The importance of editorial independence in the news process
Wednesday, 8 October 2008, 12:56 pm | 1,822 views
Yan Wen was the Managing Editor of The Nanyang Chronicle in 2007.
This is a transcript of her speech delivered at a demonstration at the Speaker’s Corner protesting the NTU President’s recent censorship of The Nanyang Chronicle. Yan Wen is a Year 4 student at Nanyang Technological University’s (NTU) Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information.
Lim Yan Wen
As an ex-Managing Editor of the Nanyang Chronicle, I was hurt and saddened to learn of the censorship on the paper. If the article had been written in any way that was less than objective, fair and responsible, perhaps I would not have been so affected.
The thing is, as a student-run paper existing for the students, I can say that the student writers, student editors, and teacher advisors go through great pains to ensure that every article is written in a manner that’s fair-handed, unbiased, informative and interesting as far as possible. And through my involvement with the team last year, that was exactly what we always strove to do, for every article, every issue that we were in charge of. And I’m sure the same goes for the current team.
A lot of effort and work go into the production of every issue, and every article needs to fight for its publication because obviously, not everything that happens on campus gets to be reported. At every news conference where the team meets to pitch news ideas for the various sections, news ideas that don’t meet the criteria of being news-worthy will not be given the go-ahead to be pursued further.
Newsworthiness
So you ask, what do we mean by news worthiness and news value? There are many conditions that need to be satisfied before a news idea can be deemed as newsworthy; here are some of the ones that we frequently employ to make our judgment.
1. Timeliness: This simply means that the event happened recent enough to be worthy of coverage.
2. Proximity: Usually, the nearer the action is, the more news value because it would be of direct concern to the target community of the paper.
3. Conflict: Where there are two parties or more in disagreement.
4. Eminence and prominence: People in the public eye usually have higher news value than ordinary citizens
5. Currency: This refers to whether or not the story relates to what students are concerned about at the time of occurring.
On most counts then, the article in contention would appear to have qualified as a worthy piece of news that is deserving of a spot in the paper.
That said, as I’ve mentioned before, the student editors (and teacher advisor) understand perfectly that we don’t have free rein to report on everything that we wish to cover. Even when we actually are trying to get stories that are potentially controversial to be published, that story usually would go through a few more layers of gate keeping with the teacher advisor and the Chair before the Chair decides if it’s suitable to be published. For stories that are not potentially contentious, the student editors usually are trusted to make their own judgment call to ensure that the story remains fair-handed and in good taste.
In that regard then, the Chronicle resembles a real learning ground where self-censorship and careful avoidance of infringing of OB markers on the part of the journalists help to shape the content of the news article and to ensure that the story is one that’s written responsibly and with journalistic integrity. In this way, as student journalists, we get a chance to apply what we learn in school, things such as coping with the limitations journalists have in the Singapore press system and how to work with those in mind and not compromise news values and respectability at the same time.
Essentially, that is what The Chronicle is; it is a learning paper where students explore their potential and apply what they learn in theory. Even though very often, we see that what works in theory might not work in the real world, we respect that as part of the learning process; sometimes we make mistakes and we learn from those mistakes and move on knowing that we have gained some invaluable experiences that will remain with us.
Trust is key
For the Chronicle to continue existing as a respectable, fair and honourable student-run paper, editorial independence is important. More specifically, we’re talking about responsible editorial independence. This means that the student journalists continue to take responsibility in carrying out their reporting and news-gathering, the editors to make their decisions in as professional a manner as possible, and for independence to be maintained, as far as possible, from the owners of the publication.
Only when that is achieved can the Chronicle’s existence be rendered meaningful: when students can be trusted to make their judgment and exercise journalistic integrity, with the help and professional insights from our esteemed professors and teacher advisors, and go on to deliver news stories that are for the students, by the students.
———-
Email this article to a Friend
Bookmark this
Yan Wen, I am dazzled by your intellect and objectivity.
I think its a nice speech. Very well thought out with allowance given to all parties. Can we have more of this in future? Its good and long due in fact.
The Nanyang Chronicle should move from student-led to student-owned. Deny NTU the right to censor by owning the newspaper instead.
RH:
1. A good move by the students has already resulted in an online news blog. Once this takes off, the LIEgime will have nothing left to control because the blog or website will be totally independent.
2. Uni students are the last people to need a paper newspaper.
Singapore needs to have an independent MSM.
Only complete and absolute overhaul can achieve this in my humble opinion.
I may be wrong. But I may be right.
I think it is necessary to define what exactly is meant by “editorial independence” and “censorship”.
Let’s take the example of Watergate, I think one of the best piece of investigative reporting in history. Does one think the decision to publish the watergate article rest solely with the reporters Woodward and bernstein? Or did they get clearance from Leonard Downie jnr, their editor. Did Downie in turn seek clearance from the managing editor Ben Bradlee? Or did Ben Bradlee seek clearance from Katherine Graham to ok the article? Of course they did.
Same thing with the decisions made by FeeR to publish the Chee article knowing full well the potential backlash (which happened like clockwork).
An interesting book to read on the subject is “Inside the Clinton Propaganda Machine” by Howard Kurtz. Everyone manages the media.
There’s a lot of articles that don’t get published every day as a result of censorship not just in Singapore but in the US. The miami herald chose not to publish emails from Tom Foley and his pages as much as the reporters wanted it. We know what happened thereafter.
Does anyone seriously think any editor will be given 100% independence even in today’s world esp when dealing with sensitive subjects? We live in the real world here but I do relish the idealism.
