Assertive
Singapore media sent packing
South China Morning Post. November 18, 1999
ASIA FOCUS By IAN STEWART
A PERCEPTION in Singapore over recent months
that the government was taking a more relaxed attitude towards the media
has turned out to be an illusion. Newspapers that had assumed they had
latitude to be conscientious and investigative in their reporting have
been scolded with the stern headmasterish style that is the trademark of
the island republic's government.
With no room for manoeuvre in Singapore's regulated climate - and little support from the reading public - the press has capitulated.
At first it seemed that Singapore's newspapers had simply incurred the wrath of the Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng, over coverage related to the police. But when both Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong weighed in it became clear that the media had been targeted for a major cabinet blast.
Mr Wong set the canons roaring with a fusillade against articles that, in his judgment, aroused public alarm, constituted unbalanced reporting and engaged in crusading journalism. He said these three trends "must not go unchecked or they would, over time, erode public confidence in the law enforcement agencies".
Mr Wong was supported by Mr Lee, the former prime minister, who said trends could build up public opinion against the police. Then, Mr Goh went beyond the issue of reporting on police matters to put the press firmly in its place.
Questioned about the matter while he was in Manila, Mr Goh said that it was right for Mr Wong to be robust in his criticism, adding that people must have respect for the police.
Asked whether the adversarial style of the Philippines media was good for democracy, he said the press should "not be the ones setting the political agenda for the country because they are not in politics".
"There are grave consequences for the country, which you may not be aware of, if you are setting the national agenda and you are not answerable."
In language reminiscent of Mr Lee's comments on the press in the past, he went on to say: "So, if you have one column, you must give us one column, I think to reply. If you have one whole page to criticise us, we have the right to reply to you, you give us one whole page. That way you educate the people."
An article reflecting on the role of the media by the Straits Times' Chua Lee Hoong said the premise of Mr Goh's statement, that only elected officials had the right to decide national interest, was guarded by Singapore's leadership with a zeal seldom found elsewhere. But he did not think it was wrong, although it lost the ruling party "some affection".
He said the people of Singapore, by voting for that party in election after election, had given their endorsement to its mode of governance.
The Straits Times gave space to letter writers with opposing views on the subject. One reader said Singapore had "often been described as being sycophantic to the government".
"This would be unhealthy and counter-productive in a knowledge-based economy. To be credible, our press must display a greater sense of independence and impartiality."
But another reader said he felt that, "Sometimes the press would like to behave in the same way as that of the press in the West - bark endlessly to jack up newspaper circulation, all in the name of freedom of speech and democracy."
It seems that the first writer is in the minority. A Channel News Asia poll found that only a small fraction of Singaporeans wanted more liberal political content in their newspapers. A whopping 82 per cent said they were happy with censorship levels.