In a speech on 26 Oct 2009 to the New York State Bar Association that covered the press situation in Singapore, Law Minister K Shanmugam did little more than to successfully tackle a straw man.
Questioning Reporters without Borders’ (RwB) press ranking of Singapore (133 out of 175 countries), Shanmugam oddly urged for the ranking to take into account the economic success of Singapore since independence.
The Law Minister must know that RwB judges every nation’s press freedom standards by the same measure – so how could he expect special “objective” treatment for Singapore? After all, Singapore was not ranked below Kenya and Congo in press freedoms this year without reason.
Had Shanmugam revealed a more holistic picture of the press scene in Singapore to his visitors from New York, he might not have been so dismissive of the RwB report he sought to discredit. In truth, the Law Minister was probably acutely aware of the state of the press in Singapore – it just did not serve his interests to reveal the other side of the story.
Unfortunately for him, discerning Singaporeans, Americans and foreigners at large, are well acquainted with the other side of the story.
Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), the largest media conglomerate in Singapore maintains a monopoly over the press. It regularly makes profits in excess of $400m dollars a year, recession or not, and its chairman happens to be a former deputy prime minister who is a member of the same political party as Mr Shanmugam.
SPH’s group president from 1995-2002 was a former director of the Internal Security Department. The current political editor of The Straits Times, the most widely read English daily published by SPH, is a former Internal Security Department officer. There is no Freedom of Information Act in Singapore.
Only some months ago, The Straits Times had the gall to remove comments made by the Finance Minister in parliament that covered Singaporeans’ right to information on matters involving the state’s sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings. On assuming responsibilities as chairman of SPH in the early 1980s, the current President of Singapore, Mr S.R. Nathan, was famously told by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew that he was being handed a porcelain vase that if broken, could never be put back again. By MM Lee Kuan Yew’s own admission, government press control and management have been central to the ruling People’s Action Party’s (PAP) grip on power since independence in 1965.
In shrewdly seeking to conflate Singapore’s economic success against the irrelevance of international press freedom rankings, Law Minister K Shanmugam sought to justify the importance of maintaining the government’s indirect control over the press in Singapore.
In reality, Singapore’s economic success since the 1960s is of little relevance to RwB, as is the economic performance of any other country it ranks. Correspondingly, the Law Minister ought to have respected the objective ranking standards of RwB, in step with his triumphant references to reports from the World Economic Forum, IMD, Moody’s, Mercer and Mori, which rank Singapore favourably in economic, legal and quality of life indices.
In a curious blast from the past, Shanmugam also spoke of an Asian value system of human rights with reference to American perceptions about Singapore. But sadly, what constitutes this value system was not properly explained to his visitors from the New York State Bar Association. If the minister was referring to “Asian values”, he ought to have been reminded that that particular debate is long dead and buried.
In “Human Rights and Asian Values” (first published in 1997 at The New Republic), Amartya Sen had already debunked it completely. The simple generalisation of Asian Values does not adequately explain the cultural ethos of a multi-racial state like Singapore. In fact, even MM Lee had long withdrawn himself from this debate he so enthusiastically engendered, when he clarified that what he meant by Asian values were not applicable to Southeast Asia.
The least Shanmugam could have done was to express what he meant by a term that has all but disappeared from the international public lexicon, rather than to frame an argument around it.In justifying his “Asian value system of human rights”, Shanmugam went on to detail the existential threats that confronted Singapore in an era of decolonisation. Perhaps he meant to say that people were locked up without trial in Singapore because that was the price to pay for development and economic prosperity.
In speaking of a past which many Singaporeans have little memory of, the Law Minister was better placed to speak about a Singapore of tomorrow, rather than to justify the political matrix of yesteryear. After all, Shanmugam was selling Singapore as a great place to do business to his American visitors – he might well have sourced more business for Singapore if he gave his support to a PAP government that respected a free and responsible press, in addition to one that drew a line at Singapore’s Cold War era press control regimes.
Rather than propose a standard for RwB that is incongruous with its press freedom index template, the Law Minister should have made a commitment to align Singapore’s press freedom regime with that of other democracies. And if the minister cares to put his mind to it, the choice of one or two independently-owned and operated newspapers at his doorstep at 6am in morning, in addition to The Straits Times, may well serve to put a smile on his face the next time RwB releases its press freedom index.
what a strange title for your article
Dear Mr Pitram Singh,
I would have hoped that your article turn out to be more restrained than it is. Your article is the same old predictable exercise of “pointing out the obvious”.
