Singapore's media is now ranked 154th.....
-
We're on the same rank as Afghanistan!
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fop/2007/pfscharts.pdf
Singapore
Status: Not Free
Legal Environment: 24
Political Environment: 24
Economic Environment: 21
Total Score: 69
Media freedom in Singapore is constrained to such a degree that the vast majority of journalists practice self-censorship rather than risk being charged with defamation or breaking the country’s criminal laws on permissible speech. The Singapore constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14, but it also permits restrictions on these rights. Media freedom in Singapore is constrained by the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the Defamation Act, and the Internal Security Act, all of which allow authorities to restrict the circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere in domestic politics, or threaten public order, national interest or national security. The government proposed a series of amendments to the Penal Code in 2006 that would cover offenses committed via electronic media. The draft amendments would not only provide jail terms or fines for defamation, “statements that would cause public mischief,” and the “wounding” of racial or religious feeling, they would also make it a crime for anyone outside the country to abet an offense committed inside the country, thereby allowing the authorities to prosecute internet users living abroad. Singaporean students studying overseas are the presumed targets of this amendment.
The Singapore government is quick to sue critics under harsh criminal defamation laws. In May 2006, for example, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father, First Minister Kee Kuan Yew, filed criminal charges against the publishers of opposition newspaper The New Democrat, which is published several times a year by a committee of the Singapore Democratic Party. The lawsuit started with an unsigned story that described as “secretive and non-accountable” the ruling party’s handling of a corruption scandal at the National Kidney Foundation. Foreign media in Singapore are also subject to restrictive laws. In August, after the Far Eastern Economic Review published an interview with opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan, FEER and four other foreign publications were advised that they needed to post bonds and appoint legal representatives in order to continue to operate in Singapore. When FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked, thereby effectively banning the publication. Meanwhile, on September 14, the Prime Minister and his father filed defamation suits against FEER over the article.
Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, internet service providers, and cable television services are either owned or controlled by the state, or by companies with close ties to the ruling party. Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets, including political and religious web sites, have been used to inhibit criticism of the government.
Approximately two thirds of the population had access to the internet in 2006. Nonetheless, the government restricts internet access and Singapore has zero-tolerance for bloggers who challenge the government in any way. Prior to the May 6 Parliamentary elections, the Communications and Arts Minister warned bloggers and website managers that they do not have the right to back a particular candidate’s program or to express opinions on political issues. These same rules were applied to other new media, including podcasting and videocasting. On April 26, the opposition Singapore Democratic Party was ordered to withdraw a podcast from its website. In June, popular blogger Lee Kin Mun (aka “Mr Brown”) was informed by state-owned Today newspaper that his weekly column, which had satirized the high cost of living, would be suspended. On November 6, a judge ordered Yap Keng Ho, a member of the opposition, to remove from his blog a video of himself speaking in public during the general elections. -
-
146 to 154th?
i think singapore gahmen strives to be number one....from the bottom -
Originally posted by laurence82:146 to 154th?
i think singapore gahmen strives to be number one....from the bottom -
Ok... what are the odds that this will appear in tomorrow's papers?
And if it actually does, what are the odds that it will be reported objectively without any attempt whatsoever to pour cold water on the implications of this ranking? -
How about:Originally posted by fudgester:Ok... what are the odds that this will appear in tomorrow's papers?
And if it actually does, what are the odds that it will be reported objectively without any attempt whatsoever to pour cold water on the implications of this ranking?
"SINGAPORE MEDIA ACHIEVES PRESTIGIOUS TOP 200 PRESS FREEDOM RANKING"
Objective enough?
-
It will not be published
-
Originally posted by Meia Gisborn:
Hmmm... how many countries are there in the world?
How about:
"SINGAPORE MEDIA ACHIEVES PRESTIGIOUS TOP 200 PRESS FREEDOM RANKING"
Objective enough? -
I wonder if press is still the only source of information for singaporeans? If it is, then I think Singaporeans are probably one the most backward people in the world.
-
Cannot fight against North Korea one. They are the champions!!!Originally posted by laurence82:146 to 154th?
i think singapore gahmen strives to be number one....from the bottom -
The real question I believe, is why is a country that does not hesitate to point out that we are good or best in this and that, something as fundemental as the press can fall so far behind and on whose real standard could be hushed up so much?Originally posted by Gazelle:I wonder if press is still the only source of information for singaporeans? If it is, then I think Singaporeans are probably one the most backward people in the world. -
well. i guess they would say that singapore is a special and unique cuntry and cannot be compared with other nations...
-
Press freedom? It's the economy, stupid!
-
No.1? Not in a million years. The tyrants here haven't got the intellect nor the courage to give the real professional tyrants(ie.DPRK) a run for their money.Originally posted by laurence82:146 to 154th?
i think singapore gahmen strives to be number one....from the bottom
I'm sure the gap between the penultimate country and North Korea is further than that between the top and the penultimate country... -
I'd offer you 1000/1. Interested?Originally posted by fudgester:Ok... what are the odds that this will appear in tomorrow's papers?
