internet bulletin boards. By doing this, we have managed to reach out to the moderate majority who are tired of the mainstream media brainlessly praising the government, but also want to engage in meaningful discourse on issues that matter.
TOC is still a volunteer-run outfit. We don’t have any full-time staff nor any regular source of funding to cover our expenses, apart from the ads that we just started putting up on our site.
Our greatest resources are our writers, readers and commenters. In order to keep TOC going, we continually need even more passionate people to step forward to volunteer their time as writers, editors and even to help with the technical and legal aspects of running a website. If you are interested to help TOC and be part of this media revolution, do come and talk to me later, or drop me an email.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I’d like to say that media freedom is not a Western concept inapplicable to Singapore. The concept of a free media can and should be adapted to the Singapore context. For example, the media should have more freedom to air alternative political views, without compromising racial, religious and moral sensibilities.
But we Singaporeans need to cease being observers on the sidelines, and take the future in our own hands. The future of our democratic society, based on justice and equality, is too precious to be left in the hands of an elite group that controls the levers of information and opinion in our country.
—————–
Hi Gerald,
As you already know, we have more freedom than we care to use.
Of course the powers have curtailed some of these freedoms for their own purposes.
Arguably some of these freedoms which are easily available for free men and women elsewhere are denied us. Freedom to assemble peaceably. Freedom to protest just to name a few. We are told that this is the price to pay for our economic miracle to continue. A trade-off.
You and I know that freedom and economic success are not mutually exclusive but I am not sure if the common Singaporean who has been fed a daily diet of government propaganda can come to the same conclusion.
How many of the ruling elite are of the old anachronistic school? All of them?
Is there a reasonable chance of change from within the elite ? Will there be reform from the Politics of retreat?
Or do we need a total regime change before we can be really free?
Still a huge number of the electorate who do not use the internet. Their only source of news is from mainstream media. Don’t forget that.
To add to the above point, perhaps the govt feels that the proportion of internet-savvy voters has not yet reached a critical mass to swing an election, so they can afford to score some credibility points to offset the potential disadvantages to them, hence the greater amount of freedom granted.
Of course, that is just the cynical side of me speaking and we have to give credit where credit is due, kudos to them for doing so. However, it means that we have to make full use of this freedom in a responsible way such that they cannot clamp down on the Internet in future without looking bad and scoring a political own-goal. If wild, baseless allegations let fly without self-moderation from the community then it is an open invitation for them to exercise the iron fist.
The opportunity is given to us to make this medium count, perhaps even within the next few elections. Let’s not squander it.
I make it a point to express my views, without criticising another person’s views. I state the reasons for my view and avoid being judgemental on other people’s views.
I avoid naming a specific person or organisation, to avoid getting my facts wrong and being sued for defamation. I have the leeway to give my opinion, without the fear of being persecuted.
I hope that more people can come forward to express their views.
Freedom of expression -> expression of self for life, expression of self for family, expression of self for friends and others, expression of self for religion, and expression of self for country. Most of all, expression of self for ideals. Without ideals, no higher purpose or goals would be possible and corruption of the self would start. That I guess is the meaning of life and being human. The question then is are all these manifested in the various aspects of this country. The nett answer is quite clear.
Between expression of views in an appropriate way and the peaceful means of agitating for change, the populace is lost without viable alternatives. Even speakers’ corner does not work and people rather not reproduce themselves here leading to a shortfall in the Singaporean identity. So we are not liberating ourselves whether mentally or physically.
Hey Gerald,
Good speech! I agree with what you say. It’s also what Catherine Lim said not too long ago in her speech at the LKY School of Public Policy:
Overcoming doubts and stepping forth.
“So my rallying cry to Singaporeans is this: Think through, speak out, stand up and try not to be too afraid.”
Many a times, I do feel that Singaporeans’ fears are self-inflicted, as Catherine Lim said. Speaking to people over the last two years or so, many expressed this fear. But I am also glad to say that slowly, many are also not afraid to speak up.