Its like football. Managers would like to manage the transfers. Their jobs depend on it. Owners like Roman Abramovich interfere. When its his money on the line, it doesn’t take a genius to know who’ll decide. There’ll be managers like Alan Curbishley and Kevin keegan who will quit their jobs in protest. And they’re absolutely right. Unlike the students here at NTU, the manager’s job depend on the players being transferred. Yet they have no choice. But ultimately, we know who’ll get their way.
Can that be changed? One way is to change the club owners. Having a supportive owner like Philip & Katherine Graham was a huge boost for the Washington Post. Still, defamation laws have a chilling effect (their newspapers are richer) and that applies even in the UK and US. Nevertheless, we’re not discussing public newspapers here but university’s internal media.
That’s not to say I don’t support editorial independence. I think a good editor eg Leonard Downie affects readership and more importantly in the commercial world = sales. Like it or not, that’s ultimately how an editor is measured.
University students (not just those from NTU) should pool their resources in order to have more clout in this matter. We should not be afraid to point out that the emperor is stark naked.
Lim,
That’s the crux isn’t it? No matter what kind of system is in place, it is only as good as the person holding the seat of power.
Also, it is in the western psyche to be individualistic and asians tend to be collectivists.
It is second nature for Asians to work for the benefit of a group, company, institution etc but to a Westerner, he/she probably can’t see it that way. Because of his individualism, there is a tendency put into place systems tailored for individuals. Asians on the other hand are comfotable in groups and do not adopt the same rules and/or practices to ensure individual interests. At present, our culture of collectivism is eroded as a result of our close ties with the West and the pervasiveness of their culture- some of us are are agitating for changes to be made in that direction and you can’t say it is for the better. In liberalising, we may actually be reducing diversity.
My kind of gal… *wink wink*
Many tend to use bad examples to reason why having editorial independence can be bad.
I think we should 1st have an independent editorial system and then observe and monitor for the side effects.
1st things 1st. don’t kill the baby before the baby is born.
isa (#9):
Are you dazzled just like #1 too? ROFL
lim (#6):
Hence, I support Petition´s (#3) position to deny NTU the right to censor by urging students to take over the newspaper.
angkukueh (#8):
You also cannot verify if holding on to Asian collectivism is for the better too.
Donaldson Tan,
You are right. I cannot verify that a democracy influenced by Asian collectivism is superior.
Neither can we say Western democracy is better. It’s a beautiful thing alright, but is it the panacea to all of the world’s ills? Even assuming that it is, can’t the medicine be applied in doses instead of gulping it down all in one go?
As far as i know, Singapore is the only Asian country left with a democracy as such. Maybe Belgium or the ex-Yugoslavia would be better off taking some pointers from Singapore-styled democracy? A dominant party that can but aside regional differences and decide upon a national agenda and move foward together in that direction?
That is what i’m trying to get at, that people don’t seem to be able to operate out of a Western paradigm. Singapore is the only English-speaking country left in the world that offers an alternate voice. We speak of diversity of views all day long but this particular voice risks being snuffed out.
“Hence, I support Petition´s (#3) position to deny NTU the right to censor by urging students to take over the newspaper.” – Mr Tan
There’s no restriction to the students starting their own newsletter too. When it bears the NTU name, there will always be potential interference from NTU.
Write to press, got use? Nah, just paint self as target only. No point.
Set up a newsletter, make it successful, widely read whilst avoiding suits. That makes the other irrelevant, isn’t it?
Donald (#11)
I… YES YES YES…*BLUSH* …
She gets my vote in the next election!
You pretty and …
Yup!
Great Respect. Great Words! I’m Proud of NTU!
That’s the way chronicles be.
Responsible.
You took up the reins and held on to it man.
That’s what we admire.
Hopefully your successors have the same maturity to match up their zeal.
Please run for President!
And if this is a second thought.
You can marry this sorry bachelor here after conquering the world.
*With wide open arms*
Dear Yan Wen and all other interested parties,
I’m surprised at the amount of dust that had been kicked up by the censorship of the Nanyang Chronicle. By now, I thought we should have been wise enough to see what was coming if the subject of the purported article is of a politician from the opposition camp.
No matter how objective you are in an article, the sensitivity of the subject is of utmost importance. All publications in Singapore, including student publications, have wider social ramifications. We must not be so naive as to think that it would be acceptable as long as it is the truth.
Truth can sometimes be dangerous or it can be hurtful. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we should publish lies, but we have to exercise judgement – what is its effect on the student population?, what is its effect on the opposition movement?, what is its effect on the less sophisticated common man-in-the-street? and most importantly, what is its effect on the Government of the day and their likely reaction? In the end, the outcome might have even been counter-productive to the ends that you desire.
So like you said, the Chronicle is a learning paper where theory undergo the test of practice. What indeed happened should not lead to anguish, but should be recognised as the object lesson well-learnt.
“Truth can sometimes be dangerous or it can be hurtful. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we should publish lies, but we have to exercise judgement – what is its effect on the student population?, what is its effect on the opposition movement?, what is its effect on the less sophisticated common man-in-the-street? and most importantly, what is its effect on the Government of the day and their likely reaction? In the end, the outcome might have even been counter-productive to the ends that you desire.”
Why take a negative and pessimistic view ? Change can only come about when one remain positive and hopeful of their action.
It is good to remind but it is adverse to create and promote fear which we self-inflicted ourselves. These students are brave enough to accept the consequences so let’s not further create unnecessary fear ourselves. It is time ripe for a change.
“”Truth can sometimes be dangerous or it can be hurtful”
It might be a brutal truth but Singaporean ought to wake up now. No need to wake till election day because the more hope you place on election, the more disappointed you become (unless it is fair game, but face it, it will never be fair as PAP goes)
” Truth can sometimes be dangerous or it can be hurtful”.