As for this, you're better off betting on the next Pope to be picked from a Mosque...Originally posted by fudgester:And if it actually does, what are the odds that it will be reported objectively without any attempt whatsoever to pour cold water on the implications of this ranking? -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
The man who espoused that famous catchphrase to propel him to office effectively transformed the largest budget deficit in history into the largest budget surplus ever - and he was in charge of the world's largest and strongest economy. And he achieved all that without having need to curtail press freedom ( although he must have wished he could in '98 ).
Press freedom? It's the economy, stupid!
You're better off comparing this lot to the real pros from Pyongyang, although they don't look like capable of usurping them anytime soon either. -
Nothing mentioned today
-
we have no place for mediocrity.
if we cant be first on top, we must be first from bottom!!! -
Having too much press freedom is a double edge sword. Since it has serve us well in political stablity and we have the ability to read about this from the internet, why should we border?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:The real question I believe, is why is a country that does not hesitate to point out that we are good or best in this and that, something as fundemental as the press can fall so far behind and on whose real standard could be hushed up so much? -
A democratic system is built on the premise that citizens are the customers and proceeding from this premises, leaders or representatives of the people will govern to serve them, protect their Rights and freedoms of expressions and participation in political representation processes. In addition to this basic rights being adopted by such democratic system the elected representatives will target at setting up institutions of laws and regulations to administer the various government services including security against external and internal threats, dispensation of justice, medical cares, transportation and communication and management of the economy to create jobs etc.Originally posted by Gazelle:Having too much press freedom is a double edge sword. Since it has serve us well in political stablity and we have the ability to read about this from the internet, why should we border?
Have our ministers updated themselves on such basic needs and aspirations of the citizens or are they only concerned with producing a company balance sheet at the end of every financial year and use some figures which reported only selective information to justify their own doings as successful.
For a country to be efficiently governed the ministers should answer to people and make corrections of problems with clearly drawn up and implemented programs with accountability and transparency and good corporate governance.
So far we have not heard of any alternative to such a model of democracy from our pseudo-democratic autocracy. Instead we keep hearing only all the selective news and information passed down like "democracy will lead to instability and instability will lead of collapse of government"
Are we forgetting that by holding back news and information and not listening to problems our ministers will be the real culprits of causing instability as without democratic processes all problems will be locked up until major crises are unleashed in the form of terrorism, unrests and revolutions. -
I don't think we need to worry about too much press freedom when we don't have any to begin with.Originally posted by Gazelle:Having too much press freedom is a double edge sword. Since it has serve us well in political stablity and we have the ability to read about this from the internet, why should we border? -
You mean artifical political stability that ultimately hurts any nation in the long run?Originally posted by Gazelle:Having too much press freedom is a double edge sword. Since it has serve us well in political stablity and we have the ability to read about this from the internet, why should we border?
We should bother because we are constantly told (and by guess who) that the stuff on the internet cannot be put to be credible while we ought to listen to our 154th press?
And of the whole voting population of Singapore, who many do not have access to the web? And of those who have access how many are not so steeped apathy that they bother to read anything beyond the worthless stuff?
For these people, our 154th ranked media is the only source of information they get about the state of things, and of course it invariably has the effect of convincing them (in the brief time they bothered) that all is well and fine and thereÂ’s no need to rock the boat.
All in all, it has the effect of entrenching certain opinions and points of view in the populace that don't stand up to the scrunity of truth. -
Or perhaps many are happy with the disciplined, regulated society that has brought us from the third world to the first. Perhaps there are more voters who agree with the government than with you. Perhaps more voters prefer counting the cash in their banks to listening to CSJ ranting at street corners? Ever wondered what happened to Speaker's Corner? Perhaps most voters consider valuable what you dismiss as worthless and rubbish your idea of press freedom?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:And of the whole voting population of Singapore, who many do not have access to the web? And of those who have access how many are not so steeped apathy that they bother to read anything beyond the worthless stuff? -
I don't think it would be fair and justified to make these assumptions. In politics, as in many other things, silence does not necessarily mean consent, endorsement or approval.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Or perhaps many are happy with the disciplined, regulated society that has brought us from the third world to the first. Perhaps there are more voters who agree with the government than with you. Perhaps more voters prefer counting the cash in their banks to listening to CSJ ranting at street corners? Ever wondered what happened to Speaker's Corner? Perhaps most voters consider valuable what you dismiss as worthless and rubbish your idea of press freedom? -
and vice-versa. don't pretend that does not exist.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Or perhaps many are happy with the disciplined, regulated society that has brought us from the third world to the first. Perhaps there are more voters who agree with the government than with you. Perhaps more voters prefer counting the cash in their banks to listening to CSJ ranting at street corners? Ever wondered what happened to Speaker's Corner? Perhaps most voters consider valuable what you dismiss as worthless and rubbish your idea of press freedom?
it's only a matter of time before the tide turns.....