Dear reader, I recently wrote two pieces for The Online Citizen. You can read them here:
1. Why Singapore needs more opposition MPs
2. Three local myths
Overall, I have received positive feedback about them, which is nice. I was a little bit skeptical about writing at first, because I wasn't sure who reads TOC, and whether or not they'd appreciate my writing. So thanks everybody who's given me feedback.
I didn't write for any money. More just because I felt that I had views to share, and there aren't many places in Singapore I could share them. Of all the online sites, my sense is that TOC is the most balanced. although it certainly has an opposition slant--which in a way can't be helped, as all these online sites feel the need to counteract our pro-PAP mainstream media.
What has actually been most interesting to me--and which speaks volumes about politics in Singapore--is that some people have suggested that my articles are pro-opposition.
Think about it: in both pieces, I say that my preferred political outcome is for the PAP to win about 67 seats, and the opposition 20.
Only in Singapore can that be interpreted as a plug for the opposition...:-)
What has surprised me, pleasantly, over the past few weeks, has been the sheer number of people I see talking about politics. Up till a year ago, I would have maintained that Singaporeans are politically apathetic. Not anymore. I think we were all just waiting for an avenue, and a critical mass--now there is confidence in numbers. people seem more willing to speak their mind because others are too.
So, even if the opposition wins just two seats again, at least we've all found our voice.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Saturday, April 09, 2011
The problem with Singapore's media
I am publishing this post, dear reader, because I believe that Singaporeans place too much trust in our mainstream media to deliver "the truth". It really irks me that Singapore's media keeps patting itself on the back, when it suffers from several problems, not least a pro-government bias. So, I have decided to show six very clear examples of poor journalism. Each one is different, but together they highlight everything that is wrong with our media. Please scroll to the middle of this post to see them. Or, if you permit some preliminary yakking, then read on here....
16 years ago, our RJC football team was coached by one of our English teachers, Mr David Whitehead, a sarcastic geezer who was always ready to chew off somebody’s head and crack us up.
One Saturday morning, when a new player showed up for practice without shinguards, Mr Whitehead mocked him for his stupidity before finishing, “Sonny, why don’t you roll up your Straits Times and stuff it in your socks? There’s no better use for it.”
From that moment, I've maintained a healthy skepticism towards Singapore's media--the opinion, after all, came from an A-Levels English Literature teacher.
My experiences studying and working have sharpened my opinion of the Straits Times, and Singapore's media in general. General editorial standards leave a lot to be desired. Worse, Singapore's media has a decidedly pro-government bias. This translates into a lot of positive spin around articles about Singapore, as well as excessive self-censorship by journalists, particularly when discussing Singaporean politics.
In terms of content, what that means is that any article that discusses Singapore is liable to be written in a particular pro-government fashion.
So, in my opinion, the main strength of Singapore's mainstream media is as a good source of news on other South-east Asian countries. Unless of course the news concerns Singapore, like a piece on buying water from Malaysia, in which case it is also prone to bias.
The problem, of course, is that for local news, we have no other options. So, we Singaporeans have to read the ST et al, or resign ourselves to living under a shell. No doubt, I do find some of the stories interesting. And we have some very talented writers, including Carolyn Hong, Deepika Shetty, and Rohit Brijnath. But they face the same limitations that all journalists here do.
Thankfully, the advent of the Internet has led to the rise of other credible news sources, such as The Online Citizen (where I occasionally contribute). Sadly, these do not have the resources or readership to seriously challenge the incumbents.
However, what frustrates me is that whenever I get into a discussion about Singapore's media with somebody, I find it hard to articulate exactly what I mean. It's easy to say "pro-government bias" or "sloppy journalism", but unless I have concrete examples, the conversation ends quickly. Worse, without solid evidence, those people who love our media can easily accuse me of being anti-SPH or anti-Mediacorp. Which is also silly--the only thing I am against is poor journalism.
