Pritam Singh
In a talk entitled “The Role of the Media: Singapore’s Perspective” delivered at Columbia University on 4 Nov 2010, Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam perpetuated the same well-rehearsed myths that justify the PAP’s ironclad grip on the mainstream media in Singapore. The Minister was spot-on about one thing though – the arguments he raised were a function of PAP paranoia.
Myth Number 1: It is in the interests of Singapore (or the PAP?)
The Singapore media scene is dominated by two government-linked publishers, Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp. In the years after independence in 1965, Singapore hosted a vibrant media scene comprising various English and vernacular presses that ran a wide range of views on issues of national interest. Shanmugam argued that today’s PAP was not going to be an irresponsible government and gamble with the lives of Singaporeans by hosting a free media. Going by Shanmugam’s argument, was the PAP of the late 1960s and early 1970s “gambling with the lives” of Singaporeans in allowing numerous independent and privately controlled newspapers to operate? Was it an irresponsible government? Surely not. With men like Goh Keng Swee, Hon Sui Sen and S. Rajaratnam helming the fort, such a suggestion is ludicrous.
Until the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act 1974, the first-generation PAP leaders not only survived and lifted an entire generation of Singaporeans out of poverty, they also set the foundations for extraordinary growth in the face of a flourishing media environment immediately after independence. The logic follows that the current crop of PAP leaders, unlike their predecessors, are incapable of handling the real-world realities of the competitive media environment. This is in spite of the million-dollar annual salaries that Goh Keng Swee would have been loathe to pay today’s PAP ministers.
Myth Number 2: The media will exploit race and religion
The history of mankind has shown that race and religion can be exploited for political purposes – in fact, Singapore’s experience with the 1964 riots makes this point out. Never mind for a moment that the predominant catalyst of those riots resided in the political tension between the PAP and UMNO, and not with the media.
What Shanmugam conveniently left out is the positive role the media can play, and has played, in bridging and bringing differences between different racial communities together. Sometime in 1992, in an extremely sad episode in modern India’s recent history, a country that gained independence slightly more than 15 years before Singapore, Hindu zealots destroyed the Babri mosque in the town of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. The rabid act of Hindu religious violence was rooted in contested claims to the land on which the mosque was built. In late September 2010, the High Court of Uttar Pradesh delivered its judgment with an order to divide the disputed land three ways.
The role of the media in the run-up to the judgment was noteworthy. In response to the government’s request to the hyper-competitive Indian media to exercise restraint in reporting the Ayodhya verdict, the country’s media responded by coalescing opinion from faith, business, industry and political leaders, amongst others, restating India’s commitment to secularism, diversity, tolerance and respect for religious minorities. Even though India hosts a very significant minority of 150 million Muslims, the verdict was dissected and argued over vigorously. Yet, no violence ensued and the media’s positive influence had equally positive knock-on effects on Indian society and economy.
In his tiresome justification on the dangers of racial and religious strife, Shanmugam seems to have conveniently ignored the giant strides made by Singaporeans in building a multiracial society. National Service for one, has been an incredible adhesive.
While one can portend the possible existence of a radical and lunatic fringe that is racially chauvinistic – there simply isn’t a multiracial utopia anywhere in the world. Yet, larger and far more complex multiracial polities in the developed and developing world have accommodated a free media in the name of an informed citizenry. In fact, in appealing to paranoia as the foundation of the PAP’s media policy, Shanmugam effectively put the brakes on the organic development of a tolerant Singaporean society.
Myth Number 3: Singapore is a small country with a small population and short common shared history
Shanmugam’s points about Singapore’s population size, physical size and short common history were curious defences that were left intellectually unsubstantiated. What the new Minister of Home Affairs must acknowledge is that size is paradoxically one of Singapore’s greatest strengths in dealing with racial and religious disharmony. Possible racial tension is nipped in the bud and the support of grassroots leaders can be quickly canvassed to return a potentially fractious situation to a state of normalcy. In fact, when the tudung issue of 2003 blew up, causing some consternation within some elements in the Malay community, the government was quickly able to bring Malay leaders to dialogue and diffuse the situation.
It appears that as far as Singapore’s short common history is concerned, this was yet another red herring that Shanmugam is quickly earning a reputation for invoking. If true, it must mean that other multiracial countries that secured independence in the two decades after World War 2 – not very much older than Singapore – would equally have too short a common history to accommodate a free media. The absurdity of this argument speaks for itself.