Yeah, so very right if one looks at the truth about the PAP govt.
Abuse of the ISA and judiciary can be dangerous for citizens who are viewed as a threat and exposing this truth is hurtful to the govt’s ego.
NTU’s students involved in the Chronicle can take great comfort that they can never do worse than the Straits Times in terms of credibility. LOL
“Truth can sometimes be dangerous or it can be hurtful”. Unquote
And just because it can be dangerous and hurtful, truth should not be revealed, disclosed and told? Or cover up?
There is a Chinese Saying that ‘paper wraps fire not’ (zhi pao bu chu huo), truth will ultimately surface.
Independence is important to all issues for independence denotes freedom and freedom exercised with responsibility is the cornerstone of democracy and for the good of society.
We do not want citizens, especially politicians and students, to go underground or be clandestine just to have their views, ideas, hopes and ideals made known.
Dangers are everywhere, hurts are even more common, am I wrong to say that many of us Singaporeans are hurt by the many unreasonable hikes in the Essential Goods and Services.
All in all, we want reasonable leaders, we do not even need generous leaders, all we need are just just and conscientious leaders. We may even prefer brutal truth from our leaders rather than sweet promises from them that never actualized.
patriot
Addendum:
‘Dangers are everywhere, hurts are even more common, am I wrong to say that many of us Singaporeans are hurt by the many unreasonable hikes in the Essential Goods and Services’. And we have yet to verify of those reasons given for their price/cost increases are true or otherwise. If truth hurts, lies can kill.
patriot
What is really dangerous about truth, is that many pple are now afraid to speak it? That hikes are merely readjustments? That gaffes are merely direct language? That acts of neglience are merely honest mistakes?
*smirks*
Truth, democracy, freedom,
smallvoice585 (#16):
Truth can sometimes be dangerous or it can be hurtful. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we should publish lies, but we have to exercise judgement … In the end, the outcome might have even been counter-productive to the ends that you desire.
What about the fact that 2 white horses were responsible for the Commando Dunking incident but their names were omitted from the official press release? At least both of them were sentenced to detention barracks but their identities were withheld to prevent shaming their families. Instead, career army personnel who dedicated their lives to defending our country were let go to face the full blunt of public anger.
Truth, democracy, freedom and independence should not be bandied about or worn as badges of honour. They have their uses, but they are not to be treasured for their own sakes. Take democracy as an example. The politically unsophisticated will think it is an end in itself, forgetting that it is merely an instrument for choosing the people’s representatives based on popularity. Now, being popular does not mean that they are the best choices. The electorate may be ignorant or misled. Look at Gaza where Hamas were elected, at Thailand when Thaksin came into power and at Taiwan which allowed Chen Shui Bian to ascend to power.
What’s important is competence. And competence is judged by the fruits produced by the Government. On this perspective, I think it would be hard to justify our complaints against the PAP.
smallvoice585 (#25),
Truth, democracy and freedom. At least the Palestinians can vote Hamas out if they view Hamas is an incompetent government. Despite Hamas being a labelled as an international terrorist group, Hamas´ popularity is backed by its strong grass root links, welfare programs (healthcare, food and rebuilding homes) and providing education opportunities to Palestinians who want to better themselves.
Democracy actually reinforces competency because it provides a check and balance system on the ruling party (whoever it is) to deliver the government goods and manage the country well through crisis. But if you lack a truly democractic system to back a competent government, no doubt the ruling party and the government will develop a sense of complacency. This happens because politicians are human too.
This sense of complacency has materialised in many forms. For example, PAP recently passed a law to prevent people to investigate MPs, so private individuals can no longer verify if PAP is indeed corrupt-free. Another example of complacency is pegging Ministerial salaries to the GDP, which does not take in account of income distribution in Singapore.
On a lighter note, I am particularly concerned that local mass media in Singapore does not report new laws passed by the Parliament. You would only know about it if you read Opposition´s website regularly or you subscribe to the Gazette. Such important news is not mentioned on the Parliament website.
Thank you for your information about the new law preventing the investigation of MPs for corruption. Frankly, I have not heard of it. If true, it would be very alarming. But I hope you have checked your facts, lest you be cited for spreading malicious rumours.
In any case, if correct, it must also mean that Mr Low Thia Kiang, Mr Chiam See Tong and Miss Sylvia Lim are now immune from investigations. I find that highly unlikely. Are you sure of your facts?
As to the salaries of ministers, that issue had been debated to death already. All I can say is that the policy is consistent with the money-worshipping ways of a capitalistic society like Singapore. It is based on the realisation that talented people will not work for the Government if they are not adequately compensated for giving up their high-flying private careers.
Now to your continued enchantment with democracy, my only consolation for you is that your error is a common-place one. Almost everyone here thinks that the main fault of our society is the lack of democracy. Please be reminded that the term ‘democracy’ has so much prestige nowadays that even the worst dictator will claim to be its greatest ally – the word has practically lost all meaning. Its original meaning is ‘the rule of a country by the people through elected representatives’ – no more and no less!
The kind of people that get voted into Parliament is a reflection of the wisdom of the people. So, if you think that the PAP is no good, then where does the fault lie? Like Gaza or any other democratic territory, Singaporeans are free to vote the PAP out at the next election. The fact that they have been voted in every time tells you a lot. Is the electorate stupid or is the PAP worth keeping? Just think about it.
So, now you know – democracy is a popularity contest, pure and simple. There is no guarantee of competence. Most of us are barking up the wrong tree! Our real concern should be how to safeguard the competence of the Government, not to have more democracy.
Let me just reiterate – based on its fruits, I think we should not try to chop down the PAP tree. Their good work is plain for all to see, whereas your assumption of their complacency is just a theoretical one.