The important thing, I feel, is not to keep repeating that there is this fear, that S’poreans are afraid, that things will happen, etc. This is something which I hear those who hate the PAP govt do all the time – thus, perpetuating the fear even further.
What I’d suggest is that instead of being paralysed by this so-called fear, why not show that speaking up sensibly and rationally is a possibility? Why not speak of things which are more helpful, fruitful and productive?
The Internet provides a wonderful and valuable avenue for us citizens to express ourselves. Thus, I do agree that it is how we use it that will determine whether we are taken seriously. If we use the Net to make vulgar, wild and unsubstantiated allegations, then we do not deserve the freedom that we wish we had.
I myself have been a target of such malicious and unfounded allegations and I know how it feels to be such a target. In fact, right now, there are person/s in a particular forum doing exactly that – trying to dig out dirt about me, mentioning my mother and sister in disguised threats, even visiting my home and taking pictures of my block and making threats to my person.
This is exactly what we do not need the Internet to be used for.
Nonetheless, back to your speech, you are right. If we citizens do not use what is available to us, and instead keep repeating these ‘self-inflicted fear’, then we really have no one to blame but ourselves.
Regards,
Andrew Loh
Prior to the advent of Internet, most if not all information is fed locally with limited medium choice. The discourse engagement is few and in between, and could arguably attributed to the fear of speaking up and speaking out. Today it is still an uphill psychological battle to convince a person to rid of a deeply held believes especially when this kind of characteristics and behavior becomes a form of a doctrine, worshiped and endorsed to a degree where it spreads like a vicious virus that is constantly renewing its life. If you continue to allow it to mutate over time, it will be harder to stop. That is what we have to stop this kind of thinking to and for our young. The young, particular the nurturing and adolescence must be given a chance to exercise independent thinking. Free from any indoctrinated teachings.
With the advent of Internet, it indeed had given us an avenue where we could express with lesser fear. Still, I think open public discourse on controversial issues of concerns without any pre-conditions should be encouraged by any civilizations that cherish democracy and freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is not a contest of dare to be different. It is indeed a basic responsibility and duty of a citizen to care for the well being and betterment of the country that you want to call home.
The lesser regulating rules and laws that can be otherwise removed in this 21st century that globalization is at the driver seat, the better freedom is allowed for its citizenry to share their concerns that may help shape an even better future of this country which virtually had zero resources other than its citizenry.
We Human Beings should embrace our kind and respect each other’s perceived views and draw the compromise and make our independent decision. We will always have varying views in anything abstract that cannot be proven like a mathematical formula. However, being overly critical, non-substantiated or fabricated allegations and or being overly suppressive will always result in further conflict and miss-thrust. It cuts both ways. In the end, the biggest looser is the country itself.
I read with disgust the ST today. Splashed on the front page was a young man’s face – who’s ‘crime’ was to having uncensored tape.
Put within was the insidious comment that Ven was seen coming home late with 2 men.
That was top class tabloid news! Unbecoming of a national paper.
Uncalled for, just like the same Tan Lead Shake issue again, where vague insinuations are suggested.
Whereas for PAP man Ong Chit Chung, no information was given for a long long time.
Or Mrs LKY.
Hi Gerald,
Great speech. I agree very much with Andrew. Mr Tan and the rest as to what has been said in this thread.
The internet is really a potent force that should ideally be used to further the interest of the rest of humanity. I agree.
I cant say, I am a dedicated reader of TOC. Generally I believe all readers are pretty itchy backside like myself, so we all move around. Basically my footprint runs the Intelligent singaporean, ping, sintercom, sg daily, wp blogs, mr wang and the rest.
However, recently both I and many of my office colleagues noted with some sadness, the BP has closed shop for good by the looks of it. This time they seem to be serious. As they is nothing coming out from their side except maybe rehashed stuff. I dont know the real reason for this as I dont follow matters in blogosphere very closely, but others have informed me, there is a big dispute in the blogging community concerning regulation or something like that. I believe what they have done is a form of protest or like whales beaching.
