[Warning/Spoiler: The following rebuts the media-control claims. Skip it if you prefer.]
I often wonder why agitators don't bothering getting better-informed, or why schools don't disseminate the facts (now that the literature's written) to the current generation. Look, it's all there in Mary Turnbull's "150 Years of the Straits Times", documenting the difficult ties between Government & the Press. To sum up:-
Does it control the papers? No. The one attempt at it - via the proposed creation of a Press Counil in the early '70s - never materialized.
Does it bully the papers? Sure, but only in the '70s till circa '82. LKY wanted them to serve national development, constantly complaining about coverage slants. The papers sought to conform, without sacrificing its own integrity as much as possible. Look at Peter Lim's hair now ~smile~
Does it influence the papers? Yes, via 3 ways - & none drastically stifling editorial content. The 1st was hardline viligance against subversion, be they in the form of foreign funds (de-licencing S'pore Herald, Eastern Sun), individual agendas (arresting Nanyang Siang Pau chauvinists), deviant lifestyles or overseas manipulation. [These took place in '71, 2 years after portentous racial riots in Malaysia; KL also divorced the "national" ST paper to S'pore in '72.] Follow-up legislation was enacted in '74 to reinforce these, plus limiting private shareholding to 3% each. The '80s saw a further widening: local banning/gazetting of meddling foreign publications, & insisting on right of reply to allegations in these sources.
The 2nd was the tumultous reorganizations of the industry, which IMO was more alienating than LKY's badgering. The various mergers & demergers (ST-New ST, NYSP-Sin Chew Jit Poh, New Nation-S'pore Monitor, absorbing Shin Min Daily News, then conglomerating all under SPH, Today-Streats-Project Eyeball) were turbulent changes for affected staff - over a period of just 30 years, mind you. Yet, as the latest backtracking reveals, it's all primarily business decisions & the bottom line. The government's role, if any, is always aimed more at shareholder value.
The 3rd was/is the efforts of 3 men (2 government nominees, plus an editor-in-chief) that shaped the balanced relationship from '82 till today:
(a) SR Nathan, ex-MINDEF Security/Intelligence Head, arrived as executive chairman amid fears of being a watchdog-censor. He emerged instead as a bridge-builder, faciliating trust between press people & politicians/civil servants. He is said to butt into editorial matters only to buttress his other speciality (foreign affairs, esp. Middle East);
(b) Cheong Yip Seng, replacing Peter Lim as SPH's EIC, didn't need to shadow-box politically as much. He formalized instead the pro-establishment media tone, a view he's held since the '70s, of common purpose in nation-building. The press won't be the 4th Estate in local context, simply cuz it's not elected; those who wanna define the OB markers should join politics. [BTW That's the BBC's position as well, to deflect Western criticism.]
(c) Lim Kim San, banker & ex-Cabinet Minister, took over as executive chairman & used his organizational ability/business instincts to build SPH into the corporate cash cow it is today. He's said to believe in necessary criticism of government policies (but not undermining them), but within the larger whole of better & more professional reporting - esp. business reporting - & actively invested in grooming talent, updated facilities/equipment & generous remuneration.
That's the basis for the reputation of a local "tame" press - which I can accept - but it's certainly not "controlled." The last overt clampdown I can think of is the Business Times case of the early '90s, when Tharman Shanmugaratnam was one of those convicted (fined but not jailed) for leaking confidential info. But the Official Secrets Act was breached then, since the economic figures were published before official release.
