Spiegel -
So newly minted Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam (who is concurrently Law Minister) has been hitting the lecture circuit again, sharing with the world finer intricacies of running Singapore Inc.
You may recall his earlier venture in October 2009, when he memorably told lawyers at a New York State Bar Association International Section’s meeting that “[Singapore is] different. We are a city. We are not a country.” It was classic politically expedient semantics; an act of verbalised realpolitik rightly mythologised in the Singapore blogosphere.
A year on, Shanmugam took on bigger game at Columbia University’s inaugural forum series “A Free Press for a Global Society,” where he explained: “The Role of the Media: Singapore’s Perspective“. His oratorical arsenal remains well-stocked on the evidence of last week’s speech, already the subject of a detailed critique here. As a latecomer to this party, I shan’t replicate that effort, instead focusing on points dealing specifically with Singapore media.
His talk began on rather agreeable terms:
The question of what role the media can play in a society, has to be considered in the context of how that society has structured its political framework – the media does not operate in a vacuum.
The game plan is obvious as it is predictable: why Singapore’s unique circumstances necessitates a particular media model. After setting out the “traditional liberal theory of media” that posits the media as watchdog and a clearinghouse of debate contributing to better social outcomes, Shanmugam proceeds to describe the reality:
(1) Journalists, like the rest of us, are human, and subject to the same influences and vices. They can be biased, unfair and prejudiced, as much as any of us can be.
(2) Media companies are often profit-driven, like other commercial entities. It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in pursuit of profit.
(3) Media companies and journalists, like other entities and people, can be bought, suborned and corrupted – particularly in developing countries.
(4) Competition and the need for the advertising dollar can compromise ethics.
(5) There has also been a trend towards tabloidization to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
(6) The media can have tremendous influence in the political process. It can set the agenda for discussion, it can shape public opinion about Government and government policies, and it can make or break politicians. As the Fourth Estate, it is an active participant in the political process. Yet it is the only institution in the political process that is often not subject to any checks or balances. The answer that the public provides the check and balance is really a non answer.
These are all fair points, although Shanmugam’s pithy précis is hardly revolutionary. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky did the hard work back in 1988 of describing the political economy of the mass media in their book “Manufacturing Consent.” Still, Shanmugam provides a baseline against which to assess his later prescriptions. These he puts forth with three points, summarising the government’s view on the role of the media:
(1) It should be a neutral medium for conveying news – with commentary clearly separate from news;
Sure, if by some extraordinary literary contorting he finesses “neutral medium” to mean newspaper companies whose “management” shareholders must be approved by the government, and that each of those “management shares” give the shareholder 200 times the voting power of an ordinary share on issues concerning the “appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff” of the company.
Or a media corporation led by career civil servants and politicians, like the Singapore Press Holdings, which counts among its chairmen – past and present – President S R Nathan, the late former cabinet minister Lim Kim San, and ex-deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan, the incumbent chair.
Or one that boasts in its ranks ex-intelligence services types, including former Internal Security Department director and ex-communications ministry permanent secretary Tjong Yik Min, who served as SPH group president and executive director from 1995 to 2002, and Straits Times’ political editor Chua Lee Hoong.
Or, in the words of Straits Times editor Han Fook Kwang, a newspaper that is “a living, breathing, active member of the community” and not “a passive provider” of news.
It’s hard to pick the greater marvel here – Shanmugam’s capacity for cognitive dissonance, or his giftedness in verbal gymnastics worthy of Orwellian Oceania. But I jest.
(2) It should report fully and fairly what goes on. It can probe, ask inconvenient questions, and expose wrong-doing;
How can an intrinsically biased media be expected to “report fully and fairly” as a “neutral medium”? After all, one of the most strident criticisms of the news media (see: Herman and Chomsky) is made against its systemic subordination to political and corporate power. Or perhaps the “living, breathing, active” Singapore press the minister imagines is also a sagely, omniscient entity. Even so, there are things it shouldn’t do, like…
(3) But it should not join the political fray and become a political actor. It should not campaign for or against a policy position. The media can and should convey the views of opposing political actors – and people can judge for themselves the validity of any particular point of view. If a journalist or a newspaper owner wants to take part in the political process, then he or she should join a political party, and not use the privileged access to the media to push a political perspective.
Forceful rhetoric, sir! Would you like to personally inform Dr Tan and Ms Chua of an impending career switch? Or would you prefer the time-honoured and, in your case, well-deserved politician’s accolade of pathological hypocrisy?