“What’s important is competence. And competence is judged by the fruits produced by the Government. On this perspective, I think it would be hard to justify our complaints against the PAP.”
Who defines the competency ? The government or the citizen ? If the government is indeed competent, it does not need to hold the citizen ransom with upgrading carrots, after all citizens pay tax, GST, with male serving NS . Will the government need to hide and coverup loss of investment if there is competency ?
How much loss is enough is enough ?
Who really develop Singapore ? The early Singaporean guards of PAP or the greedy PAP we see nowsaday ?
“Thank you for your information about the new law preventing the investigation of MPs for corruption. Frankly, I have not heard of it. If true, it would be very alarming. But I hope you have checked your facts, lest you be cited for spreading malicious rumours.”
Did you not go to YOutube to see how Sylvia Lim debate the issue ?
Just read these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVMcpc1eow
For you info, as usual, the case is been decided and moved on just like GST !
If a high-official government is corrupted and you need approval for investigation ?
We can laugh at Taiwan but their system will last because there is check and balance by the citizen and they know that system can be improved by the citizen . In Singapore, you will be destroyed like JBL, Dr Chee first.
“Thank you for your information about the new law preventing the investigation of MPs for corruption. Frankly, I have not heard of it. If true, it would be very alarming. But I hope you have checked your facts, lest you be cited for spreading malicious rumours.”
Did you not go to YOutube to see how Sylvia Lim debate the issue ?
Just read these
“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeVMcpc1eow”
“http://www.wp.sg/wordpress/?p=22″
Put double quote in URL otherwise comment.
Chen ShuiBian must have regretted why he didn’t born in Singapore !
For you info, as usual, the case is been decided and moved on just like GST !
If a high-official government is corrupted and you need approval for investigation ?
We can laugh at Taiwan but their system will last because there is check and balance by the citizen and they know that system can be improved by the citizen . In Singapore, you will be destroyed like JBL, Dr Chee first.
smallvoice585 (#25):
Thank you for your concern. The Private Security Industry Act 2007 prevents private investigation on MPs to verify their corruption-free record. Under Clause 11, Part II of the Act, private individuals cannot deploy any licensed private investigator to investigate any political figures, representatives of the Singapore Government, and even their family members.
” Part II of the Act, private individuals cannot deploy any licensed private investigator to investigate any political figures, representatives of the Singapore Government, and even their family members.”
No wonder ours is one of the most uncorrupted government in the world. The rest of the world should learn from our smart government. Building image is more important than substance. With such a law, Singapore will soon go to number one spot in no time.
Do Sweden and Finland ever have such a law to protect their so-called corrupt-free gahmen ?
Dear Daniel,
Competence is judged neither by the citizens nor the Government themselves alone, but by objective criteria. The extent that the 4 main objectives of nationhood are achieved will give us a good idea of the Government’s competence.
They are:
(i) maintenance of stability and order,
(ii) freedom from war and conflicts,
(iii) assurance of survival and prosperity, and
(iv) possibility of allowing the pursuit of the good life
These are not my criteria as someone accused. Open up any book on political science or philosophy, you will find something similar. If not, use your common sense or your intelligence – your objective criteria cannot deviate from them by much.
My contention is that the PAP has satisfied most the criteria. Your objections about their election tactics and the non-disclosure of certain data is a different issue. Those constitute the traits of politics and politicians and come with the territory. If voters were swayed by something as trivial as upgrading promises, then it is their fault to fall for them.
“(i) maintenance of stability and order,
(ii) freedom from war and conflicts,
(iii) assurance of survival and prosperity, and
(iv) possibility of allowing the pursuit of the good life”
Isn’t that very short-sighted to overlook other things else other than these four objective criterias ? Common sense will tell us not to judge by these four factors alone. Textbook can be educational but it is also has to be use prudently.
It is ironic that our gahmen hear don’t even listen and act according to textbook ? Business deal, conflict of interest, nepotism, cronynism etc..
Perhaps the question you need to ask if we can achieve all these criterias with democracy and human right. No doubt it is a difficult task to balance these , and that is why people are paid high to achieve these difficult task (only Singapore gahmen feel so different). Have our gahmen take the easy way out and become complacent. And why we did not benchmark and learn from country positively like Hong Kong, Sweden, Finland and relying instead on some textbook’s teaching blindly ? Isn’t this akin to using statistics like our gahmen did ?
For number 1, at what cost ? Jail JBJ, Jail Dr Chee, jail Singapore dissident ? Create culture of fear, is that the thing you want ?
for number 2, for four decades, we are already free from war. We buy the latest war technologies, we have armies, now tell us how do we improve our life further and make us a happiest person ?
(iii) assurance of survival and prosperity
Who assure us ? The gahmen ? You still trust them wholeheartedly ? Who know how much shit we getting into due to blind trust of the ruling party ? As time grow, our need grow. Did we see the gap between the rich, the middle and poor ?
(iv) possibility of allowing the pursuit of the good life
Can you please elaborate what do u mean by that. I’m sure people here are very interested in listening to that.
If people still believe in make-believe world to give them a fulfilling and blissful life, I have nothing to say.
Dear Daniel,
Textbook knowledge is important because it is a good guide to the foundational issues of any topic. It is unwise to dismiss it. I hope all of us will read more for our own sakes.
The 4 criteria are the critical requirements, not the only considerations. Democracy and human rights are not part of the aims of society in their own right.
Dear Daniel, I do not have the space here to tell you what constitute the good life. It will probably fill a book because it is a big topic. Please read or contemplate more to find out.
Wow, political science book being used as reference !
