Should foreign reporters stay out of local politics?
-
I refer on the article, "Fresh ideas welcome but not interference" on the Straits Times, Nov 25
The reply that Ms Bhavani(the director, I think) gave is not
convincing enough. An apt analogy would be this. Imagine oneself having a neighbour and maintains a friendly and amicable relation with him, though one might not know him very well. Then as you notice that
there is, on occasion, a stranger man going into his house, alone
with his wife whenever he is out to work. What is one to do? Not interfere as I do not have a stake in his household and let him live in delusional happiness or tell him the truth and allow himself to make the call.
Whatever the reason the stranger man may be there, be it having an affair or simply the wife's brother coming to drink tea. I can be sure that your neighbour would be more than glad to know that someone is looking out for him.
Another point of contention is the point that foreigners should not be involved with domestic politics or policy.
It was made very clear that one of the main reasons why the
government decided to cut the CPF contribution rate is due to the
Merc study that compared Singaporean's wages to other
countries.
Is this not using a foreign publication/study to conduct one
of Singapore's largest, painful and sweeping changes to the CPF system?
If this is allowed, then can we use the World press freedom ranking (www.rsf.org) that ranks Singapore's press freedom at 144th out of 166 as a pretext to for the government to relax their rules?
-
'FRESH IDEAS' are welcomed but not 'INTERFERENCE'.
Where does one draw the line between 'Fresh Ideas' from abroad to that becoming 'Interference' ?
From this statement, one can only discern that what is unacceptably hurtful - as when the Truth Hurts - becomes 'Interference' ; and whatever that is complimentarily tolerable is considered 'Fresh Ideas'.
It will seem to be how the Foreign Views are packaged.
While we do not tolerate foreign reporters from commenting on Singapore issues, it has not seem to be unfitting for Singapore Reporters to write editorials and commentary of other countries.
This has even extended to the Ministers in Government and that of Politicians in Parliament, when they will inadvertently make comparative reports of Singapore's situation with that of Other Countries - with negative repercussions at times.
(The recent comparison of the Health System of UK and Singapore by SM LKY, following the return of his wife to Singapore)
While our position of being in the 'First World' seems to entitle us to 'interfere' in the politics of countries in the 'Third World', somehow it becomes intolerable that uncomplimentary views of Reporters from the First World seems to prick our 'First World' Political Leadership that still possess 'Third World' Political Sensitivities. -
This whole issue smacks of the hypocrisy and double standards being practiced here by the powers-that-be regarding the status of the press and the areas that they are allowed to cover. The local government controlled press has no qualms about editorialising news articles about other countries (and it got caught red-handed on this issue before), and encourages foreign media organizations to set up shop in Singapore, to "cover Asia better" (ie to write editorials and cover domestic issues in Asia - including politics), yet we tell them, "as long as its not about Singapore".
Basically, the rules of the game is, "the foreign media can dish out all kinds of domestic dirt on Asia and we'll help them by letting them set up shop on our home turf, as long as the dirt is not about Singapore". Typically 2-faced and shameless.
FWIW, I've read the article by Michael Backman in Today, that was the source of all the controversy, and it raised some pretty solid and valid, if unpleasant home truths (to the gah'ment and its bootlickers anyway), issues about "Remaking Singapore". -
Finally found it! For those of you who did not have the benefit of reading Michael Backman's article which IMO exposes some ugly truths certain people do not like Singaporeans to know about, here it is in full.
Decide for yourself if it is indeed "interference in local politics"
---------------------------------
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031008t1.htm
Big Brother is watching, make no mistake....
Today
October 8, 2003
SINGAPORE
News Comment by Michael Backman
A STRONG-WILLED patriarch, a management that is sensitive to criticism and which likes to micro-manage, underlings who will follow and not question, the desire to control and stage-manage everything and a general suspicion of information flow and the media.
This is a description of a typical, traditional Asian family company, but it might also be a description of Singapore. Like the traditional Asian company, the Singapore model is one that used to work. But times have changed and so too must the model.
No longer is manufacturing king. The name of the game these days is information.
Modern, rich countries like the United States, Britain and Australia do not feel the need for an Information Minister whose role, typically, is to constrain information rather than promote it. Yet Singapore has one, which puts it out of step with the world's wealthy, developed countries, a group of which it is a member.
Furthermore, why does the Government still feel the need to license newspapers and other media outlets? Why do editors feel the need to self-censor? Granted, the list of "sensitive" topics appears to have grown shorter. So, why maintain the old fashioned, out-moded trappings of a Third World dictatorship? What does Singapore have to hide?