In keeping the media under the purview of the government so as to determine the boundaries of any public discourse in the media, the PAP has shrewdly ensured that Singaporeans end up looking to the government for answers to even the most fundamental aspects of their existence. This is the same PAP government that ironically insists Singaporeans cannot expect the PAP to have all the answers to public grievances!
As for Singapore’s small population, this writer certainly does not hope the Minister was alluding to the cerebral incapacity of Singaporeans to decide on what type of Singapore Singaporeans want for themselves and their children. Although given the elitist and eugenically inspired mindset of not a small number of PAP leaders, it would be surprising if the Minister was indeed of the opinion that only the elite in Singapore can deal with a free media. If true however, the arrogance and conceit of this position is very much in line with the PAP’s elitist belief system.
Myth Number 4: Journalists are biased and subject to vices, media companies sacrifice journalistic values at the alter of profit, both journalists and media companies can be bought, and the advertising dollar compromises ethics
In casting doubts about the professional integrity of journalists, Shanmugam seemed to be suffering from an irrational fear of the media. But his fears were misplaced and unreasonable. He ought to know better that rotten apples are found in any profession, not just journalism.
Only two years ago, the fat cats in a number of Wall Street banks proved equally, if not more susceptible, to vice, greed and ethical compromise as compared to journalists. As a reputable lawyer himself, the Minister must be acutely aware of the not insignificant number of Singaporean lawyers running away with clients’ monies over the last decade. In fact, in 2005 a lawyer and member of his own party and MP for Hong Kah, one Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani, was found guilty of “grossly improper” unprofessional conduct.
In singling out journalists while overlooking their vitally important mission of educating the mass public of the ongoings in society, Shanmugam gratuitously cast journalism in bad light. This unusual fear of journalism is perhaps a classic symptom of a paranoia complex. This is why mature and rational politicians in many developed countries speak of codes of conduct for the media, in addition to the prospect of legal penalties in cases of egregious violations. Even light regulation for any profession can go a long way to reduce the temptation of unethical conduct.
Myth Number 5: Singapore does not want to be like the US
Shanmugam shrewdly predicated his defence of the PAP’s media policy by claiming Singapore did not want to mirror the US media. When Singaporeans cajole the government for greater press freedoms, no one is specifically identifying one media model for the country to follow. Most Singaporeans would be rather proud if Singapore Press Holdings could report and detail issues of national interest with the same vigour and relative objectivity as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) or even Malaysiakini, an online Malaysian news publisher that has even been complimented by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, no less.
In fact, Singapore is in a great position to select best practices from media the world over and adapt a system that works best for Singapore’s needs. The current editor of the Straits Times, Han Fook Kwang, was once quoted as saying, “We’re aware people say we’re a government mouthpiece or that we are biased.” It is publicly known that the SPH’s group president from 1995-2002 was a former director of the Internal Security Department under the auspices of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The current political editor of The Straits Times is a former Internal Security Department officer. Rather than claim that Singaporeans reject a US-style media scene (yet another red herring reeled in to obfuscate the substantive issue), Shanmugam should focus on removing the wanton perception in Singapore of a mainstream media that is manipulated behind the scenes by the PAP.
Whichever way any Singaporean looks at things, a government-managed media scene will only provide one shade of the truth for its people. Alternate sources of news and information that are factually unimpeachable and evince a very high quality of journalism play an incredibly important educative role in any society. There is no reason to posit that Singapore society will descend into chaos should Singapore choose to amend the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act and open up its media scene to private publishers that are subject to the rule of law.
Conclusion
In concluding his speech to his American audience, Shanmugam compared Singapore with US cities like San Francisco where the incumbent political party has remained in power for a long time. Even though his speech was about the media, Shanmugam seemed to conveniently forget that San Francisco hosts a free media where the political opposition is not politically hamstrung by obstacles put in place by the incumbents. More pertinently, in San Francisco, politicians do not live in glass houses but can cope with and shake off personal attacks with comprehensive political proposals, and critically, without resort to defamation suits.
In the final analysis, Shanmugam’s ill-advised remarks – like the attempts of many politicians throughout history to justify press-control and manipulation in favour of the incumbent leadership, authoritarian regimes and to minify alternative views – confirmed an unhealthy PAP paranoia that is effectively retarding the evolution of a tolerant and socially attuned Singapore society. Taken to its logical end, this paranoia and irrational fear of the media can cloud good judgment and may end up irreversibly inhibiting the intellectual development of the very society the PAP claims to protect.