Castro, Kim, Gadafi, Suharto can claim to fulfill at least 50% of the objective criteria. I don’t recall any of these dictators going to war and they sure are efficient in maintaining stability and order with a much bigger country and population. LOL
Communist China govt can claim to meet All the ciriteria considering its size .
They are definitely more competent than the PAP govt. and we should be learning from them. Perhaps this PAP govt should stop the pretence of being democratic since they meet most of the objective criteria. What a farce to continue with the elections. Waste of time and waste of public funds.
Looks like the majority who voted and supported the PAP were right all along.
Are you people listening ? NTU students, opposition supporters, whiners who
are struggling to make ends meet, gullible investors at Hong Lim Park, retirees who are broke, old folks cleaning tables, collecting cardboxes, etc etc.
Repeat after me, “the PAP govt is competent and there is no justification to criticize “.
Do us a favour smallvoice585, go to Hong Lim Park and educate the 33.4% who have been bitching about this competent govt. Yeah, start with the gullible investors.
hey yanwen..kudos to you n the other speakers! I think that the greatest outcome of this all is making a statement to others that you don’t always have to keep quiet when you dont agree with something those with power are doing.
This is an issue that is very apparent in universities and publication companies all over the world. being someone who studies in a Australia university, i can vouch for this.
Dear uncommon sense and others,
I’m afraid that, like others, you’ve fallen into a deep state of bewitchment with democracy as an end in itself. Democracy is a good method of choosing our leaders. But it does not guarantee good leaders simply because sometimes people do not vote wisely or rationally. Surely, what’s important is whether there is good governance as evidenced by the degree of satisfaction of the 4 criteria.
Please do not laugh at Cuba, North Korea, Libya, Indonesia or China. Though their systems of government are different, they have much to teach the world about building peaceful and stable societies. We must not fall for the fallacy of liberal democratic supremacy as proposed by Francis Fukuyama.
“But it does not guarantee good leaders simply because sometimes people do not vote wisely or rationally. Surely, what’s important is whether there is good governance as evidenced by the degree of satisfaction of the 4 criteria.”
As can be seen in Singapore, neither does it guarantee good leaders simply because sometimes people “vote wisely or rationally” for sake of carrot, upgrading and empty promise. So why the majority complaining about the ruling party in blogosphere that even the government which once laugh at now start to engage the blogosphere. Something must be seriously wrong. And why have we not seen majority of MPs speaking for the people or did they not find something seriously wrong ? Just take a read at P65 blog and you can how wordless and ridiculous these Papmen look. One thing is for sure , when Greed is game of the rule in the government, it means it is time to revamp the government by replacing greedy ministers , gahmen, and create the proper check and balance.
Most of our fear about change is unfounded. Remember LKY and his pappy always proclaim that protest means riot and violence , with MSM propaganda show of other countries’s protest selectively, and therefore for decades strip people of their right to protest, even after 1995. Now look at what happen in Hong Lim Park, is there riot or violence ? How come no one from LKY, LHL, gahmen mention anything about riot and violence in Hong Lim Park ? Or are we short-charged all along ? are we been taken for a ride all this while ?
So can we still believe whatever PAP says which always for our own good ?
No one say that democracy must be all or nothing. Let’s the citizen and government judge that, and not by government alone. If we did not even try, why even says that democracy is not applicable in Singapore ? Isn’t Singapore suppose to be unique ?
Does anyone here notice the paradox here? PAP is being blamed for being undemocratic. And yet it is democracy over the last 43 years that allowed the majority of Singaporeans to keep voting for them to keep them in power.
So, is democracy good or bad?
Ha, ha! You will only be in a conundrum if you think that democracy is the ultimate good in politics. Actually, it is just an instrument that can either empower the people or it can be manipulated to serve other purposes.
Our main duty as citizens is to love Singapore – that is, to obey the laws of Singapore, respect its institutions, work hard to contribute to its economy and, during elections, to vote for the leaders whom you can trust to work for the good of your country. If instead, you vote for those who only promise you personal advantages like lift upgrading, then you will have to live with your choice without whining.
Does anyone here notice the paradox here? PAP is being blamed for being undemocratic. And yet it is democracy over the last 43 years that allowed the majority of Singaporeans to keep voting for them to keep them in power. – smallvoice585 (#41)
This is as good as saying the Nazi government is democratic because they were democratically elected into power, while ignoring the fact that Hitler and his associates have effectively eradicated all Opposition voices.
“And yet it is democracy over the last 43 years that allowed the majority of Singaporeans to keep voting for them to keep them in power.”
Is it really democracy ? If it is democracy, by all means remove the carrot and stop threatening the citizen of Singapore with lack of upgrading plans if they did not vote for PAP. Do what is noble and fairness rather than resort to unscrupulous means in election .Remove all the stupid GRC so that people can vote fairly rather walkover. And stop manipulating the election using GRC.
If our leaders can’t even show good example of leadership and morality, then by all means stop their farting pretentious act, least people can sick of it.
You cannot love Singapore until you have a say in it.
Why do you assume everyone get to vote ? I only vote once in late 1980s, and that about it, and it is walk-over all the way, Bukit Timah, yes, place where the expensive ruling clowns live.
No one is whining if everyone get to vote so be clear about it.
@ smallvoice585
You are bewitched by this govt to the point you can overlook anything.
You stated that democracy is a good method of choosing our leaders but it does not guarantee good leaders, then tell me which system can guarantee good leaders ? At least bad leaders can be voted out in a democracy. Unfortunately I do not agree with you that we have democracy for 40+ years. This has been debated many times, and has to do with cheating and underhand means.
You believe the PAP has provided good governance but again I disagree.