The answer to my unasked question comes when Shanmugam quotes former British prime minister Tony Blair on the nature of the modern corporate media. Ah, who better to speak on the subject than the charismatic face of New Labour, who understood better than most how to co-opt the supposedly adversarial British news media into his own agenda, peddling outrageously sensational falsehoods in the 2002 September Dossier and 2003 Dodgy Dossier about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the press dutifully repeated?
Channeling the master, disciple Shanmugam proceeds with a rhetorical sleight of hand – a Bliar Blair favourite – by citing the United States as notional alternative to the Singapore model; the classic false dilemma, better known as the either-or fallacy. I shan’t bore you with details but suffice to say, departing from our status quo doesn’t necessitate diving recklessly into the American media quagmire.
His straw arguments are nonetheless good for some snicks and giggles. Take this gem, for instance, where he flatters his hosts:
The basic point is a simple one. Your society has in-built stability. There can be fringe lunatic behaviour, but mainstream Americans are sensible, rational, and extremist sentiment will not threaten the very fabric of society.
So by implication, Singapore doesn’t have built-in stability, because there is lunatic behaviour and mainstream Singaporeans can’t be relied upon to be sensible, rational, and extremist sentiment will threaten the very fabric of society. Comforting, though not as much as our collective faith in our media, as Shanmugam boasts in riposte to Reporters Sans Frontières’ annual press freedom index (see: shame parade):
In 2005 and 2006, Gallup asked residents in 128 countries whether they had confidence in the quality and integrity of their media. 69% of Singaporeans polled answered in the affirmative…. Singaporeans trust our media.
Is that so? It is a claim similar to one made earlier this year (discussed here), when then acting information minister Lui Tuck Yew (he has since been appointed on a permanent basis) cited in parliament the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer, which said that 68 percent of Singaporeans polled regarded newspapers as their most trusted source of information – a proportion higher than the global average of 34 percent.
Flunking Shanmugam’s “full and fair reporting” test, Straits Times reporter Zakir Hussain, in his report on Lui’s remarks, had elided the fact that Edelman’s Singapore study involved only 200 people that are college-educated; with household income in the top quartile for their age in their country; read or watch business/news media at least several times a week; and follow public policy issues in the news at least several times a week. Hardly a representative sample of the Singapore population.
Funnily enough, a day later the Straits Times reported the findings of a Reader’s Digest online poll that ranked 40 professions on how trusted they are by Singaporeans, based on responses from 760 residents. It placed journalists at 30th and politicians at 39th. Charming.
Even the Straits Times’ Han was coy enough to admit in May that “We’re aware people say we’re a government mouthpiece or that we are biased,” adding “the test is if our readers believe in the paper and continue to buy it.”
How do they fare then? From 2000 to 2009, the Straits Times’ circulation fell by four percent. Detailed figures aren’t available, but the net readership trend in the same period, provided in the 2009 SPH annual report, indicates only modest growth for SPH’s English-language newspapers. In the same period, Singapore’s total population grew by 24 percent, while the resident population grew by 14 percent. While potential readership rose rapidly, circulation actually fell and net readership grew only modestly.
So much for SPH’s flagship newspaper that despite having free rein to corral its market in the absence of an equivalent domestic competitor, has had to step up bulk sales to schools to keep up circulation numbers. Result.
What of the Gallup poll? Gallup discusses it on its website, reveals their methodology and makes a couple of tentative observations: “While a country’s press may be considered free, it may not be widely respected by the residents who live there. Further, media considered to have relatively limited press freedom may have the support of their people.” What the results reflect on each society is not clear, but interestingly Singapore’s performance puts it alongside Botswana, Costa Rica and Tanzania, while trailing the likes of Nepal, Cambodia, Laos and table-topping Rwanda.
But bollocks and yah boo sucks to them, right? Only one audience really counts, as Shanmugam reassured us:
Our approach has been to ignore criticisms that make no sense – and we continue to do better. The people of Singapore also know better. 66% voted for the Government at the last general elections on our policy platform.
Or in “fuller” and “fairer” terms, 56.6% out of a total registered electorate of 2.16 million in 2006.
Mind you – Singaporeans are now well-educated, sophisticated, and know their rights. And as stated earlier, they also trust their media.
Only minutes before, some of us were lunatics and the rest of us aren’t really sensible and rational. Bravo sir, a perfect volte-face. Comăneci would be proud.
_____________________
Photo: Straits Times
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
As long as there is no press freedom or freedom of speech etc, society will increasingly become more vocal, active and vote for opposition or stand up for elections in future. That is the only prescribed way and option that the PAP give to the public.