Please understand that being ranked 133rd out of 175 countries in any index for a modern state like Singapore is a tremendous loss of face.
What our Law Minister was trying to do is purely a salvage and damage-control operation. Seen in that light, we should be more generous in our assessments.
Is it better to lie? or to spin. I highly doubt change will come. Rules and directives may change but at the end of the day, its still the same people reading these rules and they will bend it to whatever they want thus at the end of the day, not really achieve anything.
PAP and its yes-men will never admit its fault until they are forced to do so.
The only way they can be forced is not from any foreign press and it should not be this way.
The only way is for them to be forced by opposition MPs in parliament. 30-40 opposition MPs to be exact. They can easily dismiss 1 or 2 MPs, especially with their army of stooges and yes-men, but can they easily dismiss 30-40 MPs? And if they continue to ignore the issue, these 30-40 MPs will then become 50-60 MPs, easily more than half to take over the government legitimately.
Voters, you have to wake up now to ensure the government hears the message, because it seems they are still deaf and blind.
I see PAP mini$ter$ getting cornered. Soon, they will have no place to run.
Too many unanswered questions which they cant account for.
How long more can they run and dodge these questions? It seems that they’re running out of time.
Opp should take advantage of this and strike PAP in the jugular. ( if Opp gets the opportunity).
What is the criteria for RWB’s rankings? They have not chosen to publish the point scoring system.
Without transparency in such rankings, they are no better than those who claim Singapore is #1 but refuse to reveal the criteria.
Frankly, the only organisation losing face, and even more losing credibility every year is RwB.
They are getting desperate by the year. They know that if they get Singapore “get away with it” , other countries will follow and, they will have a harder time earning their keep to justify what they write and not able to slant their pieces in the direction of their own hidden agendas. I would personally ignore them and let us see how this will play out in the long term.
For all you know Singapore’s unique approach to this issue may work out to our country’s detriment. But at least it is one answer to these “self appointed (some unprincipled) nabobs of the press, who has no accountability..”
Actually ranking or no ranking by the RWB, we all will agree that the press freedom in Singapore is very limited and this is by intent.
There is really no need to get worked up over a fact. If the Govt is concerned about the image of Singapore’s press; then it surely has the power to change the press freedom here.
Hi #6,
You can find the RWB ranking methodology on their website.
That is what you have when people trade their own economic success for others’ freedom. It is a no brainer, one’s economic success for suppressing another’s thoughts and freedom.
Of course that has to be defended to the very end.
It was the Merovingian in the Matrix reloaded who said “Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without”
I guess we can see Press Freedom in Singapore in the same light.
Of course then, the PAP must defend it, to give Singaporeans the impression they have press freedom, “even if they were only aware of it at a near unconscious level.”
The Young PAP website published an article ‘Temasek Holdings, Financial Disclosure and Charles Goodyear’. On matters involving the state’s sovereign wealth fund, Temasek Holdings, the author mentioned in a reply to one of the comments that he thinks the overnment had no influence on the newspapers. He thinks the government is actually disadvantaged in terms of overall coverage in the Temasek Holdings issues and he gave his reasons why in that reply to a comment.
“Shanmugam oddly urged for the ranking to take into account the economic success of Singapore since independence.”
This is extremely strange and awkward. it is like asking for special treatment or asking for special allowance…and what good will an index be if they give special allowance to a country with minimum press freedom and enjoyed economic success. if that’s the case, then they have to give special treatment to china too right?
however, the way I see it, they are admitting that indeed, our press deserves that ranking. this is just like saying “yes, our press is rank like this, but you can improve it because we have economic development”
It seems all but those in PAP camp cannot see that the Straits Times is anything but straight.
Mr Shanmugam still does not understand that if other developed countries want to do what Spore does (placing economy above everything else), Spore won’t stand a chance in the economy ranking just like the press ranking.
Does Mr Shanmugam really think that US & Europe do not have a clue how to clinch top place in economy? Just one simple eg. They have land space millions of times over. How come they don’t open their doors like Spore for any T, D & H to lower wages to attract investments? How come their govts don’t monopolise every business including supermarkets? Mr Shanmugam needs to realise that in the land of the blind, one eye is king.
Dear #2) smallvoice585
I normally do not respond to comments as I much prefer letting people speak their hearts and minds and learning from different views since I don’t and will never host perfect knowledge. But I am obliged to respond to your remarks.
