Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has initiated a new project aimed at supporting Myanmar journalists who have been forced into exile or are continuing to work under oppressive conditions imposed by the military junta.

The Myanmar Press Freedom Project was launched on 19 October 2024 in Chiang Mai, Thailand, a key base for many exiled media professionals.

Led by RSF Director General Thibaut Bruttin, the initiative seeks to provide essential tools and training to Myanmar journalists.

The project will equip them with laptops, mobile phones, solar batteries, and digital security tools.

In partnership with Exile Hub, RSF also plans to offer comprehensive training programs to bolster the skills of these journalists, who remain committed to reporting on the dire situation in Myanmar, despite the constant threat of arrest and violence.

RSF’s Asia-Pacific Bureau representatives, Cédric Alviani, Director, and Shataakshi Verma, Project and Development Manager, played a significant role in identifying these needs during previous missions along the Thai-Myanmar border. Both were present at the launch event in Chiang Mai.

Thibaut Bruttin underscored the resilience of Myanmar’s journalists and the critical importance of their work.

“The media from Myanmar have shown great resilience over the past years and the reporters themselves have shown great bravery. This project is a testimony of RSF’s renewed commitment to supporting journalists at risk,” Bruttin said.

He emphasised the urgency of continuing to support these professionals, stating that without their reporting, Myanmar risks becoming “a black hole for information.”

The launch of the Myanmar Press Freedom Project follows a brutal period of repression in Myanmar since the military coup on 1 February 2021.

The junta has cracked down mercilessly on press freedom, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, and execution of journalists.

RSF reports that seven journalists and press freedom advocates have been executed since the coup, while at least 150 have been arrested. Sixty-four remain in detention.

The hostile environment has prompted a mass exodus of Myanmar’s media outlets, with at least 60 relocating to operate from abroad, particularly in Thailand.

Despite the harsh conditions, some journalists have continued working within the country, often in secret and under constant threat of persecution.

RSF’s Myanmar Press Freedom Project builds upon previous emergency assistance provided by the organisation.

Over the past few years, RSF has supported around 100 journalists from Myanmar with equipment, funding, and safety training.

This ongoing support includes both physical and digital security training, designed to help media professionals navigate the dangerous landscape of reporting under the military regime.

RSF’s global commitment to press freedom extends beyond Myanmar.

In response to major crises, the organisation has established Press Freedom Centres in conflict zones to provide journalists with the resources they need to continue their work.

Recent examples include centres in Lviv and Kyiv, Ukraine, set up in the wake of Russia’s full-scale invasion, and a centre in Beirut, Lebanon, aimed at assisting journalists affected by the war in Gaza.

According to RSF’s 2024 World Press Freedom Index, Myanmar ranks 171st out of 180 countries, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists.

The country currently holds the grim distinction of being the second-largest jailer of journalists globally, behind only China, with 64 media professionals currently imprisoned.

As the situation in Myanmar continues to deteriorate, RSF’s support for its journalists remains crucial.

The Myanmar Press Freedom Project represents a significant effort to ensure that these brave reporters can continue their essential work, despite the dangers they face.

By providing them with the necessary tools and training, RSF aims to empower Myanmar’s exiled and domestic journalists to keep the flow of information alive, both for the people of Myanmar and the international community.

An opinion piece published by The Straits Times on 1 October 2024, titled “Asia is entering a new, post-youth era,” explores the demographic transitions occurring across the region.

The article focuses on the ageing population and its implications, as the older “Boomer” generation retires and younger generations, particularly millennials, advance in their careers.

It discusses how Asian countries are moving from a period of benefiting from a youthful, productive workforce to a new phase of demographic change. According to the piece, many leaders in Asia have not yet addressed this transition comprehensively, often prioritising short-term policy goals over long-term demographic shifts.

However, a graph included in ST piece illustrates a demographic trend in Singapore that appears inconsistent with other reports, including the Population in Brief published by Singapore’s Prime Minister’s Office on 24 September 2024.

While ST graphic depicts a predominance of young individuals in their 20s, the official Population in Brief indicates a significant shift towards an ageing population in Singapore.

It notes that 19.9% of Singaporeans were aged 65 years or older as of June 2024, and the country is expected to become “super-aged” by 2026, when over 20% of its population will be 65 or older.

By 2030, one in four Singaporeans is projected to fall into this age group.

The contrast between the opinion piece’s graph and the official data has led to questions about why no correction or clarification has been issued by ST, especially given the serious nature of demographic statistics.

As of 11 October 2024, ten days after the opinion piece’s publication, no edits have been made to address the discrepancies.

Additionally, no correction has been mandated through the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), a regulatory tool that the Singaporean government uses to correct misinformation.

This raises further questions: Is the lack of correction because the discrepancies are seen as insignificant, or is it a reflection of the media’s influence? Does the absence of a POFMA directive suggest selective application of the law, or is it a sign of a more lenient approach towards established media?