It was a strong and unaccustomed attack on Singapore’s blue-chip institution – the Housing and Development Board (HDB) – that has gained global recognition for building cheap public flats for 90% of Singaporeans.

This was not the only complaint in the newspaper. Its letters page was full of criticism against the HDB for faults, long delays and defective work in two projects that put thousands of people in hardship.

In one day alone, seven letters were published condemning the HDB for stalled upgrading work in Marine Terrace and delayed work at several blocks in Punggol.

The HDB itself does no building work, but it is responsible for getting private contractors to do the job.

The recent troubles were aggravated by the economic downturn that had made several contractors bankrupt before they could finish their projects.

In Marine Terrace, there were no fewer than four changes of contractors in 30 months without an end to the problem. But the authorities were rapped because they had not seen it coming or revamped the tender system to put things right.

Public anger was even stronger in Internet chat-sites, two of which are operated by the government and the ruling People’s Action Party, where some people called on victims to sue the government.

Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan took the brunt of the attacks.

For the past 10 years, the Internet forums – whose participants are more outspoken – have created a major impact on the mainstream media and on Singapore’s politics.

Singapore has changed substantially since 1990 due to several reasons: Firstly, the government began to loosen up on its authoritarian style; and secondly, there had been a strong demand from a better-educated generation for freer expression.

But just as important was the arrival of the Internet, which makes it harder for the government to control. The media is reflecting these changes.

In 1982, when the government was reluctant to allow anyone to launch a morning English-language newspaper to compete with the Straits Times, government officials argued that Singapore was too small for two competing morning dailies.

They had said: “Singapore is a small city, less than three million people, with few breaking news. How much different can the second daily make itself from the Straits Times in order to be viable?”

Much as I hated to, I had to agree with this. It had more to do with politics, a strictly planned life and non-argumentative Singaporean newspaper readers.

I found that out as editor of an afternoon tabloid – Singapore was indeed a very small news-breaking area.

Many of the news events were “scheduled,” a seminar attended by the prime minister, a Ministry of Health press release, registration of Primary 1 classes, stock market, daily police press conferences and, of course, the courts.

In the morning editorial conferences, we would look at the schedule of events and almost know exactly what tomorrow’s paper would be like.

The only surprises would, if at all, come from foreign news.

Unlike in Hong Kong or Bangkok, rarely would there be “unscheduled” stories like an armed bank robbery, a lightning garbage strike, a scandal involving a public figure or a big triad leader busted.

I do not wish these things on Singapore or anybody else. But realistically speaking, Singapore was a small, orderly city that was often described as a “boring” place.

As a general rule, rich is always boring. Only poverty and suffering provide exciting news.

That did not explain everything, of course. Twenty years ago, the government had much tighter planning of Singaporean lives, jobs, education and communities. That means the news flow was thin.

Contributing to the boredom was a more compliant, less demanding Singaporean public.

Some people feared speaking out. Often, editors would prefer to err on the side of caution, by leaving out when in doubt.

Besides, Singapore was only one “news centre,” whereas a larger country like Malaysia has several “news centres” extending from Penang to Sabah, Kelantan to Sarawak, as well as other places and peoples.

So are countries like Thailand or Britain, each with its contrasting cities and stories. Singapore is only one city.

Two years ago, the government liberalised the media industry by allowing a rival newspaper to be launched to compete with the Straits Times, but it didn’t quite work out that way.

Singaporeans have, however, gained not a second national broadsheet but two free tabloid newspapers: Streats and Today.

These two are improving through competition against each other.

The world that Singaporeans live in today is no longer the “boring” place of 20 years ago. The government can no longer “plan” or “control” as much of society as it did then.

With al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, with SARS and rapid technological and market changes, Singaporeans often can’t tell what tomorrow will bring.

In other words, “unscheduled” news breaks are more frequent.

For instance, a tabloid broke the news last week that Singapore surgeons would separate the Iranian Siamese twin sisters, Lateh and Ladan, with the headline: “One could die. Who should live?

Other top stories:

An ex-addict father made a teary plea for her daughter to return; she had left 20 years ago.

An interview with law lecturer Sylvia Lim who made history as the first woman chairman of a political party in Singapore, the (opposition) Workers’ Party.

Police shooting crows, one fell dead on the forehead of a woman.

A Bangladeshi who arrived here as a construction worker 12 years ago was given permanent resident status on his fifth attempt, together with his wife and two daughters. Over the years, he had completed seven courses and applied for employment passes seven times. Such a crop of “unplanned” stories was exceptional in old Singapore.

Last week, they appeared in a tabloid – on the same day, showing the extent of change in society.

o Seah Chiang Nee is a veteran journalist and editor of the information website littlespeck.com (e-mail: cnseah2000@ littlespeck.com )

                                                            Home