I consider this very sad as when the BHP was around they did add color to our blog scene. I used to enjoy reading many of their articles and I was often impressed by their originality which is something which has always been lacking in our blog scene.
I was just wondering. Pls dont flame me. As it seems such a waste for all those Brotherhud writers to lay down their pens en mass in this sudden way. I believe we Singaporeans are not America ns where a couple of talented writers can just decide to run off to the hills and their seats will be filled within a matter of minutes. In Singapore usually those seats will just gather dust and eventually someone will just cold storage it in the basement. No one will fill it up. One writer gone is one committed person who really has the power to make the difference gone for good. I am not even counting those who follow in his footsteps, readers, commentators and the rest.
I want to know whether TOC could somehow persuade some of those ex brotherhood writers to write again under the TOC banner or even giving them one area where they are allowed to do their thing. I dont think the core group such as Mr Darkness and his close friends will consider it, at the top they all seem to be stone heads, but in the fringe, I have noticed there are other writers who do not seem to share the beliefs of these core groups. I think this incident has shown me, they are not one block of people as they are many people in one block. This is a good sign. It means many of those fringe writers may have their own thoughts as to how they wish to come across to their audience. On top of that I am also sure many researchers assisting them. I for example was asked to contribute information on some of their essays. I am very certain for these talented pool who may have just started and those fringe writers especially there is still hope. They should not be sucked into the politics of blogosphere. I believe the fact they are under the brotherhood banner makes it difficult to cross over. No one wants them since the core group has burned bridges with almost everyone in blogosphere. So by default since they are also labelled brotherhood, they will have to also sink with the boat as well. This I believe is not necessary. We should all throw these people a life line and tell them clearly, you are welcome, there is life after the brotherhood press. I believe very strongly when we do this and lay down our ego and try to see the bigger pic. The people who will benefit most will be netizens. I am not someone who has great charisma, but I am sure Gerarld or someone bigger will be able to manage this handover better.
This way TOC can not only reclaim some of what has been lost,. I dont believe their readership is very big as they get on average only4,000 hits per essay. However, that is not my main point, we should try to rebuild back what has been lost. But I am also certain many of the readers who have left as most are probably very fatigue will also have reason to return back to our blogosphere.
I dont know how all this turned so ugly over night. They were always there, suddenly like a fire it just started burning everything down and no one put out the fire. I think as a reader of all blogs it is time for us to lay down our differences and recognize we are in one boat. Even if you win one corner of the boat but you end up making a hole in it, you will sink.
Thanks for allowing me to say my piece.
Adeline Lim (Bukit Batok)
All I have to say is :
I would describe the situation as due to the fact that
Singapore is really a YOUNG nation.
It has to grow.
Humans are all the same – the want freedom.
Its a matta of time. ;)
If the media is so strictly controlled, why would the people still work there when they cannot work like real reporters?
so, i say, they must be operating without being strictly controlled.
u belief me ? :P
It’s a well known fact that local media is govt-controlled yet some people choose to read their papers only, instead of other independent sources. I myself read from many alternative sources because I understand that the viewpoints of a certain issue will be biased to a certain extent, especially if it’s by govt.
Every morning, thousands of people get brainwashed in MRT stations because they took the TODAY newspaper, which is govt-controlled.
LOL.
Hello
If TOC had once been fair to the BHP, then I believe there is a basis to build on. I don’t believe its just a matter of just throwing a life line to those ex bro writers. Dont believe me go and get someone senior like Tan Kin Lian to touch base with them. But don’t be surprise, if they don’t even want to listen to what he has to say.
I dont wish to come across as abrasive but Adeline, you may be nurturing a pipe dream. As I said earlier, if TOC and their partners were once fair to the BHP, then there is no denying there is certainly a basis to build something on as what you have mentioned.