I agree that 133/175 is a loss of face for Singapore. I would go further in fact. I think its a disgrace. To use Shanmugam’s line of argument – we don’t have civil wars, our women are not raped on the streets, there are no military coups here – so why are we number 133?
Are RwB unfairly targeting us? Surely not! To blame RwB is to bark up the wrong tree. As such I was scratching my head a little with regard to your comment that I should have been more restrained.
As for the same old predictable exercise of “pointing out the obvious”, well I think you would agree with me that the political leadership offers the same old predictable justifications too.
But I have an added reason for repeating historical facts or as you would say, pointing out the obvious. I feel younger Singaporeans must know what values the PAP stands for on press freedom issues and decide for themselves where they stand vis-a-vis these values. So its important to amplify the party’s contradictions and call out the PAP when it spins information for its own advantage. Nobody but Singaporeans end up as losers when the party does this. We are denied a legitimate right to hear multiple perspectives, and to offer our inputs on which is the best way forward for Singapore.
As for the remark that the Law Minister was in salvage and damage-control mode, and I ought to have been more generous as a result, respectfully, I disagree. What was he salvaging? Damage-control? The damage was self-inflicted! He should have used to opportunity to begin the process of repair and reconstruction, not perpetuate a terrible state of affairs.
I expect my country’s Law Minister to step up and address an issue squarely, rather than to blame the neutral, RwB, who have done nothing more than to judge each country’s press by a common standard. We should not defend the minister for the sake of it. We should be generously honest and upfront with him.
No matter how much we scream at the Ministers, Press Secretaries, etc.. there is no use. Lao Lee still controls all the strings as far as politics is concern. He’s destroying his own legacy with each passing minute.
Need him to kick the bucket for real change. Until then, Singaporeans need to endure being ridiculed for being soul-less.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose them both.” – Benjamin Franklin
Without any challenges, the PAP govt always looks pretty on the international stage. That’s why the need for constant agitations and boundary pushing.
“They know that if they get Singapore “get away with it” , other countries will follow and, they will have a harder time earning their keep to justify what they write and not able to slant their pieces in the direction of their own hidden agendas.”
In any ranking, there will always be those on top and those below. Puzzling of your less-than-educated comment on “get away with it”. There are 175 countries (positions), and from which cut-off in the positioning do you deem good enough for other countries not to follow ?
“I would personally ignore them and let us see how this will play out in the long term.”
Unfortunately, they did not have the foresight to follow your lead of restraining themselves. Either you know something that they do not already know or vice versa.
“But at least it is one answer to these “self appointed (some unprincipled) nabobs of the press, who has no accountability..”
tsk, tsk, tsk. The irony is that this particular principled organization does not usually invite the noisy call for accountability – except maybe (maybe ok) from those unprincipled elements.
Since every magazine and newspapers are forced to have an office in Singapore so that they can sue and win, which happens in all the law suits – one sided.
And also since they feel that this is wrong and they are very good in using the courts to right the wrong. Why not they take Reporters without Borders to International Court?
Honestly, they are fast becoming multi-million dollar jokes by questioning and rebutting every obvious truths.
Come, come people. Tell Shanmugam to relinguish his Law portfolio now and then asked him again if he agrees with the rating of 133. I will bet he have other views immediately and may even agree with it to a certain extent. Funny how becoming a minister or a MIW can changed a person’s thinking overnight! Tell him to put his hands to his heart when he says what he had said. Totally untruthful and without integrity – just because he now wears white! Shameful.
I think the following article from CHERIAN GEORGE makes for an interesting read:
http://journalism.sg/2009/10/28/why-rsfs-press-freedom-index-is-flawed-%E2%80%93-and-why-it-works/
Enjoy reading.
How Reporters Without Borders compile their rankings
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/note_methodo_en.pdf
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/quest_en.pdf
Questionnaire for compiling the 2009
Press Freedom Index
The period runs from 1 September 2008 to 31 August 2009
Give as many examples as possible. Answers must be limited to events that took place during
this period.
PHYSICAL ATTACKS, IMPRISONMENT AND DIRECT THREATS
Answer Yes or No to each question. During this period, were there any cases of journalists:
1. Being illegally detained (without an arrest warrant, for longer than the maximum
period of police custody, without a court appearance etc)?