You have come up with 4 criteria which will not impress many ordinary citizens.
Why don’t you do a poll and ask your fellow citizens what they think of the PAP governance ? You should also take my suggestion to give a lecture at Hong Lim Park to educate our fellow citizens to appreciate this govt. It should be a piece of cake if the PAP has actually done a good job in recent years and is highly respected. right ?
Let me put it this way, the ultimate praise of good governance should come from the ordinary people.
smallvoice585,
I think you are confused. Singapore has never been democratic as far as Singapore goes. LKY in his own words in 1955 says
““If you believe in democracy, you must believe in it unconditionally. If you believe that men should be free, then, they should have the right of free association, of free speech, of free publication. Then, no law should permit those democratic processes to be set at nought.”
- Lee Kuan Yew as an opposition leader, April 27, 1955
“If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must be prepared, in principle, to concede to our enemies – even those who do not subscribe to our views – as much constitutional rights as you concede yourself.”
- Opposition leader Lee Kuan Yew, Legislative Assembly Debates, Sept 21, 1955
http://leewatch.info/quotes/
And who to say that LKY is wrong then ? Why change of heart after PAP rose to power ? Maybe you can answer better.
So as far as I concern, there is NO democracy in Singapore going by LKY’s definition.
Dear Donaldson Tan, Daniel and uncommon sense,
It may surprise you that all 4 of us are actually saying the same thing!
I have to keep repeating myself – democracy IN ITSELFis NOT a worthy goal. It is not the holy grail. It is not worthy because it can be manipulated to provide a facade of legitimacy. Here, I’m not talking about the theoretical definitional ideals of the concept of democracy (which is useless in this discussion), but democracy which is practised in the real world – whether in Singapore or elsewhere.
Thanks, Donaldson. You said it well. It is precisely because something as abominable as the Nazis could be elected into power that democracy (as practised) is to be treated with utmost suspicion.
And Daniel, you are barking up the wrong tree. Why the PAP continues to entice the people with carrots and appeal to the selfish pre-occupations of voters during elections is because they have proven effective in gaining votes. Politicians, by their very nature, will employ whatever means at their disposal to gain votes. That’s the reason why a person who said something in 1955 can say something quite different now. But the fact remains that it is the electorate who return them to power time and again. If the people think that the PAP are no good, why did they vote for them? If you think GRC is unfair, there is nothing to stop you voting for the opposition GRC team. If there are too many walkovers, why did the people not galvanise themselves to join the opposition and contest in those wards? The truth of the matter is that people complain, but they are not willing to risk their own skin to prove the substance of their convictions.
My dear friend, “uncommon sense”, you have misunderstood me and my intentions. I am not a PAP apologist and I am fully aware of certain problems with our Government. But I am politically neutral and I do not have pre-conceived ideas or prejudice about anyone. I’m only aware of my love for my country and am currently thinking about how to improve it constructively.
You see, my friend, democracy is a great idea. But in reality, it is compromised because the electorate did not play its part correctly – either by being too ignorant, too foolish or too selfish. You and I take great care at the voting booth, but how many people are like us? The conscientious voters are being swarmed and outnumbered by the mindless ones. The obvious solution is to raise the intelligence and morality of the electorate – but how?
I’m surprised that everyone here dismissed the 4 criteria as alluded to by me. They are not my criteria nor the Government’s criteria. They are objective criteria that can be gleaned from any textbook of political science, sociology or political philosophy. They are in fact well-known in informed circles and are nothing new! In fact they are the raison ‘detre of a society or nation.
There is no need to argue whether the present ruling party is better than the others. Next coming GE, introduce the 1 man 1 vote and all the answers will be out, fair and square, no argument.
@ smallvoice 585,
I have not misunderstood you, base on several of your postings. Your attempts to make a case for the ruling party becomes more obvious when you refrain from criticizing.
What is your view then on LKY’s speech in 1955 ? It was pretty clear to me he had a very good understanding of democracy. Looking at the present political scenario, don’t you think he is the stumbling block to democracy ?
Suppressing free speech, controlling the MSM, sueing the pants off those considered a threat, manipulating the election system, influencing the judiciary and applying coercion on voters. Do you agree there is truth to all these. ?
If you agree, then do you think we should continue to overlook ?
[Just a reminder that the actual topic is on editorial independence and the PAP controlling the MSM is relevant.]
If only LKY had practised as well as he had spoken in 1955, we will probably be having a more balanced representation in parliament.
The ending for him will be very different, he would have departed as great man in the eyes of his people.
Do you agree with me that his lust for power and control is responsible for the present political scenario ?
You give the impression that you voted for the opposition, so how does that make you politically neutral ? That in itself means you made a choice.
The question we need to ask ourselves is, should we be neutral politically when we see injustice ? What does it say about us as a people if we only focus on the 4 criteria as you mentioned ? Does that mean we do not treasure principles ?
I see much injustice in the PAP governance and I can choose to be neutral, overlook their activities and carry on with my life. Or I believe in principles and say to hell with them, bond with people who share similar sentiments and think of how we can vote them out.
If you do not want me to misunderstand you, I look forward to your reply to questions I have put forth.
come on frenz..
all we know the IDEA of pap….
they just say say say…..
in 1955,LKY say democracy,democracy,democracy….when the time is BENEFIT them..
but now..NO NO NO democracy,democracy,,democracy…
and by right,
in their view,
democracy represent riot….to against GOV idea..which not good to themm…
so they just give u the right to votes…
but Q came…
how the uncle or aunty only know PAP PAP PAP,…other opposition party they do not know..