The answer is nothing. Singaporeans have much to be proud of. They are affluent, well-travelled, well-educated and mature as voters and citizens. I have no doubt that they can handle information and discern between information sources as any American, Australian or Brit is assumed to be able to do.
Yet, no other government whose citizens have a comparable per capita income persists with the sort of media control as does Singapore's.
What Singapore needs is a media that is conducive to the development and exchange of ideas and which provides a venue for debate. By this, I mean debate on matters such as whether Government-linked companies, such as ST Engineering, should be involved in the international arms trade. Or whether Singapore wants Mr Lee Hsien Loong as their next Prime Minister. Or whether the Government is back-peddling on changes to the CPF.
"But Singapore is a small country and can't have such liberalism," is the line. But Denmark is a small country and it has no problem with such debate. "But Singapore is a young country and isn't ready for such media freedom," is another. But Indonesia is a young country and poorly-educated Indonesian maids are trusted more by their government with media freedom than their Singaporean employers.
Another reason for constraints on media freedom is the need to ensure harmony in a multi-racial country. But which country isn't multi- racial these days? Other countries have anti-racial vilification legislation so that newspapers can be prosecuted if they publish material that is demeaning or inflammatory on the basis of race. Such legislation is moderate and effective
The result of the Singaporean mismatch — a free market for goods and services and a near monopoly in the market for ideas — is that Singapore's economy is in danger of going down the drain. Its economy this year will be the worst performing one in Asia in terms of growth.
For too long, civil servants have been allowed to be the main source of ideas. To their credit, their professionalism has got Singapore to where it is. But now, such control threatens Singapore's prosperity.
I accept that the media has become more open in recent years. Today, for example, publishes challenging opinion pieces increasingly of a nature that would have been unthinkable several years ago. But five minutes of sunshine does not make a sunny day.
The Government should abolish the system of annual licensing and editors should have greater independence. Instead, what reforms have been made in the direction of liberalism? Bungee jumping and bar-top dancing.
I was walking along Boat Quay recently and saw four ladies standing on a bar in a pub, each writhing to music in a sexually-suggestive manner. This is not reform. This is not liberalism. This is sleaze. And sleaze should not be equated with freedom. The most important aspect of freedom, which is aligned to the freedom of the media, is the freedom to be wrong. And it's that freedom that Singapore needs to cultivate. -
And here is the Ruling Party, attempting to have the cake, and eat it too....
--------------------
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031112af.htm
Foreign media wanted, but stay out of local politics: minister
Agence France Presse
November 12, 2003
Singapore
THE Singapore government appealed on Wednesday, Nov 12, for more foreign media groups to do business in the city-state but repeated its long-held position that they must stay out of local politics.
Information and Communications Minister Lee Boon Yang told a Singapore Press Club lunch an increased foreign media presence was important in the tiny island nation's plans to become a global media hub.
"We need to bring the international media to Singapore ... we must do more to anchor and attract other industry players to come here," Lee said.
But Lee highlighted an article by Australian writer Michael Backman in the local Today daily newspaper last month, which called for more domestic media freedom, to reassert Singapore's position that foreigners must stay out of its politics.
"By attacking the government's media policy and urging the adoption of the Western model, he had clearly crossed the line and engaged in our domestic politics," Lee said.
"Over the years the government has adopted a more consultative approach and encouraged freer debate on national issues and politics in the media and many different fora.
"But one OB (out of bounds) marker which remains firmly in place is the requirement that foreign journalists stay out of Singapore's politics."
The Singapore government clearly states the local media must engage in "nation building" and is not allowed to be a Western-style "fourth estate" that drives national agendas.
Lee argued that restricting the foreign media's activities in Singapore would not necessarily deter them from basing themselves in the city-state.
"Our success in attracting and anchoring foreign media to Singapore in the past 20 years strongly refute such concerns," he said, saying there were 85 news agencies and broadcasters based here. -
I am glad to able to read this famed article. Indeed it has many insights, though a bit used, to the singaporean political climate.
What the media forgot mention is that not only foreign reporters are not allowed to comment neither are local reporters allowed too.
This infuriates me, how can there be any progress if we continue to stagnant? Where the people are often
forgotten and debates are only treated as feedback.
What can be done? -
The insights are "used" because despite repeated comments about from both foreigners and Singaporeans about the archaic controls of the media here, these controls remain. So "used" they might be, but they are still, if not more, relevant today.Originally posted by bertoluci:I am glad to able to read this famed article. Indeed it has many insights, though a bit used, to the singaporean political climate. -
Foreign media wanted, but stay out of local politics: minister
?? what local politics?
we practically had the same party since independence
the only oposition party we had only have clowns for members
anyone still remember"mr GOH! Where Is Our Money!?" -
At least we had a 'Clown' who dared to ask "mr GOH ! Where Is OUR Money !? "Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:?? what local politics?
we practically had the same party since independence
the only oposition party we had only have clowns for members
anyone still remember"mr GOH! Where Is Our Money!?"