2. Being tortured or ill-treated?
3. Being kidnapped or disappearing?
4. Fleeing the country as a result of harassment?
During this period, were there (Yes/No):
5. Armed militias or secret organisations regularly targeting journalists?
6. Journalists who had to have bodyguards or use security measures (such wearing
bulletproof jackets or using bulletproof vehicles) in the course of their work?
INDIRECT THREATS, PRESSURES AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION
During this period, were there cases of (Yes/No):
7. Surveillance of journalists by the state (were journalists’ phones tapped, were they
followed etc)?
8. Journalists employed by privately-owned media being forced to stop working because
of threats or political pressure?
9. Serious difficulty accessing public or official information (such as refusal by officials
to provide information, information being provided selectively, according to the
media’s editorial position)?
10. Restrictions on access to or coverage of any regions in the country (such as an official
ban or strict government controls)?
11. Foreign journalists deported or prevented from entering the country?
CENSORSHIP AND SELF-CENSORSHIP
12. How many news media were censored, had issues seized, had their premises
ransacked or had their operating licence withdrawn by the state?
During this period, was there (Yes/No):
13. Systematic prior censorship of all the media (control before publication)? This refers
not to a media regulatory body but to government or military censorship offices that
inspect all state and privately-owned media content prior to publication or
broadcasting and can order the suppression of any item.
14. Widespread self-censorship in the privately-owned media? Give a score from 0 (none)
to 5 (strong self-censorship).
15. Important news that was suppressed or not covered because of political or business
pressure? Give examples.
16. Frequent detailed investigative reporting on a range of sensitive subjects?
PUBLIC MEDIA
During this period, was there or were there (Yes/No):
17. A state monopoly of TV?
18. A state monopoly of radio?
19. A state monopoly of printing or distribution facilities?
20. Government control of what the state-owned media publish or broadcast?
21. Unjustified dismissals of journalists in the state-owned media?
22. Opposition access to state-owned media? Give a score from 0 (no access at all) to 5
(free and fair access).
ECONOMIC, LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PRESSURE
During this period, was there or were there (Yes/No):
23. Unjustified or improper use of fines, summonses or legal action against journalists or
media outlets?
24. Attempts to violate the confidentiality of journalistic sources (by means of
investigation, interrogation, prosecution and so on)?
25. Use of the withdrawal of advertising to pressure news media (in which the government
or state agencies stop buying advertising space or the government gets private firms to
do this)?
26. A requirement to obtain a licence in order to start up a newspaper or magazine?
27. Serious threats to news diversity, including threats resulting from narrow ownership of
media outlets? Give a score from 0 (no threat) to 5 (very serious threat).
28. A government takeover of any privately-owned media during this period, either
directly or through government-controlled firms?
INTERNET AND NEW MEDIA
During this period, was there or were there (Yes/No):
29. A state monopoly of Internet service providers (ISPs)?
30. Cases of access to news, cultural or political websites being blocked by filtering
mechanisms or being closed down by the authorities?
31. Cases of cyber-dissidents or bloggers being detained for more than a day? How many?
NUMBER OF JOURNALISTES MURDERED, DETAINED, PHYSICALLY ATTACKED OR
THREATENED, AND GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN THIS
During this period, how many journalists, media assistants or press freedom activists:
32. Were killed in connection with their work?
33. Were killed in situations in which the government was involved?
34. Were detained or jailed (for more than 48 hours)?
35. Were still in prison at the end of this period as a result of receiving a long jail sentence
(more than a year) for a press offence?
36. Were physically attacked or injured?
37. Were any or all of these acts of violence carried out by representatives of the state
(such as police, soldiers, political leaders or ruling party activists)?
38. In the above cases, did the authorities do their best to punish those responsible for
these press freedom violations? Give a score from 0 (no efforts) to 5 (strong efforts).
39. Or did the authorities take steps to prevent those responsible for these press freedom
violations from being prosecuted (for example, by blocking investigations or
postponing trials indefinitely)? Give examples
Give an estimate of the number of:
40. Independent or opposition news media operating in the country (excluding media
based abroad).
Is there any point not included in this questionnaire that might be relevant to assess
the situation of press freedom in your country? Please mention them.
If there are questions you are not sure about (the accuracy of your answer or the
applicability of the questions to your country), please list them and say why (such as
lack of data, ambiguous questions or wording of questions that does not apply to the
situation in your country).
Reporters Without Borders publishes their questionnaire, but does not specify how the final score is calculated, or how many “demerit” points apply to each question.
It is like publishing an exam paper without telling us how many points each question is worth.