You really have to ask the likes of Gerald, Andrew and perhaps even Yawning Bread, Dr Cherian George, Bernard Leong et al as to whether they have even delivered on those basic fundamentals. I leave that to all of you. I have no comment. All I can say is there is not even a working channel to communicate.
My take is people are basically the same where ever they are. If you respect them, they will respect you back.
That’s why I believe any reclaiming of ex-BHP writers will be better done by Dr Loy Huchien who runs the Singapore Angle. It is a known fact, the brotherhood may have been critical abt the SA, but nonetheless it is generally well known they also have tremendous respect for him. As he is one of the few who dares to engage their leader on an equal footing. The rest I feel, they will not listen too.
Just my 2 cents
Adeline – I really don’t know much about Brotherhood or what they stand for. Of course at TOC, we welcome anyone who wants to write for us. Our editorial policy does not exclude any particular persons.
“I really don’t know much about Brotherhood or what they stand for” fair enough. Perhaps you should get up to speed on what rest of the net already knows.
http://magnezium.blogspot.com/2008/06/internet-deregulation.html
Do feel free to come back on any points.
I thought that was well-written, and I’d like to make one or two remarks. It’s sometimes true the world is separated by those who have a voice and those who don’t, and it’s important to know your interests and speak up for yourself. At the same time there are proper forums for free speech, and forums where speech matters. [Then there are persons who have little notion of propriety, inside arenas like the court, in Internet forums and in public areas. A certain oppositional leader comes to mind, but I am not going to deliver biographical accounts here.] Some Internet sites have proven to be viable avenues, but for true influence, especially political influence, there is only Parliament. It is there that what you say has real and lasting effect. And it’s not doing those who aren’t already in Parliament any good by making noise elsewhere. At any point in time, members of parliament belonging to ruling or oppositional political parties can easily create publicity by launching a newsletter or site and the moment they do that, which is likely, they’ll effectively remove the competition. They would have a voice within and without Parliament. It’s only a matter of time before they do that. Meanwhile they’re enjoying every bit of alternative news on sites like ‘The Online Citizen’.
nvgtr – “for true influence, especially political influence, there is only Parliament”
I’m not sure if that’s really true. Political influence is all about swaying voters. Can a voice in parliament sway voters? Not if the media doesn’t report it. If you read JBJ’s book of Parliament speeches, you’ll be amazed at how many good proposals he put forward which Singaporeans never heard about.
That’s why the PAP is so concerned about reigning in the media, because of its influence.
Dear Fellow Singaporeans;
for about two years, I have enjoyed reading and participating as a commenter, in the Local Socio-political Blogs. There are a good many samaritans working tirelessly for the wellbeings and justices of fellow citizens. As a fellow Singaporean, I like to say a big thank you to all of them and also to show them my respects.
There are others who feel that all the whinings, rantings and ramblings are useless and go to wastes, there are others who feel that Singaporeans complain too much. To some extent, there are some truths in these opinions as well, for all the opinions and suggestions are normally not able to get responses from the relevant authorities and officials. Though this is a normal case, personally, I do not see all the efforts going to waste. The Blog Readers do get the benefits of knowing more insights, professional views and opinions from very learned bloggers and commenters.
There are also many newsworthy developments that may not be published by the MSM, Official Medias and conversely bad and ugly news totally left out because of adverse publicities which I believe the Leadership would want to avoid as much as possible.
I feel I have benefitted much within these two years and will come back to the fraternity when my conditions permit. As I have expressed before, I missed to get myself educated properly with regard the Chinese Language. Now that I am left with little time, I wish to play catch up with Chinese Literatures to better appreciate the great wisdoms of the Chinese Culture. Recently, I bought some of the Chinese Classics but due to the poor groundings I have in Chinese Language(written), I will have to spend more time to learn and understand them.
So folks, I thank YOU ALL for the company and hope that I could come back to enjoy your companies again!
hi andrew, have you reported this matter to the police since someone is threatening you?