Did you not notice that there are other 'Clowns' in the great National Circus that only obey the Party Whip ?
Like real clowns in the circus, they put on a great cheographed circus show of disciplined party politics, but did any of these "super talented Clowns" (from the majority) enquired about the "Money that President Suharto claimed was given to him by Singapore" ?
What has happened to the case now ?
Wasn't it a widely publicised news that the Opposition 'Clown' will be sued for making such libellous remark that insinuate incompetency and mismanagement of Public Funds by the Government ?
Was the law suit dropped ?
Why and when was it dropped ? -
dunno leh i always go through the home section quickly
but seems like it just died down -
Exactly, the issue simply fizzled out after the hype that the reputation of the Government was raped by the statements shouted in public by the Secretary-General of the SDP.
Why was this matter allowed to fizzle out ?
Was it settle out of court, or was the matter dropped by the Government ?
Why did ex-President Suharto say that he had received the funds from the Singapore Government prior to his downfall, or was he hallucinating ?
If the foreign press did not report on this matter, would this matter have been raised by the Opposition Party - SDP ? -
Dear Readers,
The world has changed. It is now connected so closely via the internet and world travel that Singapore cannot no longer afford to be sheltered like the past. We have to embrace the world and embrace freedom of information. We can't be open to trade and investment but restrict information. As such we need to learn how to listen to other's point of view and embrace their criticism. Whether to accept or not it is up to us. In the end of the day we are an independent sovereign state. Foreigners can say or write whatever they want and it is a good thing because we are the one on the recieving end. Let's not restrict discussions that is going to benefit us.
Also I have to add that Singaporeans are not open enough. We are too reserved. That's not a good thing. Look at the world today- who's are the leading nations? The leading nations are those that speaks out and are more open in their views ie USA, Australia, UK etc. China is also becoming more open if you notice their press and society is now expressing even itimate subjects such as sex. Though China has still a long way to go in politics, their social and economic discussion and openness is progressing.
Singapore is far behind in most of these aspects. Not people speak up. It is a bad thing for the nation and our image to our investors. If we continue to live in a shell and under the guise of protection from severe criticism or participation from foreigners, we would not grow and will continue to be viewed as just producing $$ for our investors. We need to grow up and gain the real respect from foreigners and expats within and out of Singapore.
So Singaporeans- SPEAK UP, LISTEN and Learn to REFUTE not reject the views of others. In this way we will gain RESPECT from the world. -
what is "interfere with local politics"?
will brutally honest reporting be considered "interference"?
will the reporters who report the recent SIA union debacle as it is be considered "interfering with local politics"? -
The title of this article is very apt, considering the topic. It is indeed a disgrace, that for a country that likes to revel in its status as a First World country, Singapore is ranked 144 out of 165 countries in Press Freedom. We're right up there behind Robert Mugabe's Zimbawe (141), Islamic theocracy Sudan (142) while our nearest neighbours are 30-40 places above us. Another, truly world class achievement by our country.
Or does this ranking make certain people proud? No prizes for guessing who.
-------------------------------------------
Reporters with borders
Asia Times
December 10, 2003
Singapore
By Roxanne Toh
SINGAPORE has been loosening controls over a range of activities - from legalizing bungee jumping to bar-top dancing and the employment of homosexuals - but recent statements by officials' are a reminder that more media freedom is slow in coming.
Over the past few months, discussions relating to the role of local and foreign media as well as Singapore's ambitions for becoming a "global media city" show that the city-state remains very cautious about easing up when it comes to the press.
While it wants to become a hub for international and regional media, it is also wary about negative - and in its view unconstructive - coverage of and comment on Singapore.
In November, Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts (MITA) Lee Boon Yang was quoted as saying that local journalists need to remain firm in serving the national interest and "to attract more international media".
But at the same time, he issued warnings to foreign journalists that the local media should not be used to amplify their ideas of government and media policies.
Lee made his comments in the wake of a controversy over an article that the free-circulating daily newspaper Today had published in October, written by Australian expert in Asian corporate practice Michael Backman, who, Lee said, had "crossed [the] line".
In his commentary "Is Singapore paranoid?", Backman said Singapore still maintains "the old-fashioned, outmoded trappings of a Third World dictatorship" - yet it does not have anything to hide.