THE MAIN MEDIA.newpaper does not put opposition picture V often compare to PAP PP…
and
we only got 9days for before election,,tat we could heard the a single sound opposition…ONLY 9 DAY…does this fair??
last time,got a lot of area r control by opposition,,then they use a knife to cut sing map…into GRC..hahas…V fun…
so when the old uncle or aunty will vote pap…
some pp will say they fear pap…some pp say,*opposition party no experi*
hahas..all is joke…
so toot toot citizen will only know PAP…
and we r the clever one…thank for internet..!!
,democracy is not just OBEY OBEY the law…
the law must be reasonable.
smallvoice585,what r yr main view…
if the gov one D want u to increase yr tax to 50%of yr salary,..do u want to OBEY..
IS gov need to obey people needs!!
not we need to obey them..
be in mind.
Dear uncommon sense,
Yes, you have continued to misunderstand me because you did not read my postings with care and you had imposed your assumptions on my intentions.
I refrain from criticising the PAP, and anybody else for that matter, because I do not pretend to be better than anyone else in any aspect. I like to comment with a matter-of-fact tone and assume a dispassionate attitude because I’ll be more clear-headed that way.
Unlike you, I do not have the audacity to make moral pronouncements on Mr Lee Kuan Yew and other leaders. Neither do I have the inclination to ridicule the powerlessness of our opposition politicians. If you separate morality from politics (as they are not compatible), things will become less cloudy. Morality is about adherence to ethical principles for the sake of engendering co-operation and sympathy between human beings. On the other hand, politics is about the contest for power and its exercise for a specific purpose or purposes. The 4 criteria constitute the whole aim of politics.
If you REALLY UNDERSTAND this, you will realise that almost all the reports and all the comments in “The Online Citizen” are somewhat inappropriate. You cannot ascribe a moral value to political action, that is, political actions cannot be judged to be right or wrong per se, but whether they are conducive to achieving stated aims or not.
So, now do you know why Mr Lee Kuan Yew said something about democracy in 1955 which met your approval, and then appear to be its stumbling block in 2008 by suppressing free apeech, the media … etc, etc? Politicians will say or do certain things at certain times to achieve certain objectives. You can’t really blame them for it because that’s the nature of politics. You can’t blame a tiger for roaring and scaring the wits out of you because its in the nature of tigers to roar! If, like me, you do not like it, you and I should stay clear of politics.
Can you allow me to categorically state that I’m NOT “making a case for the ruling party” NOR am I overlooking the objectionable aspects of politics.
If you want a better society in Singapore, having democracy alone is not enough. The conditions for it to work well are simply non-existent. The electorate is simply too ignorant, too foolish or too self-indulgent. Why is parliamentary representaion imbalanced? I think you should ask the voters why.
I’m sorry I can’t divulge to you how I voted in the past, except to say that being politically neutral means that when you exercise your responsibility at the ballot booth, your only consideration must always be the welfare of Singapore.
In the final analysis (and this will be my last post on the subject here), we have 4 choices before us:
(i) Recognise that Singapore is actually not such a bad place after all because it is stable, orderly, peaceful, prosperous with a secure future and allows me the opportunity to achieve the good life as defined by myself. I know my limitations as an individual, but I will vote conscientiously at every election to get good leaders into Parliament.
(ii) Recognise that the lack of voter sophistication in Singapore is the cause of political stagnation. I will undertake the difficult task of educating the electorate and raising their political consciousness.
(iii) Join a political party and be an active participant in our political process. I will be prepared to take all necessary actions to achieve the party’s political aims without regret or remorse.
(iv) Continue to whine and rant at Speaker’s Corner and in the Internet without any concrete or concerted action.
I choose option 1!
This is as good as saying the Nazi government is democratic because they were democratically elected into power, while ignoring the fact that Hitler and his associates have effectively eradicated all Opposition voices. – Donaldson Tan (#42)
Thanks, Donaldson. You said it well. It is precisely because something as abominable as the Nazis could be elected into power that democracy (as practised) is to be treated with utmost suspicion. – Smallvoice585 (#46)
I had meant to draw the parallel between PAP and the Nazi Party. Just like Singapore, Nazi Germany was a very clean place. Trains even come on time. Just like Nazi Germany which supported Fascism, Singapore strongly re-iterates its support for the Asian Democracy Values (aka Leeś Thesis)
If there are too many walkovers, why did the people not galvanise themselves to join the opposition and contest in those wards? The truth of the matter is that people complain, but they are not willing to risk their own skin to prove the substance of their convictions. – Smallvoice585 (#46)
Walkover does not mean that PAP had won the votes. It only meant that PAP won the constituency.
You cannot ascribe a moral value to political action, that is, political actions cannot be judged to be right or wrong per se, but whether they are conducive to achieving stated aims or not. – Smallvoice585 (#51)
It is clear that you subscribe to Machiavellism while I do not. This is a fundamental difference in opinion that cannot be reconciled. I see politics as a process involving representation and management of public interest. Public interest is not what the public is interested in, but to act in the interest of the public.
If you want a better society in Singapore, having democracy alone is not enough. The conditions for it to work well are simply non-existent. The electorate is simply too ignorant, too foolish or too self-indulgent. Why is parliamentary representation imbalanced? – Smallvoice585 (#51)
TOC is a good start in the direction of developing civil society in Singapore. This will inevitably contribute to the sophistication of the electorate. I did consider your 4 options, but my choice is none of them. Democracy builds on citizen participation, therefore I choose to develop civil society in Singapore by raising awareness on critical and strategic issues, building up collective rights and organising collective bargaining. I choose to empower fellow citizens, so that Singapore can have a truly functional democracy.
@ smallvoice 585,
I must reiterate that I did not misunderstand you or your intentions !