So, because of all that, I have decided to make a safe, accessible repository here of six instances of poor journalism. What is interesting is that they each reflect a different kind of problem.
Together, they highlight everything that is wrong with our media, and why Singaporeans should be skeptical about everything we read in the mainstream media (we should, of course, also be skeptical about what we read in blogs such as this one--make sure the facts support the argument).
It is actually quite difficult for me to write all this because I have many friends who work in Singapore's mainstream media. They are some of the smartest, most opinionated people I know. I will not endear myself to them by criticising their firms. Still, I feel that staying silent will also be an insult to them. So, I'm going ahead in the spirit of good journalism. In fact, most of them are actually quite frank about the restrictions they face--off the record, of course.
More importantly, I think it's important to recognise that the problem with Singapore's media is well above individual writers. We have a systemic, institutional problem. Singapore's media is like a state organ. Its raison d'etre is to convey the government's view to the people.
It was never designed to a) question the government; b) disagree with the government; c) convey the people's view to the government; d) think creatively about challenges facing Singapore. (unless a-d are somehow pre-sanctioned by the government)
This institutional structure is the cause for the other symptoms, like pro-government bias. Individual writers are simply products of this system. Therefore, I will not reveal individual writer's names. This is not about them; just the system they work in.
In my opinion, this media model has served us well through our formative years. Now that Singapore is trying to develop its knowledge economy, however, this model is terribly outdated. Anyway, I will save my humble media suggestions for another post.
As awareness is the first step, here I simply want to showcase the problem with Singapore's media:
1) Obscuring the whole truth
On 18th August 2009, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, our finance minister, was asked in parliament to reveal the reasons for Charles Goodyear’s resignation from Temasek Holdings. Amongst other things, he said:
"People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”
The next day, the Straits Times published the parliamentary conversations. However, for some inexplicable reason, ST decided to leave out the phrase "it is a matter of public interest". See here
As you might imagine, leaving out the phrase changes the statement completely. It is one thing for our finance minister to say, "Yes there's curiosity but we're not going to tell." It is something completely different for him to say, "Yes, it is a matter of public interest but we're not going to tell."
The latter--what was actually said--suggests that even when there is a matter of public interest, the government does not feel that it has to let Singaporeans know. (Whoa.....say what?)
The question of course is: Why did ST feel that it had to censor that bit? Was ST acting alone, correcting on behalf of Mr Tharman? Did ST get a call from somebody higher up?
Whatever the case, this is a clear example of our mainstream media obscuring the whole truth from Singaporeans. How many other political statements over the years have been sugar-coated or white washed? How much censorship?
2) Obscuring the whole truth Part II
Mark Chow, founder of a model agency and a former actor, was sentenced to jail in April 2010 for molesting a lady in 2007. In August, his sentence was extended.
In every single mainstream media report, however, the journalist failed to mention that Mr Chow is a member of the Young PAP. Here is an example.
Why does that matter? Simple. Just imagine what would have been reported had Mr Chow been a member of an opposition party.
The mainstream media has long trumpeted the achievements of the PAP and downplayed any flaws. Conversely, it rarely gives credit to the opposition, and frequently highlights any opposition shortcomings.
In this subtle but insidious way, the mainstream media indelibly shapes the opinion of Singaporeans. How many other stories involving party cadres/politicians have been spun this way?
3) Deciding who Singaporeans can listen to--the case of Chee Soon Juan and the SDP
Let me start by saying that I have never been a big fan of Chee Soon Juan. He has always seemed more prone to bouts of political theater than genuine, constructive politics. But it's entirely possible that my mind has been warped by the biased coverage in our mainstream media. As far back as I can remember, CSJ has been publicly portrayed as a devil. (I first saw his gentler side in a Martyn See documentary, Singapore Rebel.)
Equally worrying, over the past five years or so, CSJ and the SDP have suffered a media blackout. Our mainstream media channels have simply refused to feature them--it is as though the powers that be have been trying assiduously to erase them from our collective imagination.