Still not transparent enough!
Compare this to The Economist, whose surveys are much more transparent.
Do I have to direct your finger to click on the above links? Jeez.
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/note_methodo_en.pdf
Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2009
How the index was compiled
Paris, 20 October 2009
The Reporters Without Borders index measures the state of press freedom in the
world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy
in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure
respect for this freedom.
A score and a position is assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are
complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. A country
can change position from year to year even if its score stays the same, and viceversa.
This ranking reflects the situation during a specific period. It is based solely on events
between 1 September 2008 and 1 September 2009. It does not look at human rights
violations in general, just press freedom violations.
To compile this index, Reporters Without Borders prepared a questionnaire with 40
criteria that assess the state of press freedom in each country. It includes every kind
of violation directly affecting journalists (such as murders, imprisonment, physical
attacks and threats) and news media (censorship, confiscation of newspaper issues,
searches and harassment). Ánd it includes the degree of impunity enjoyed by those
responsible for these press freedom violations.
It also measures the level of self-censorship in each country and the ability of the
media to investigate and criticise. Financial pressure, which is increasingly common,
is also assessed and incorporated into the final score.
The questionnaire takes account of the legal framework for the media (including
penalties for press offences, the existence of a state monopoly for certain kinds of
media and how the media are regulated) and the level of independence of the public
media. It also reflects violations of the free flow of information on the Internet.
Reporters Without Borders has taken account not only of abuses attributable to the
state, but also those by armed militias, clandestine organisations and pressure
groups.
The questionnaire was sent to Reporters Without Borders’ partner organisations (15
freedom of expression groups in all five continents), to its network of 130
correspondents around the world, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human
rights activists. A scale devised by the organisation was then used to give a countryscore
to each questionnaire.
The 175 countries ranked are those for which Reporters Without Borders received
completed questionnaires from a number of independent sources. Some countries
were not included because of a lack of reliable, confirmed data. Where countries tied,
they are listed in alphabetical order.
The index should in no way be
Why bother, Agatha? It is obvious that some people would like to defend the indefensible and smear all their (honest) detractors with innuendo etc.
Seems as if someone is learning from politicians from a neighboring country….
Dear #20 Michael,
Thank you for that link to Cherian’s piece. I would recommend all to read it since it provides another perspective to the issue.
I sought to post a comment with regard to Cherian’s piece, but for some reason, it did now show up on his site (it could be under moderation or perhaps comments are not allowed), so here is what I posted there under my name.
_________________
“Instead of using a common pool of rigorously trained assessors, it asks respondents within each country to rate that country on various indicators.”
Cherian –
Are you seriously suggesting that a common pool of rigorously trained assessors will make the RSF methodology more rigorous? That will do nothing but to shift the focus on the “biased” individuals who would constitute that very common pool! The Singapore government has even dissed Amnesty International and US State Department reports before. At this rate, we will be questioning “rigour” ad nauseum.
In arguing that RSF is not as credible as other NGOs, do you think Singapore will come out smelling like roses if RSF produced a detailed report on the press situation in Singapore? I think not too.
Like a beauty pageant where contestants are ultimately judged subjectively, as are Olympic divers and boxers etc., if you can accept that the RSF methodology has a subjective method to it, (and you can respect the subjectivity of that method), perhaps there would not be too much to fret about and we can all touch our hearts and ask ourselves the pertinent question that matters (subjectively speaking of course) – Does Singapore have a free press? Use an objective test if you can conceptually create one.
The RSF report is not without flaws, for sure (as flawed as MOE’s ranking of Singapore schools, and these rankings would be conceptually more acceptable to you because of their fixed indices). I would humbly suggest that Singapore’s press scene has bigger problems.
The RSF methodology is as hyperlinked –
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/note_methodo_en.pdf
As the saying goes there is no smoke if there isn’t any fire. As the article suggests rather than pouring fuel to the fire, is best to extinguished it. But by slamming lawsuits and defamations suits to any article that hints corruption doesn’t give the republic is not the way to put the republic in the good books of free press.
For a country that prides itself in every international ranking report out there, there should be some concern on where we are in that report. It is far from giving the people confidence that they have a free voice in this country. Not that we have for the past 40 years, but having the Law minister by rebutting the report as insignificant actually made the issue more relevant.