PAP can no longer build any more affordable housing and create plentiful jobs to sedate the people. The tide of rising unhappiness will not be suppressed forever.
The media can have tremendous influence in the political process. It can set the agenda for discussion, it can shape public opinion about Government and government policies, and it can make or break politicians. As the Fourth Estate, it is an active participant in the political process. Yet it is the only institution in the political process that is often not subject to any checks or balances. The answer that the public provides the check and balance is really a non answer.
………………
so shutmudgum.. your answer to the above is?
and we the pubic hairs demand an answer..
yes or no?
so by the 9th of every month you just correct your over $100,000 wages…
please tell us ow to break you? beside beggin you to resign and start ALL over again as a COMMONOR?
too difficult for you perhaps?
Brilliant piece and a worthy successor to the old Polemic column.
Couple of observations:
On the comment “[Singapore is] different. We are a city. We are not a country.”
I wonder how many cities spend $11.5b on standing armed forces? Hmmm…
And “(2) Media companies are often profit-driven, like other commercial entities. It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in pursuit of profit”.
In FY2010 SPH turned in a sparkling after-tax profit of $497.9m (an average of $1.37m _per day_). Has our esteemed minister just shot himself royally in the foot? Or is SPH the exception that proves the rule in being a paragon of journalistic values?
Cosmic energy with mee goreng lah!
hahaha…lol. Please let me have a good laugh, first.
What a piece, brilliant.Well reserched and thanks for taking the time, Spiegel.
mmmm, wonder if there is going to be any response for this shredding.
cool story bro!
aren’t you the guy who used to be on TJC forums? Makoto here! Shoutout to the rest of the rebels…
Can’t believe the man is a Senior Counsel, Singapore’s version of the UK’s Queen Counsel.
Guess he left his brains behind when he joined the PAP – as they all do.
Brilliant piece, Spiegel. Thanks for showing ShaMEmugam up for what he is – a sham.
Thanks Spiegel, nice one! We would not have been able to read your piece or even know that others more brilliant than our ‘top dogs’ exist had it not been for the internet. This is real edn, better than SG school classrooms.
The dated mantra – “fill the stomachs, and dull the minds” – espoused in the 1960s then by “a younger lawyer with the gift of the gap” clearly is not working – as the incumbent lot in the “Pro Alien Party” is unable to continue as “litte Lee Kuan Yews”.
Clearly, the stomachs are no longer filled, or that new energy diet has helped to prevent minds from being dull.
The incumbents at the “Pro Aline Party must be deluding itself if it believe that Singaporeans are ‘daft’ as they are blur to the going on at the foot of their ivory towers.
Nice critique. I’m actually more interested in the audience’s response. Can you imagine how the Americans feel when the minister of a little red dot has the audacity to go up on stage, piss all over the American press and trumpet the virtues of a controlled press in an American university? Would have loved to be there.
But they saved his hide. There were no questions from the floor!
/I’m actually more interested in the audience’s response./
was there any. or it was arranged for the talk to be one-way with one or two questions pre-arranged.
can anyone enlighten and provide link to the whole talk together with the full question-n-answer session from the audience.
“It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in pursuit of profit.”
profit ? didn’t the word Inc has closely been associated to the country Singapore without any shame.
& so who gets to decide which journalistic values need to be protected & kept ? The journalists themselves, the people who are governed or the governing elites.
isn’t it a no-brainer that a freer media environment will allow people to decide better given the democratization / competition of information / non-information rather than a restrictive environment geared to benefit only some specific group.
1) Journalists, like the rest of us, are human, and subject to the same influences and vices. They can be biased, unfair and prejudiced, as much as any of us can be.
[Doesn't the same apply to Politicians as well? Its a question of one group of fallible human beings checking on/balancing the other. That's the way democratic institutions work in most other countries the last i checked....]
(2) Media companies are often profit-driven, like other commercial entities. It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in pursuit of profit.
[All GLCs in Sg are profitable; no stat board is in the red, nor is the government. Ergo, its a fair statement to say the Sg govt is run like a commercial enterprise, with its investments spearheaded by profit driven institutions like Temasek & GIC. What's the difference]
(3) Media companies and journalists, like other entities and people, can be bought, suborned and corrupted – particularly in developing countries.
[And ALL politicians in Sg are incorruptible? That's too sweeping a statement to make.. considering Teh Cheang Wan and the like.]
(4) Competition and the need for the advertising dollar can compromise ethics.
[Well, the need to stay in power at all cost can also compromise ethics. We only have to look to Myanmar, North Korea & China to see this.]