Pritam Singh is the founder of OpinionAsia (www.opinionasia.com). He is currently a Juris Doctor candidate at the Singapore Management University and a member of the Workers’ Party (http://wp.sg). The views expressed here are his own. Pritam also blogs at singapore2025.wordpress.com.
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
traveller
But DM got round and asked to serve as Singapore’s ambassador to France, a job which most agree he did well.
…………….
please lark..David Marshall didnt asked for the postin..the French government politely ^demand^for him as he is on good terms with the frenchie and mind you
David Marshall was also listed as an angmor imprisoned as a POW servin the death railways in thailand with sir alec guiness…
David Marshall henceforth washed his hands from the political scene as he don’t liked to be near those whom he labelled as PROSTITUEs ministers…
did David Marshall as a REAL jew asked for his $10,000/month salary to be increased?
traveller
‘thinkng 30yrs ahead’ posted that TOC should let you write a piece because he thinks that you are as good as the writers here if not better. My opinion that you are not intellectual or academic enough is in response to this.
Traveller, are you, by any chance, Minister Lui Tuck Yew? You sound like him.
If you are (or you happen to be someone in a policy making position), I would urge you to please read Pritam’s response to your various postings very carefully and, together with your colleagues, consider the issue in all its ramifications.
Singapore cannot be considered truly first-world so long as its press remains fettered by the NPPA. As in other areas, such as the economy, Singapore should be acting as a beacon and a magnet for best practices in Asia. This timid, self-serving paranoia does not become a modern Singapore and we lose our leadership in a crucial area.
I hope you and others such as you who shape public policy in Singapore will take note of its citizens concerns and come up with a more modern way of dealing with the perceived issues, rather than hark back to an era when temporary restrictions on the press were needed for the purpose of nation-building.
Please let go. The boat will not sink.
My response to traveller’s post [10 Nov]:
[1] One may have to evaluate this on a long term basis; a lawyer may do well in one year but it does not follow that the next year or subsequent years will be just as good; the balance sheets of the firm over a period of years will of course provide some indication. From a personal perspective, no less, Shanmugam is the best person to tell us why he opted to surrender a lucrative trade if it was giving him a far better deal that what he could possibly gain from becoming a minister.
[2] “Shanmugan says that 69% (or was it 64?)of the population trusts the media.”
Now let’s get this straight, by getting our facts right. Shanmugam, from my reading of the transcript of his speech, said that 66% of Singaporeans voted for the Government in the last general elections; however, it seems you have taken this figure as the same percentage of people who trust the media. Was a poll taken to gage how many Singaporeans trust or don’t trust the media? 66% may have voted for the PAP in the last general elections, BUT how many today trust the media? The way Shanmugam said it was not clear; “Singaporeans also trust their media” may be taken to mean only some Singaporeans [using the 66% criterion] or all Singaporeans. One interpretation –which is not unreasonable – is that he was trying to project that Singaporeans [in this case, all] trust the media. You may trust the Singapore media, but I don’t.
[3] I don’t have the figures to cite, but I don’t think you will disagree that regardless of the stake [whether it’s only a 23% stake that is being held by Temasek in SPH or Mediacorp], the Singapore govt is controlling the media. Who do you think put the people at the helm of the media?
[4] Co-opting David Marshall into government service was clearly a political strategy of the papies, a good strategy I should say. By becoming an ambassador for Singapore, DM was no longer a formidable opponent for the PAP. That probably took a heavy load off their mind.
[5] “When I talk to my friends some say the PAP will win because they control the press. Myeslf, I don’t think so, which is my point.”
There is some ambiguity here; what exactly are you trying to say? [a] you don’t think the PAP will win notwithstanding that they control the press? Or [b] you don’t think the press is under the control of the PAP? Or [c] you think the PAP will NOT win regardless of whether the press is under their control? Or something else, besides these plausibilities?
[6] Would you say one of the reasons is to ensure that nothing is said that may expose PAP’s shortcomings?
Peter Sellers 11 November 2010
Traveller, are you, by any chance, Minister Lui Tuck Yew? You sound like him.
If you are (or you happen to be someone in a policy making position), I would urge you to please read Pritam’s response to your various postings very carefully and, together with your colleagues, consider the issue in all its ramifications.
…………………
traveller worked for the temasek inc based in london most probadly the head ceo of british branch..its his livinHOOT
if he don’t praised/support the pap regime.. he might get to get the rolex retirement watch…
I emphatise with people like traveller; I suppose I would do the same…polish the cannon and be fawning if necessary to ensure my position in the Company is secured….Many like him have come and gone.