We are judged by our actions more than what we say, so far our actions as a republic who proclaims to be a democratic country but blankets any bad press about the ruling party from any independent press is another example of not practising what the government is preaching.
how can RwB beat our SWFs level of transparency?!
locals have to get “breaking news” from outside sources wan you know? news is newer from abroad like grass is greener outside S’pore!!
what a joke! :D
Finally Singapore is not NO. 1. Accept reality. Now try to come down to below 100 first.
Everything want to be and must be No. 1. Live a life for a change. No2 or No 3 is ok in life. See now above 100 very the upset. Well done keep up your rankings cos in others we also dont have a chance.
But hey they forgot Singapore is NO. 1 highest paid politicians and civil servants etc in the entire world. And that is something no country can ever top us!
I’ve read the pdf.
” A scale devised by the organisation was then used to give a country-
score to each questionnaire. ”
The point of comment 22) is that the RSF methodology does not specify what went into the devising of this scale. It does not say for example, what weight is given to the different categories in its questionnaire. Are the scores for the category on censorship and self-censorship given more weight than the scores for the category on physical attacks, for instance? Or are they given equal weight?Without knowing the answer to this question, we can’t then question their methodology and ask, “Should the score given for physical attacks on journalists be given less/equal/more weight than the score given for censorship?”
Likewise, they have not published some statistics which might help to give us a better idea of their sample size and distribution. For example, they’ve mentioned their correspondents being journalists, researchers, jurists and etc. Fair enough. Maybe they could also specify what percentage of the responders in each country are journalists? What percentage are jurists? Is there a potential bias if one percentage is larger than the other?
The point of this comment is not to dispute the rankings that RSF provided, but to point out that we need more information than just an assurance that there was a score and a scale, in order to decide how valid the interpretation that comes from the data truly is. It might well be that RSF’s assessment of reporter freedom in Singapore is accurate but we won’t know that from coming to the conclusion ourselves, but only from what they’ve told us.
For a comparison on what others publish in their methodologies, I provide the links below. Some of the methodologies are problematic but at least they’re out there for us to discuss. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2009/10/20/worlds-best-universities-methodology.html
and
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005
The major contention of the report is that the methodology used by RWB is flaw Not whether Singapore has press freedom. I know and you know that our press freedom index is far less than ideal.
And indeed if you analysis what RWB is doing then you will notice that Dr George has a point.
Don’t believe what the foreign press says as well, they are after all employees of companies! And I always read all commentaries with a pinch of salt irrespective of their origin, be it local or foreign.
A good commentary, well reasoned and presented. And yet very similar with Shanmugam’s speech in that it only argues a one sided view. The desire is to achieve true freedom of speech and expression in Singapore is no more an aspiration than the pledge we recite everyday. Thats right – its only aspirational. In my humble view, it does not exist anywhere in the world just as there is no such thing as pure heroin. It exists in varying degrees.
The debate we should be having is whether the chnage is happening fast enough and whether we are ready for that change. Can we cope with the changes in government and protests etc like in Thailand? What is the ‘degree of freedom’ that we want for ourselves and who should determine it and what guarantees can they offer that it will not tilt the scales.
But this I know – the current model (or degree of freedom) is not sustainable in a global borderless world. Can the rule of law, as we understand it today, remain relevant for the next generation whose goals and aspirations (yes, here we go again, that ‘A’ word) are quite different from MM’s generation and perhaps even 2 generations after that. I think not. The multi-media and the Internet despite SPH’s monoploy will play a significant role in giving expression to freedom of thought and speech. And its effects are slowly permeating through to the masses; awareness is growing and the winds of change are here to stay.
So lets not rush this. After all, we are but a little red dot.
Can anyone tell me why the internet radio feature was taken away from all the radio stations in Singapore? Was it banned permanently?
Hope it is just a temporary ban.
Dear 15) Mr. Pritam Singh,
Thank you very much for your kind reply and clarifications.
You may not realize it, but I’m actually in general agreement with you about most of what you wrote in this article as well your points in Post #15. I’m certainly not in favor of defending the minister for the sake of it.
My concern is more about the content, general tone and the thrust of this article. Our poor ranking already speak volumes about the lack of press freedom in Singapore. There is no need to belabor this point. But your tendency to follow the TOC formula of picking on something negative about the Government and roast it for all that it’s worth does not make for very refreshing reading.
Where is your take on the concept of press freedom and its importance to national development, to political maturation, to human rights, to economic prosperity and to human happiness? Where is your analysis of the possible justifications of our media policies and their merits? Where is your assessment of the intrinsic value of the RwB press ranking? Where is your empathetic understanding of Mr. Shanmugam’s position and his seemingly incoherent statements?
