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.
———-
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.