Andrew Loh
Singaporeans wait with bated breath the announcement of changes to the political system in Singapore. According to a Straits Times report, SM Goh mentioned three considerations before such changes will be made:
“One, they must be fair to all political parties; two, they should result in a strong, effective Government after an election; and three, they must ensure diverse views are represented in Parliament.” (Source)
While Parliament debates the proposed changes as expected, the government should also consider one more element which needs a review. One which, perhaps, will have a far greater and more meaningful consequence than any of the changes which might be proposed.
The media in Singapore, which undoubtedly plays a political role, needs to be reformed too.
Currently, a government –controlled media in 21st Century Singapore is an anachronism. With the country aiming to be a media and information hub, these controls do not sit well with such ambitions. But more importantly, being completely in the hands of the government, the media is in danger of abdicating its role as a watchdog over government policies and actions, if it has not succumbed to such a danger already.
Of course, the current People’s Action Party (PAP) government does not want the media to play such a role. Indeed, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has several times in the past disabused such a notion. However, it can be argued that with Parliament currently consisting of an overwhelming majority of ruling party MPs, and with the opposition unable to put up any meaningful challenges in the House, an independent and fearless media is indispensable for public accountability of the government.
Any media which is so utterly controlled by its government, first and foremost, will result in self-censorship by its editors and journalists, alternatives views ignored and important issues avoided – or if not, these will be reported with a slant to present a distorted view, one which, inevitably, seeks to put the government in a better light than it deserves to be, perhaps. Effectively, the government has editorial influence in how the media is run. Indeed, this is what some Singaporeans have said has happened with the Singapore media. A case in point would be the losses by Temasek Holdings.
These then perpetuate a veneer or a façade in place of the reality, resulting in a people being fed either wrong and distorted views, or being given half-truths and skewed information. It allows a government to cover up mis-doings while at the same time use the media to paint the picture which it, the government, wants the people to see. Real problems faced by the people are not highlighted if they reflect unfavourably on the government, as is the case of the PAP town council’s investment losses earlier this year.
Why would all these matter?
A rogue government, with full and complete control of the media, could hold on to power longer than it would deserve, as is seen in some countries around the world. With information, which is skewed and even concocted, given to the masses, a people might not know better. If such information was in the guise of a rosier picture than it really is, complacency and apathy would set in. This is dangerous. It’s like a blindfolded person inching towards the edge of a cliff without even knowing it, all the while thinking that he is on solid ground. The fall, when it comes, will be a hard one.
A freer media would generate more insightful and incisive debates from citizens, journalists are able to write what they feel and generate more discussions, a diversity of views would emerge leading to less apathy and complacency over time. If the government gives the media a freer rein, it will be sending a positive signal about its receptivity to public opinion.
The government thus, needs to divest itself from the media. While such a move may not result in substantial or meaningful change immediately, it is, however, a necessary step towards a more active and participatory society.
So, while the government contemplates changes to the political system, and may even tweak it to allow for more representation of alternative views in Parliament or reduce the size of the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), as some expect, it still comes back to how information is disseminated to the people. The changes to the electoral system, or the political system, while welcome, should not be taken as the only necessary changes.
For no matter how “fair” these are, if there are no improvements to how the local media presents information – truthfully, impartially and fearlessly – especially during the general elections, such changes would best be described as cosmetic.
And this, certainly, would not fulfill the three criterias which the Senior Minister wants to see.
What Mr Lee Kuan Yew said in 1956 still holds true and it is something we must guard against.
“Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”
——
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
I am very curious to know
how the MSM employees feel about the quote from 1956 .
A well-thought-out piece, Andrew. Congrats. Alas, the reality is such that your and my honourable aspirations for a freer media would be hard to come by. Subjugation over several decades of the media by the powers that be has brought about a Pavlovian reflex in Singapore journalists today. If the hijackers don’t hit you, they are nice guys. If you write a incisive piece and City Hall does not reward you with a call first thing in the morning, then hey, things are looking up.
You must keep in mind that the Government has made it clear that media will serve as a tool of Government. Nothing wrong if media provides a function of serving as a conduit for government views and party propaganda. But that is but one function of media.
Media also has to provide a two-way flow of information, one — from the top and two — feedback from the ground. Media should rightly be a reflection of views and ideas from the top and response and new ideas from the ground.
My question: Can media in its present form today play this role of providing a two-way avenue of information flow effectively? Or have its practitioners been so thoroughly subjugated into believing that they should not say anything that will earn the displeasure of government and officialdom?
Not so long also, the rallying cry was: Publish, and be damned.
Then, developmental journalism became the order of the day as everything was done to promote the economic progress of a fledgling republic.
Today, it has become: Why rock the boat? We have but one Singapore and the Government knows best.
My wish is that the media will return to what it was intended to be: A marketplace of ideas, debate and the development of a common desire — that the process of sharing will result in a communion of matured minds which hopefully will want to bring about a betterment of our society.