Devoting a whole article to reiterate what most PAP’s detractors already know will only stir up more emotional malevolence towards the Government. That is not the most constructive objective to have.
Hi smallvoices505 #32,
Like I said, I think there is reason to keep the issue alive, simply for educative purposes and because the govt’s media policies have not really changed, even when they say “we will do things slowly”. In concert, I happen to think that the government’s media policies make virtue out of necessity. Real change has been far from discernible. As such, it is hard for me to empathise with Mr Shanmugam’s argument. Now if he committed that things will change and outlined the contours of such change, then I would have been keen to give the government a chance. But in the absence of such commitment, all we have is a government representative singing the same old tune. Well, you can rightly expect the same criticisms. The ball is very much in the government’s court on this one. The emotional malevolence you speak of may be better contextualised if you trace it to the original source. After all, it is no crime disagreeing with the government.
As for my view on the RwB’s press ranking, I tried to post a comment on Cherian’s blog last night, but could not do so. Either my comment is in moderation or the post is not open to comments, but here is my response as drafted in response to Cherian’s mail.
________________
“Instead of using a common pool of rigorously trained assessors, it asks respondents within each country to rate that country on various indicators.”
Cherian –
Are you seriously suggesting that a common pool of rigorously trained assessors will make the RSF methodology more rigorous? That will do nothing but to shift the focus on the “biased” individuals who would constitute that very common pool! The Singapore government has even dissed Amnesty International and US State Department reports before. At this rate, we will be questioning “rigour” ad nauseum.
In arguing that RSF is not as credible as other NGOs, do you think Singapore will come out smelling like roses if RSF produced a detailed report on the press situation in Singapore? I think not too.
Like a beauty pageant where contestants are ultimately judged subjectively, as are Olympic divers and boxers etc., if you can accept that the RSF methodology has a subjective method to it, (and you can respect the subjectivity of that method), perhaps there would not be too much to fret about and we can all touch our hearts and ask ourselves the pertinent question that matters (subjectively speaking of course) – Does Singapore have a free press? Use an objective test if you can conceptually create one.
The RSF report is not without flaws, for sure (as flawed as MOE’s ranking of Singapore schools, and these ranking would be conceptually more acceptable to you because of their fixed indices). I would humbly suggest that Singapore’s press scene has bigger problems.
The RSF methodology is as hyperlinked –
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/note_methodo_en.pdf
The Minister’s defence of press freedom is as effective as a flea raping an elephant.
“Where is your take on the concept of press freedom and its importance to national development, to political maturation, to human rights, to economic prosperity and to human happiness? Where is your analysis of the possible justifications of our media policies and their merits? Where is your assessment of the intrinsic value of the RwB press ranking?”
You are barking up the wrong tree again, it seems. You seem to have a habit of doing that – I wonder why?
We dont understand. Why should the onus be on Pritam and not the law minister to fill up the missing blanks?
After all he is the one who took issue with the press ranking and as far as analysis goes in what way todate has he even supplied so much as a morsel of argument that can be seriously considered to rebute the claim by RWB?
What I see here is repartee and a very intelligent one at that; all Pritam seems to be saying is an educated man should never attempt to mix a whole lot of things which have nothing to do with one and another if he hopes to fashion a persuasive case.
It would seem this is elementary and may even belong to something that we can all agree must have emerged from the common sense school of thought.
Regrettably, what remains glaring todate is why and how such a truism con’t to confound the law minister, no end?
SD (Internet Liaison officer of the brotherhood)
I think people are missing the point over RWB’s ranking methodology, even our dear Law Minister. The RWB ranking serves to compare press freedom in each country.
What does press freedom entail?
1. Is there a free press?
2. Are journalists under threat from any political agents?
3. Are journalists adequately protected to ensure their independence?
This has nothing to do with quality of the newspaper. Anyway, from 1 Sep 2008 to 1 Sep 2009, our dear government did not initiate any law suit against any journalists. This is a big factor why our press freedom ranking improved to 133rd.
Well done Pritam. A well written rebuttal of the Law Minister’s point of view. I think the Minister was just doing his job. It does not mean we have to take what he says as the whole truth and nothing but the the truth. There are many sides to reality.