(5) There has also been a trend towards tabloidization to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
[Refer to TOC's article on Pork-Barrel politics in Sg.]
If there are so many similarities between politicians & the role of journalists.. why exclude them from playing their part in the checks & balances of democratic society?
the lesson is: rather trust the snake than the ahneh.
He has a ‘Fox’ face.
To Peter Sellers 11 November 2010,
I hope you are in jest when you said?:
“But they saved his hide. There were no questions from the floor!”
As hahaha 11 November 2010 SAID!:
“Nice critique. I’m actually more interested in the audience’s response. Can you imagine how the Americans feel when the minister of a little red dot has the audacity to go up on stage, piss all over the American press and trumpet the virtues of a controlled press in an American university? Would have loved to be there.”
As the Americans were so PISSED with his DICTATORIAL stuff SO CONTRARY to thier American VALUES that they more certainly FIND IT FUTILE TO ASK him any questions to get any meaningful answers!
Because Shan the SHAM is so obviously “sold lock & bearrel” to the “lee kon you of a ‘demon’” in disguise from the way he spoke to justify PAP’s means as desrving for their LKY’s END! So, ShimSham is now steering that “boat” to further the lee kon you legacy he is ENGULFED in as he know no better you see! Lee Kuan Yew CON him so well for his HUGH paychecks which comes WITH CPF + Monthly (!) PENSIONS PAID in ONE LUMP SUM (?) after JUST 2 Terms in Parliament + TOP Medical Benefits GALORE for him and wife to THE END OF THEIR DAYS! NOT TEMPTING MEH to pick up the “lee kon you” skills MEH? So, did K ShimSHAM sell his ‘soul’ too, to the devil or not? Ilearn these things from another blog call TR that TH recently tried most “HUMOUROUSLY” to “Molest” out of CYBERPSACE!!! Fortunately CYBERSPACE isn’t lee kon you “land” of CYBORGspace!
THIS is just my 0.1 cent worth more than pappy & papyism SHAMELESS ‘CON’ ‘CON’ ‘CON’ until they themselves got CONNED BY their very own CONS To BECOME CONKED!
With such HONEST man speaking so honestly (eyes wide open when speaking), no wonder 1st world citizens ACCEPT this leader.
These citizens are really smart. truely 1st world standard citizens.
Spiegel, why so emotional? Your colorful theatrics with the statistics makes this piece too sentimental to be credible. For example, you highlight that the participants of the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer are solely a bourgeoisie lot. Let me ask you, are these people not better placed to critically analyze the role of the media than the man on the omnibus? And if they are, then would the not be better placed to be as subversive as you are? He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly.
author and readers,
why blame the politician when its the People who gave the mandate?
The people should logically be Ultimately More accountable than them.
Compare 1st world citizens of other countries with singapore citizens and basically, immediately, Everything is Self-Explained. Every article is answered.
@pap voter,
I judge the value of the real value of the survey against its supposed authority the politicians gave it. In the case of the Edelman trust barometer, the politicians who constantly refer back to it decline to give it its proper context, and instead cite it on face value, as if its findings are substantive.
Unfortunately for those who cite the Edelman trust barometer and yourself, a survey of 200 people isn’t statistically significant, neither does it represent the Singapore public. Remember, the politicians who cite it don’t claim that it represents merely the privileged social elite (top 25% of household income, which you may appreciate excludes most, if not all, of the middle class). They claim it represents the general public, which it doesn’t. I can only hold themselves to their own rhetoric.
Besides, you elide the point that those who belong in the top 25% of society as measured in household income are likely to to find little to disagree with in the status quo, as framed, contextualised and propagated by the mainstream media.
You might do better with a better-thought out argument.
To Kan Wong Seng aka Lim Say Say of the Siah de Sway clan and nirvana now 14 November 2010,
Do you both mean to say that you “know” that those who complian about PAP are also those who voted for PAP? And choice is already a complicated thing made COMPLEX by LKY has he not via his marginalising of both the ekectorate, the election processes and the opposition parties through paying self high first and then implementing GE cost increases, etc?
Thus how did you both come to your conclusions? Sounds like LKY’s brand of generalisation non-substantiated comments or not?
——————————–
And also TO pap voter 13 November 2010, you said,
“He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly.”
Sounds like a quote from the Holy Bible. but isnce you’re obviouslt comparing other to LKY, I ask you if just the “top” LKY, LHL & GCThave these divine values? No right! Going by GCT missing Lim Zi Rui’s meaning like in missing the woods fot the tree!