Picking up from the above 2 posts:
Isn’t this same as Corruption if not worse? The common symptom is people don’t need to do the work that they are supposed to do anymore.
rwkc
This is an extremely busy period for me so just let me address very quickly your points.
1. Of course, the best person to ask is Shanmugan so why do you bring up the point in thre first place? To me this has nothing to do with his position in the government or what he said. Anyway, the writer may be a law student but does not have an idea how much a top litigation lawyer eanrs. Shanmugan was right at the very top. And contrary to your comment, his remuneration as a lawyer is much more secure than that of a minister. If he doesn’t get reelected, he loses his cabinet post and he has to pick up his law practice again.
2. the 69% or whatever is based on a poll conducted by an internationally established body not the last election vote.
3. I do not diasgree that press is restricted here. My point has been that it is restricted for a good reason. There is no absoluate press freedom anywhere. In some European countries, blasphemy is still an offence while it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany and Austria. No doubt, th rejoinder would be that, ah, Austria is where Hitler was born and Germany casued the Holocaust. Which is precisely the point. All countries have their histories and there is no one size fits all press legislation. It has to fit the circumstances and particularly the vulnerabilities of the country. Even the US is studying the grounds to prosecute the fellow who leaked the Iraqi and Afghanistani war documents on wiki.The UK has some pretty tough defamation laws although it is not extended to criticisms levied on the government. From my stand point,defamation against the government is more serious than the person since the odds are much much higher.
4. If you read the biography of David Marshall you would know that he asked to be ambassador. He had been a francophile all his life, hence his request.
5. My point here is that the absence of the sort of freedom that the press in a country ,say, the US operates under, does not give the PAP an electoral advantage. People will vote based on many factors. If you read Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter you will understand better what I am saying.
rwkc
This is an extremely busy period for me so just let me address very quickly your points.
1. Of course, the best person to ask is Shanmugan so why do you bring up the point in the first place? To me this has nothing to do with his position in the government or what he said. Anyway, the writer may be a law student but does not have an idea how much a top litigation lawyer eanrs. Shanmugan was right at the very top. And contrary to your comment, his remuneration as a lawyer is much more secure than that of a minister. If he doesn’t get reelected, he loses his cabinet post and he has to pick up his law practice again.
2. the 69% or whatever is based on a poll conducted by an internationally established body not the last election vote.
3. I do not diasgree that press is restricted here. My point has been that it is restricted for a good reason. There is no absoluate press freedom anywhere. In some European countries, blasphemy is still an offence while it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany and Austria. No doubt, th rejoinder would be that, ah, Austria is where Hitler was born and Germany casued the Holocaust. Which is precisely the point. All countries have their histories and there is no one size fits all press legislation. It has to fit the circumstances and particularly the vulnerabilities of the country. Even the US is studying the grounds to prosecute the fellow who leaked the Iraqi and Afghanistani war documents on wiki.The UK has some pretty tough defamation laws although it is not extended to criticisms levied on the government. From my stand point,defamation against the government is more serious than the person since the odds are much much higher.
4. If you read the biography of David Marshall you would know that he asked to be ambassador. He had been a francophile all his life, hence his request.
5. My point here is that the absence of the sort of freedom that the press in a country ,say, the US operates under, does not give the PAP an electoral advantage. People will vote based on many factors. If you read Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter you will understand better what I am saying.
In response to traveller.
[1]You agree that Shanmugam would be the best person to say why he relinquished his private legal practice for a ministerial position,yet you asked why I brought up this point in the first place. You seem to have miscalculated yourself. I brought the point up because I could not agree with you when you said Shanmugam was making more money as a lawyer than as a minister, and I explained why.
[3] Good, you agree that the press here is under government restriction. But you think that press restriction in Singapore is for a good reason; however, some [or many?] of us here do not agree with you. Your mind has already been made up and the strong consensus expressed against your viewpoint has no impact on you. You are merely creating strawmen by introducing irrelevant issues about Hitler, Holocaust, Iraqi and Afghanistan war documents etc. What do these or does any of these have to do with our point about the press here being under government restriction?
[5] It remains to be seen whether lifting press restriction will not make a difference to election results, where Singapore is concerned. The papies know how advantageous they are when they have control over the media. If you have read what some of the posters here have been saying you woudd know what I mean.