This carried on as recently as February this year, when the SDP was excluded from one of Channel News Asia's pre-election shows, Talking Point. Excluding the SDP, one of Singapore's major opposition parties, is inexcusable. CNA's response to the incident was, well, underwhelming.
So, even though I have never really understood CSJ's messages or methods, I will defend to the death his right to speak and be heard, to paraphrase one of Voltaire's beliefs. Everybody in our society deserves this--as long as they're not promoting terrorism, racism, or anything else illiberal or unjust.
Who decided to blackout CSJ and the SDP? Have our mainstream media channels been acting independently, or did they get instruction from somebody above? How come they get to decide which politicians I can listen to, and which ones I can't? What other issues/people have been blocked or blacked out? How else has our understanding of Singapore been manipulated?
Notes:
Interestingly, if you analyse mainstream media coverage of the opposition over the past year, you will find nothing about the SDP before March this year. The Reform Party and the Worker's Party got some air time. But not the SDP.
Then something happened, and the mainstream media channels decided that they had to cover the SDP. Perhaps they realised that they would look really foolish ignoring a major opposition party, with new, credible candidates such as Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and Tan Jee Say.
Even then, however, coverage was paltry and biased. The two most egregious examples of poor journalism came from The New Paper. First, it disgracefully played the anti-gay card in a piece on Dr Vincent. Then, without any conclusive evidence, it suggested that CSJ had tried to start a march at one of the election rallies (subsequently refuted by eyewitnesses).
4) Deciding what Singaporeans can listen to--the MDA
Singapore's Media Development Authority is, in its own words, a promotional and regulatory body set up "to champion the development of a vibrant media sector in Singapore: one that nurtures homegrown media enterprises and attracts direct foreign investment for economic growth, new jobs and greater economic dynamism".
Well, in my opinion, it hasn't been very successful. It is difficult, after all, to "champion the development of a vibrant media sector" when one spends so much time figuring out how to censor and restrict.
A recent example:
In mid February 2011, somebody I know who is in charge of a popular television show in Singapore was sent a memo. The memo, allegedly passed down from the MDA, told this person and team that they CANNOT report on certain sensitive issues until after the elections. The list of sensitive issues included Foreign Talent; Housing issues; Soccer/FAS; Income inequality; Public Transport and several others.
I was flabbergasted when I heard this. There are so many problems with this directive. First is the simple declaration of "sensitive issues". Who in Singapore gets to decide what is sensitive or not? Is it a senior politician? Or a senior bureaucrat in MDA? Why should anybody decide what is sensitive or not to us Singaporeans?
Second, and more problematic, even if we agree on "sensitive issues", why can't we talk and hear about them before elections? Isn't election time precisely when we should be discussing these things? We voters have to make important decisions--why are we being prevented from hearing about "sensitive issues" that might influence our vote?
If our media is supposed to be objective, and our democratic process supposed to be fair, I cannot imagine anything more inane than this. Essentially we are being told "Do not discuss sensitive issues during elections when they are actually most important. But please do discuss them after elections when they are of absolutely no political consequence".
5) Appalling journalistic standards
When I first discovered this error, I was confused. I could not believe that a journalist at the Business Times would make such a mistake, particularly since I had always regarded--and still do--BT as the best media outlet in Singapore.
In order to understand this error of monumental proportions, it's probably better that you first scan through the article here.
OK, now that you've scanned the article, what would you think if I told you that the entire main thrust of the article--Singapore moving up the rankings--is bogus? Well, that's the truth. As it turns out, Singapore did not move at all on the Democracy Index--remained exactly where it was, at number 82.
How do I know? Well, when I read this article, I found the headline odd--I couldn't imagine how Singapore had become more democratic in the past year. And so I went online to look for the actual index, which is available free of charge to anybody with an Internet connection.