And LHL that Singaporeans should not expect a floodless Singhapore!
His papa LKy was best as he passed their PAP bugbear back to GOD by saying that flooding “Is and Act of God”! And as a lawyertoo that “No amount of Engineering Can Solve the flooding problem without first check with relevant engineers”!
So “pap voter”, you voted in 3 ëmotional guys that takes more than $20M a year to feed their egos and also to lose our money without any acountability or transparentcy! Who is really emotional? You and you PAP “gangs’ of pranksters who rob us without guilt or we who come here to bring out the truth to hopefullu set us FREE for real Merdeka once again? Go continue snug up to your tree for the woods instead pap voter!
dear spiegel, thank you for your reply. I just felt that this piece would have been more elucidating if you had presented the case against state controlled media rather than claiming that the media is state controlled/evidence to suggest so.and it surely must be,that analyzing the state controlled media must be done so on it’s own terms,unless your impact assumpton is that cultural relatvity does not exist and all forms of media should uphold a universal set of values. indeed, my argument is not unique,and has been preceded by the Asian values debate.
as for you rockabyebaby, my moniker may suggest that I’m voting for ah gong, but that does not mean that I necessarily support his stance on the media. flaw of one vote captures all system
@pap voter,
This piece isn’t about making a case against the state controlled media. That case has been amply made and consistently made in my earlier pieces, and elsewhere. You may wish to read them.
This piece is a critique of a government minister’s blatant disregard for the realities of the Singapore media landscape, which he misrepresents as something which it demonstrably isn’t.
The Asian values debate is a straw debate taken up by the PAP and its supporters. It posits a false dichotomy, which I have mentioned, and that a choice has to be made between two apparently starkly incompatible systems. That of course, isn’t true.
When a citizen gives his vote … it is the same as he spends a $1.00 for goods and services, right?
If the goods and services are poor… then the mistake lies with the spender. He is not discerning enough to have parted with his $1.00, nothing to do with the seller.
So ‘spend’ your vote wisely the next time…to obtain value for your buck!
I would like to highlight that this particular character played a part in the defamation suits of JBJ and Tan Liang Hong back in the 1996 elections. Him being the lawyer of then PM Goh and SM Lee. It goes to show if u do the bidding of your masters you will go places. Meritocracy my arse… I lament for the way politics are going in Singapore. I just hope the wider population at large stands up and says no more and do the right thing. Please differentiate the PAP of yore and now… they are 2 very different entities. There’s little or no heart remaining. Its mostly helmed by people who have been sheltered from the realities of life (Scholars)… as opposed to those that really worked and earned their right to be in those positions.
@Dumb Blonde : my exact thoughts when i read it! Who investigates the investigator? Who judges the judge? And aren’t the checks and balances in most societies taken care by a non-partisan oversight committee? Since that does not exist in Singapore, should the press at least play a role in it?
But hey, look at the trade union…. ‘nuf said!
//b
MORAL VALUE?
http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?s=da1b194eae6b4610970bfc60be9f3a88&t=80684
There was one sentence in Minister Shanmugam’s speech at the Columbia University forum that perturbed me:
QUOTE: There are thus less institutional checks and balances on executive action in Singapore compared with the US – and that is deliberately so. END QUOTE.
As I posed towards the end of my blog posting:
As a people, I reckon Singaporeans need to decide in the next General Election whether:
(i) We want the INSURANCE of having public institutional checks-and-balances; OR
(ii) We are willing to bear the systemic risk of giving a BLANK CHEQUE to the ruling party (whoever that may be, now or in the future) POST-DATED FOR UP TO 5 YEARS as an EXPEDIENT TRADE-OFF?
http://singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com/2010/11/casino-singapore-part-2-whos-idiot.html
The Pariah, http://www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com
The German people also gave a blank cheque to Hitler in the 1930s.
The rest, as they say, is history.
The time to cast off the blind-fold has come. Wake up, Singapore.
this piece is brilliant. salut.
What remains is the iron fist. The thought processes and world view of the exceptionally noble core of the PAP who wields the Rule of Law as if it were a machine gun at the citizenry. This is the type who must have guided and devised the esceedingly well oiled State Legal Machinery which gunned down all protestors and dissenters of the last 50 years. We have our Tiananmen Square, albeit no blood spilled but savage all the same. Look back at the numbers of Singaporean dissenters whose lives have been diminished, distorted and wasted.Don’t say ‘fogive’ yet my fellow citizen, the demon is still crouching in our corridors of Law and Power.