Dear intent,
Nope, I have not made a police report about this. But I am prepared to if the insults and threats cross the line and become more serious.
Andrew
Yes, Singaporeans really need to cease being observers on the sidelines. And I think one of the reasons why more Singaporeans are in fact moving slowly, but surely, away from the sidelines is that they are embolden by the social network of activists (or politically interested individuals; or simply those that care for Singapore). Through informal contacts, they make friends and encourage more to join in. THis is also a reason why the TOC is gaining ground.
‘I’m not sure if that’s really true. Political influence is all about swaying voters. Can a voice in parliament sway voters? Not if the media doesn’t report it. If you read JBJ’s book of Parliament speeches, you’ll be amazed at how many good proposals he put forward which Singaporeans never heard about.
That’s why the PAP is so concerned about reigning in the media, because of its influence.’
So Gerald, are you playing media with the intention of being ‘reigned in’ one day, if the incentives of being ‘reigned in’ are enough?
Sorry, I meant “reined in”. As in the govt wanting to control the media. No I don’t do what I do so that I can get co-opted, if that’s what you’re implying.
I’m new to this webpage. After skimming through the article by Gerald and the few comments, I may have found the right channel to give it a shot.
I’ve been on AsiaOne Forum for the last two months and found the level of participation rather boring and mundane. I believe TOC has a more mature, intellectual and academic audience and participants in various roles. This is what I was looking for in discourses of important national and international issues.
I’ll be returning to this webpage in the not too distant future if welcomed. Thanks.
Ebenezeron
Canada
Gerald,
TOC has definitely grown well under your guidance and stewardship. I have no doubt it will be a leading must read site in Singapore some time in the near future. However, read through the other comments in this thread and cannot help but agree with what has been expressed by some concerning the sad fate of the brotherhood press. They used to control nearly 99% of the brainy audience. Now I think not even 1%. My personal feel as a administrator who has worked for nearly 30 years in the public sector is more can be accomplished to reach out to those people in the Brotherhood.
My mother told me a story once, one arrow can be snapped like a twig, but a bunch of arrows cannot.
Unity is always better than division. When one is divided no one wins except those who want to see divisions, that is why they call it divide and rule. I cannot help feeling the may even be a great asset to all us with their insightful and probing write ups.
Just a starry eyed look into the future. Good luck and keep up the good work!
They will never write for TOC. Their code prevents it. They dont mind if you waste them fair and square. I think if that was done, they will just take their dead and say you win and we will go away, but, yes, we can work together. You can ask anyone they are all like that in the virtual.
However, the way this whole deregulation exercise was handled. IMHO it was not done fairly to them. They were shut up in one corner, marginalized, sidelined and even treated like dirt.
These people are not so different from these people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2agLCjMY7og
I have met them before in the virtual. As I said, if you defeat them fair and square they may not be happy, but they will still respect you enough to do business with you. The problem is if you dont even treat them with respect. Then how?
What does it mean if any of them comes over to write for TOC?
It will never ever happen, not in even 11 million life times, hell will have to freeze over first. Pls dont delete me, I just felt I had to clear the air once and for all. As I said, I know this people very well and there is nothing worst than a group of people here talking about things that will never ever happen.
i am contented with the concept of the TOC. I would dare however to suggest that a convergent topics and subtopics may be assigned among volunteers writer similar to what is being done to some of the blogs by the stock traders assigning guest writers a particular subject and later compile every general subject i.e press freedom as an emergent social tool for public information and may be copyrighted with a sales partner of TOC and make this complilation (book form) available in conventional bookstrore or via e-order from the citizens of TOC.
this will in effect, be the written principled discussion of TOP and shall be a future reference for material for new subjects offered in schools about e-communication or in aid of legislation as may be permitted by law.
Sorry it should read TOC not TOP.
this will in effect, be the written principled discussion of TOP and shall be a future reference for material for new subjects offered in schools about e-communication or in aid of legislation as may be permitted by law.
George