Please keep up the good work, Pritam. Like that little drop of water, whatever we contribute towards enlightenment, will eventually wear away the obstinacy of the powers that be in not wanting to recognise the urgent need for media freedom.
Shanmugam is in no position to query and doubt the ranking did by Reporters wtihout Border. His voice is not representative of Singaporean voices. Thus, as a PAP members whose party owned the MSM, he should just “SHUT UP AND SIT DOWN” instead of causing embarassing to Singaporeans.
fair? it is joy from singapore
Yes. Donaldson @ #35 is right. The rankings have always been about media *openess* from the outset, and this can very readily be discerned from the criteria used as posted by Agatha.
Additionally, the RSF rankings have only become a feature in Singapore’s political landscape only in the last few years. (I don’t know as yet if they had actually been doing this for much longer.) But Singaporeans ourselves have been railing against the lack of openess for much longer. RSF is only confirming what Singaporeans have always known: we don’t have much to crow about in the department of free speech/expression and the free flow of information in our publicly funded institutions such as the media.
However, there is one point that Donaldson raised that I disagree with:
Re: “Anyway, from 1 Sep 2008 to 1 Sep 2009, our dear government did not initiate any law suit against any journalists. This is a big factor why our press freedom ranking improved to 133rd.”
Melanie Kirpatrick of WSJ was sued earlier this year.
But I would attribute the improved standings to the *pressure* exerted by the openess in the centrist media online such aas this one. So many things would have gone unreported if not for the centrist media online first reporting them right down to the language of openess.
This is actually a salute to the centrist media establishment online.
Simple confusion of press freedom with economic freedom, prosperity and safety. The question is – what is the reason and cause for this obfuscation?
Hi Robox,
Thanks for pointing out Melanie Kirpatrick of WSJ.
Cheers
Donald
Re: “The Law Minister must know that RwB judges every nation’s press freedom standards by the same measure – so how could he expect special “objective” treatment for Singapore? After all, Singapore was not ranked below Kenya and Congo in press freedoms this year without reason.” – Pritam Singh
I believe that K Shamugam – I wonder what the initial “K” in his name might stand for – actually did raise the case of Kenya and Haiti in New York in terms of how Singapore might have ranked in this survey.
But I ask this: did he, or the innumerable civil servants who carry out his research tasks while he takes credit for their work, actually take the pains to find if the media in Kenya and Haiti REPORT those rapes and other atrocities that occurred in the countries BEFORE railing about THEIR superior standings in the RSF report before whining in New York?
Its never a problem with this PAP Government.
Now that the people have detected the legal discrepancy.
They will soon convene Parliament and pass a law to make
it legal for the advisers to do so.
And make it retrospective too!
“Law Minister defeats “Reporters without Borders’” straw man”
Such a strange title. Our clowns never defeat anyone, they just bulldoze their way through using highfalutin nonsense and twisted logic.
A better title could be
“Law Minister versus “Reporters without Borders’” straw man”
The name/title “Singaporeans for Free Speech and Transparency” seems to be a misnomer to me; and its website of the same name/title seems to be a camouflage for just the opposite for all intents and purposes. That is how I feel about this website, which has just been put up recently, possibly by some agents of those in power or their party.
Take a close look and monitor it closely; see for yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
Netizens should be more aware of the Cyberwar being launched by certain powerful people against the commoners using the Internet as a platform to make themselves heard.
It is quite obvious to me that TOC is one of those that are being targeted, especially when articles and comments reveal the wrongs, hypocrisies or contradictions being perpetuated in our society by the people in power, their stooges or their armies of minions.
Therefore, readers should be more discerning and awaken to hidden agendas of certain websites and commentators. Read in between the lines!
Dear 34) singaporedaddy,
Yes, I like to bark at different trees because barking at the same tree all the time without any positive response is self-defeating, if not downright boring.
The PAP is the PAP. They are the way they are. Barking at them will not change them. In fact, going by experience, in response, they will harden their position. Anyway, they are but just one political option for Singapore out of potential many.
We should not waste time and energy pointing out the many apparent inconsistencies in their position which are well known by now.
If TOC continues in its campaign to discredit the Government at every turn in the hope that this will encourage people to vote against the PAP at the next GE, its wishful thinking will not bear fruit. More likely, the credibility of this whole website will increasingly by called into question. That would be a pity.
What I’m trying to do is not to side with PAP or anti-PAP forces, but to goad both sides to evolve to a higher level of debate. Only with such a development can Singapore nurture a new generation of politically-conscious citizens.