Your comments show you up to be a PAP apologist.
You gain more credibility if you had been open about it from the start.
I gather from your comments that we should not criticize LKY and the PAP, and we should just leave the governing to him since he knows best. You also believe that It is shere audacity for anyone to question him because that means doubting him. So who is suitably qualified to criticize him ? Definitely not PM Lee, right ? LOL.
You expressed doubt when it was shown that the PAP pass a law that prohibits private citizens from investigating MPs. Where is the check and balance with such a law ? and do you honestly understand the implications of such a law ?
What about the conflict of interest with key appointments that involves the Lee family ? To meet certain objectives, it is ok to overlook conflict of interest ? And you smallvoice deem it all as part of politics and ethics should be left out,
“so things will be less cloudy.” Oh really ? To convince the ordinary folks that everything is above board, nothing to be suspicious about, “Trust the PAP” will do the right thing OR do things right for themselves ?
Let me tell you that it is not only audacious but outrageous of any leader whose words mean very little. The PAP apologist in you, see it fit that any leader can go back on his words to achieve certain objectives. Oh really ? More like fulfilling a personal agenda, to shore up power. However I acknowledge that the PAP will agree with you on this. LOL
You choose option one, good for you, which means you are satisfied, you know your limitations as an individual. Then why bother coming into TOC to engage netizens ? Isn’t winning hearts and minds the real purpose ?
Dear Donaldson Tan,
You had quoted some of my paragraphs, but your rejoinders seem irrelevant to them. Why? I’m disappointed.
“Machiavellism”, if there is really such a philosophical entity, is not for one to subscribe or not to subscribe. A lot of people who have read his book, The Prince, failed to understand it and hastily pronounced it as immoral. If one takes the trouble to not just read the book, but to peruse other books written about The Prince and its commentaries, you will realise that Machiavelli is not expounding his own political ideas, but showing how politics is practised in the real world.
It will be too easy for me, like everyone else here, to reiterate all the ideals of morality and politics, adopt them as my view-point and reject all other view-points with moral indignation. I will definitely appear more righteous and gain credibility among the unthinking.
But I will not, because taking such a stand will achieve nothing – it will be self-defeating and cowardly. I prefer to learn more of the real world, understand its workings, discuss with like-minded independent thinkers and come to a rational solution.
You said – “TOC is a good start in the direction of developing civil society in Singapore. This will inevitably contribute to the sophistication of the electorate.” Maybe you are unaware, but actually you have chosen option 2 of the 4 choices that I’d listed. This is in fact the best option but the most difficult. I did not choose it because in my assessment the chance of success is almost nil. Notwithstanding my reservations about “INEVITABLY contribute to the sophistication fo the electorate”, I wish you and TOC every success.
As for dear “uncommon sense”, I will stop responding to you as you had proven yourself to be incapable of understanding a single word of what I’m saying.
smallvoice585 (#55),
I disagree with your view on Machiavellism. You say that Machiavellism describes the practise of politics. The question I would like to ask if politics were practised according to Machiavellism or that Machiavellism was written to describe the practise of politics. My answer is former.
People of United State reading the post here
may I suggest before you vote for obama, or Mc’Caine, you should ask them whether they subscribe to Machiavellism, and whether you should accept the following
“Politicians will say or do certain things at certain times to achieve certain objectives. You can’t really blame them for it because that’s the nature of politics. You can’t blame a tiger for roaring and scaring the wits out of you because its in the nature of tigers to roar! If, like me, you do not like it, you and I should stay clear of politics.”
Will Obama and Mc’Caine accountable for their promises when either one become president ? Or is it okay just to speak rhetorics just to win campaign and forget about promise after president election ?
Opppsss… I forget people is free to criticize the government, president and whatever big shots there in US publicly.
Dictators who enjoys, rules and speaks Machiavellism to the fullest are those in absolute power and tendency to create fear in the country to prevent their regime from toppling.
Well, maybe the last generation of people were to blame for not asking whether LKY subscribed to Machiavellism before he rose to power but on the other hand, how many layman which majority were uneducated then understand the meaning of Machiavellism ? I’m sure back in 1959 the people were attuned more to the concept of democracy since LKY was the champion of democracy then and blatantly give a speech on democracy.
For a people who default to compromising his own original value and principle when rose in power and then continue to suppress the people, render them helpless under the excuse of nation building when in reality when it is him and his coffers that stand to benefit from his governance, who will believe in them anymore ? Even when the whole world is changing, they cling selectively cling to their value that is non-threatening and beneficial to them. They paid themselves millions to remain in status quo and complaceny, and not willing to accept new challenges.
For government, you either believe in them or you don’t believe them. There is no thing such as half-fart believe.
“Those who trade liberty for security deserves neither” – Benjamin Franklin
wrong in 59..sorry.
haii….
everypeople have it own view…
and uncommon sense,,,we did not support pap or opposition party..
we just base on now gov did what to citizen..
and don don DON say us as anti pap…
WE r giving reason tat pap tat can be improve…
not only tat…it also show tat we care about singapore future..
this call true singaporeans..
better than others tat not willing to speak up on his or her view..
u must look at different angle on a thing…
thinking time…
be smart,,singaporeans…
Dear Donaldson Tan, ha ha,
You said – ” The question I would like to ask if politics were practised according to Machiavellism or that Machiavellism was written to describe the practise of politics. My answer is former.”
Let me ask you back – is there a material difference in the 2 scenarios? The end result of both is that the practice of politics is as described in his book. That is the reality that I want you to understand.
In any case, it is unlikely that all politicians of the world over the ages are so enchanted by “The Prince” to base their practice of politics on it so faithfully. However, this is to us only of academic importance.