Within two minutes of looking for it, I had found the report, and the index that shows Singapore at position 82 (you can see it for yourself here). So why would the journalist say otherwise? I dug around a bit, and got a response from BT saying that they had been using information from a press release that was obviously erroneous.
Let that sink in: a BT journalist had written an article based on a press release without checking the facts--facts, remember, that any lay person could have checked within two minutes.
It really amazed me. And it got me thinking. There are only two possible explanations, as I see it:
One, this BT journalist is similarly slipshod with all his/her work.
Two, because the content showed Singapore in a positive light, the journalist decided to forgo fact checking. In other words, this journalist only checks facts when it is something negative about Singapore.
Either way, it is a terrible indictment of the kind of work that goes on at BT.
How many other stories about Singapore are based on false information? When do Singaporean journalists actually check facts? How do editors tolerate such sloppiness?
(yes, those of you who work in PR/ Journalism might say, "So what? Every journalist uses press releases". OK. But that doesn't make it right. Especially when you muck up big time.)
6) Spin
On the same day, three different newspapers had three different angles to the same story. I put all here for you to understand the different approaches each takes.
FT: See here
WSJ: See here
ST: See here
The ST, as you will see, can always be counted on to deliver the most fantabulous spin about Singapore. In this case, it talks up the growth in Temasek's assets, and relegates the part about net profits declining.
In my mind, net profit is what's important to Singaporeans--that's our national income! Somebody who just glanced the ST's headlines without reading more would presume that it was a fantastic year.
There you go. If you have more and better examples of poor journalism in Singapore, do let me know. And, if you disagree with my diagnosis, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts too.
But what does that all mean?
It's important to recognise a couple of things. First, one might reasonably expect to find some of the same issues in other countries. Every media channel, whether Fox News, The New York Times, or The Economist, has a bias of some sort. Editorial at all of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets, for instance, are seemingly controlled by the great man.1
Furthermore, no media channel is perfect. Every journalist makes occasional mistakes. In fact, editorial standards are probably much higher in Singapore than they are in, say, Malaysia or the Philippines.
However, we Singaporeans need to hold MediaCorp and SPH accountable to much higher, almost perfect, standards. Why? Two reasons. First, Singapore's politicians and bureaucrats go to great lengths to trumpet our media model. Every few months, Singaporeans are treated to some shameless gloating and back-patting about Singapore's media--how it is so objective, fact-based and unbiased. Just last year, for instance, Ministers Lui Tuck Yew and Shanmugam said as much separately.
As the six examples above show, this is simply untrue--our media suffers from some fundamental problems, and we need to acknowledge that.
On a related note, we must demand perfect standards because Singaporeans have no media choice--there is no media competition here. In other countries, if a reader does not like coverage from a particular source, he/she can simply choose to read or watch something else. Here we cannot. We are told that we need only one source/owner because it is infallible.
The result of all this is that many Singaporeans place unquestioned faith in our mainstream media. If our dear government says it's good, it must be, right? Mr Lui quoted a survey that found that 68% of Singaporeans consider newspapers a trusted source of information (compared with an international average of 34%).
In other words, more than two-thirds of Singaporeans believe in the credibility of our newspapers. As I've tried to show, however, we should not have unwavering faith. Instead, we should read and watch with a critical and questioning mind.
Finally, I would like to reiterate the point about individual writers, and even publications--they are all just symptoms of a broader issue. There is no point haranguing them--many are doing the best they possibly can given the constraints they operate within.
We have a systemic problem. Self-censorship is an insidious, vicious cycle that feeds upon itself. There is no Grand Government Censor who pre-approves every article before it is published. Self-censorship evolves like a military order, where a General's call for a 10am fall-in gets amplified through the chain of command, ultimately forcing lowly corporals to get ready at 9am. Similarly, self-censorship exerts its ruinous force on the system by forcing each editor/journalist below to draw an even safer line.