He also argued that the country needs to cultivate the "freedom to be wrong", which in his opinion is parallel to media freedom. Bar-top dancing is just "sleaze", not reform or liberalism, Backman concluded.
Critics find officials' approach to Backman's arguments - and their objections to the fact that a local paper ran his views - contradictory to what the Remaking Singapore Committee (RSC), aimed at pushing a more open society and at addressing economic woes, had set out to do when it was established in February 2002.
In its July 2003 report to the government, the committee mentioned that "the relationship between government and the people should not be viewed as a zero-sum game", and that the three qualities that had helped Singapore progress rapidly include "decisive government action, close people-government partnership and open communication channels".
But if a "remade" Singapore shall "embrace a diversity of peoples and ideas", skeptics wonder why foreign journalists, who can contribute to "the development of our governance and political maturity", are excluded, as Joseph Wong Kok Sen wrote in a November 19 letter to the Straits Times newspaper.
On the same day that Lee made his remarks, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew defined television as a tool of guidance that, if it loses credibility, will fail to serve its purpose.
He added that the local market is too small to support two companies that run several television stations - Mediacorp and Singapore Press Holdings' Mediaworks - in remarks interpreted as discouraging more media variety and choices in the country. His remarks were a "subtle warning" that one of these two key media companies bring its shutters down, claimed an anonymous member of the volunteer group Singapore Internet Community (Sintercom) Forum.
"I was disappointed to hear the government concluded that the market is too small, because that's far from clear," said Cherian George, author of the book Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, The Media and New Politics.
"Just because the two dominant players in the Singapore media haven't found the way to operate all their businesses profitably, it doesn't necessarily mean others can't make it," continued George, a postdoctoral fellow at the National University of Singapore's Asia Research Institute.
"They are assuming that these two dominant players have exhausted the potential of the Singapore market," he added.
Yet Lee Boon Yang's remarks came as no surprise to Sinapan Samydorai of Think Center, a non-governmental group trying to push discussion of politics and human rights in a society that frowns on open dissent. It is "not [a] new pattern," he said.
According to ThinkCentre.org, Think Center's Internet portal, Singapore is ranked 144th this year in the Second World Press Freedom Ranking by the Paris-based non-governmental group Reporters Without Borders. There are 165 other countries in the ranking. The United States holds the 31st position and North Korea the last.
At a Radio Singapore International talk show in October, Mark Cenite, assistant professor at Nanyang Technological University's School of Communication and Information, said the challenges to media in Singapore are different from those of other countries.
"If you talk to these folks ... what you find is they describe a climate of some fear. I mean, nothing comparable to the situation you have in some countries on the list where reporters face violence as reprisals for stories," he explained. "But reporters here do describe a situation where they are walking on eggshells."
Some foreign news agencies have regional offices in Singapore, but the government tends not to look too much at news meant for circulation outside of the country. However, in the past, the government has stopped circulation of magazines it deemed to carry unsuitable material.
Singaporean laws require agencies to possess permits in order to publish newspapers. The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act of 1974 also requires permission for the distribution, importation and sale of "any offshore newspaper" in Singapore.
Often, however, George says this "principle" is used against individuals, as in the recent furor over Backman's comments in Today, a publication owned by Mediacorp.
"He wasn't writing in an offshore publication but in a Singaporean newspaper, with a Singapore license to publish. It raises questions - most obviously, what is the role of editorial judgment in publishing such pieces?" challenged George.
Some say it is time a country that has progressed so much since its inception in 1959 became more confident and let its people speak out and decide for themselves.
Jack Sai, a final year mass communication student at Ngee Ann Polytechnic, cites as an example the public debate involving officials, academics and sex workers in Thailand on legalizing prostitution.
"Such issues need to be discussed very honestly because they affect the country's economy and morality, which are cornerstones of a nation. Bungee jumping and bar-top dancing are merely associated with fun," he said in an interview.
"The fact that the [Thai] government treasured the opinions of even the prostitutes themselves goes a long way in showing that everyone is important, and all should be given a chance to speak," he added.
Dharmendra Yadav wrote in a letter to MITA, a university and newspapers that Lee Boon Yang's remarks are a "mockery" of Singapore's education system, and the ability of its citizens to think about what they read.
"Surely, after more than 10 years of sound but competitive education, the reasonable individual can be expected to separate news from comment," he said. "Readers, listeners and viewers are today far more discerning than those of the past." -
Reporters without Borders 2003 Ranking
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247
Reporters without 2003 report on Singapore
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6483
Wonder if our status would have dropped further down had the rumoured shakeup concerning the Today newspaper made it in time to be included in the ranking.