I would think that as many western papers close their paper editions, and look to alternative forms of information dissemination it is on the web that Singapore may eventually see a free media. Not with the ST but with a new entity free from party allegiance and instead a voice of both the Government and the People and acting as both a voice for and a voice against each.
But it won;t happen soon, since no matter what is being said about a more democratic government until such time as it is not only enacted but seen to come to fruition it is merely hollow posturing in the lead-up to an election that like all around the world, see much being promised and then little being delivered.
When you heard this govt said “fair play” to all parties, we need to take it with a tonne of salt. They have almost used up all their words in this world to make them feel good and mock at us everyday. Many of their rhetorical statements do not crystalise into actions and Singapore is now moving backward and not forward, in the passing of times.
When the word “fairness” came out of a senior politician’s mouth, we know they are jittery that they have already lost support from the ground. The public negative sentiments are strong. With the help of online news, they can longer hide behind the main media. The govt is seen to have lost all the people’s confident in ruling this country and they too are at a lost except to talk-cock-sing-song to please their own ears and buy time for economy to recover on its own.
Anyway, with the on-going saga in STTA led by LBW, and our billion dollars loss in Temasek we have yet to grasp what GCT meant by accountability, transparency and LKY’s definition of meritocracy in this cuntry. Thus, the word “fairness” is used only on selective circumstances and well guarded by kangaroos. As long as anything or anybody related to PAP party and cannot stand independently on its own feet and judgement, fairness is just a fantasy.
Yes i agree with you! so true. the media has to be a free platform to coincide with political change. well there’s always online media such as this site and others :)
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act in its present form must go.
It is against fundamental rights of the individual.
6) Peter Sellers on May 27th, 2009 3.56 pm
And what can be done about it?
I see only 2 options :
a. People (a substantial number ) request what need to change
b. Wait. tick tock the mouse went up the clock…..inevitability by virtue of nature.
This is a brilliant article, I have been waiting for someone to say something about the media. I doubt your article, or in fact all TOC articles can appear in print, with the writer’s face, full name & address? The Internet provides this ‘freedom’ of voice only because there are ways of concealing identities, am I right?
If only TOC articles can also be printed in both English and Chinese for distribution at coffee shops! The many thousands who do not have access to internet or cannot read English won’t get to read TOC articles, perhaps thats why ‘they’ are not yet that threatened.
Hey ST not that bad leh.
Alleged in Parly that it has GLBT tendencies and ST refuses to answer back.
BTW, now that a minister has implied that AWARE OG (remember “Anal sex is normal”) is pro homosexuals; and MP has alleged ST’s GLBT tendencies, wonder where will GLBT have a home?
ST’s publication of the criticism in Parliament rather gives the lie to the allegations of biased coverage, doesn’t it? Why answer back? Sometimes actions speak louder than words.
Whereas when an MP has to rely on unverified emails from unknown persons to substantiate allegations of biased coverage, and conclude by stating his belief that ‘he would not be surprised if it was true’ – doesn’t that smack of biasness? Moreover, is that what we pay $$$ to MPs for, to rely on unverified emails and jump to conclusions based on his ‘belief’ of the content of unverified emails?
Wonder what would happen if an Opposition MP were to produce an unverified email from an unknown person about PAP corruption and state that he ‘would not be surprised if it was true??
10) LadyMadonna on May 28th, 2009 11.19 am
“Whereas when an MP has to rely on unverified emails from unknown persons to substantiate allegations of biased coverage, and conclude by stating his belief that ‘he would not be surprised if it was true’ – doesn’t that smack of biasness? Moreover, is that what we pay $$$ to MPs for, to rely on unverified emails and jump to conclusions based on his ‘belief’ of the content of unverified emails?”"
…………………………..
That MP described the COOS women as “concerned ladies” even though the evidence show that their “feminist mentor” was behind the whole saga and with the active involvement of the Church in particular the Senior Pastor.
It is well known that the blogoshpere had exposed the COOS involvement days before the MSM reported and that Josie’s group refused to meet the press for weeks and when they finally held press conf, refused to answer questions from the press.
Yet this MP had the gall to blame the press for being biased.
In any case the MSM has been known to be biased against people/political parties which criticised or is/are sued by the gahmen and yet this MP and others like him had failed to speak out.
Hypocrites & double standards
The ‘honourable’ MP has apologised for citing an email the contents of which he did not unverify & from a person he did not know, but mentioned nothing about whether he still holds the view that he ‘would not be surprised if it [the unverified email] were true’.
How ironic that in slamming the press for lacking in impartiality and objectivity he should show himself to be very partial – describing the Aware takeover as a ‘simple and lawful act of democracy’ by ‘a group of concerned citizens’.
Similarly the NMP who whilst criticising the biased media coverage of the Aware tussle abused her parliamentary position to the advantage of her family members involved in it.