Every Singaporean is just a player in this paralysing game. Some suggest that the only victors are the PAP, although maybe even they have been undermined of late. Consider their poor performance in the last elections. Outgoing Minister Lim Hwee Hwa said that "it was a surprise for us that the resentment is so deep and the unhappiness is so deep". Well, Ms Lim, perhaps if our media channels were freer to say what they wanted and convey the views of disgruntled Singaporeans, you may not have been so surprised.
Ultimately, what Singaporeans need to do is collectively seek reform of our media sector--which will, amongst other things, free our media channels and journalists to do an even better job.
1 Ken Auletta, writing in The New Yorker, call this 'anticipatory censorship'. He quotes David Yelland, the former deputy editor of the Post and ex-editor of Rupert Murdoch's largest London tabloid, the Sun, who told the London Evening Standard, "All Murdoch editors...go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says. But you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that somethings has happened and think, 'What would Rupert think about this?' "
("Murdoch's best friend", The New Yorker, April 11 2011)
16 years ago, our RJC football team was coached by one of our English teachers, Mr David Whitehead, a sarcastic geezer who was always ready to chew off somebody’s head and crack us up.
One Saturday morning, when a new player showed up for practice without shinguards, Mr Whitehead mocked him for his stupidity before finishing, “Sonny, why don’t you roll up your Straits Times and stuff it in your socks? There’s no better use for it.”
From that moment, I've maintained a healthy skepticism towards Singapore's media--the opinion, after all, came from an A-Levels English Literature teacher.
My experiences studying and working have sharpened my opinion of the Straits Times, and Singapore's media in general. General editorial standards leave a lot to be desired. Worse, Singapore's media has a decidedly pro-government bias. This translates into a lot of positive spin around articles about Singapore, as well as excessive self-censorship by journalists, particularly when discussing Singaporean politics.
In terms of content, what that means is that any article that discusses Singapore is liable to be written in a particular pro-government fashion.
So, in my opinion, the main strength of Singapore's mainstream media is as a good source of news on other South-east Asian countries. Unless of course the news concerns Singapore, like a piece on buying water from Malaysia, in which case it is also prone to bias.
The problem, of course, is that for local news, we have no other options. So, we Singaporeans have to read the ST et al, or resign ourselves to living under a shell. No doubt, I do find some of the stories interesting. And we have some very talented writers, including Carolyn Hong, Deepika Shetty, and Rohit Brijnath. But they face the same limitations that all journalists here do.
Thankfully, the advent of the Internet has led to the rise of other credible news sources, such as The Online Citizen (where I occasionally contribute). Sadly, these do not have the resources or readership to seriously challenge the incumbents.
However, what frustrates me is that whenever I get into a discussion about Singapore's media with somebody, I find it hard to articulate exactly what I mean. It's easy to say "pro-government bias" or "sloppy journalism", but unless I have concrete examples, the conversation ends quickly. Worse, without solid evidence, those people who love our media can easily accuse me of being anti-SPH or anti-Mediacorp. Which is also silly--the only thing I am against is poor journalism.
So, because of all that, I have decided to make a safe, accessible repository here of six instances of poor journalism. What is interesting is that they each reflect a different kind of problem.
Together, they highlight everything that is wrong with our media, and why Singaporeans should be skeptical about everything we read in the mainstream media (we should, of course, also be skeptical about what we read in blogs such as this one--make sure the facts support the argument).
It is actually quite difficult for me to write all this because I have many friends who work in Singapore's mainstream media. They are some of the smartest, most opinionated people I know. I will not endear myself to them by criticising their firms. Still, I feel that staying silent will also be an insult to them. So, I'm going ahead in the spirit of good journalism. In fact, most of them are actually quite frank about the restrictions they face--off the record, of course.
More importantly, I think it's important to recognise that the problem with Singapore's media is well above individual writers. We have a systemic, institutional problem. Singapore's media is like a state organ. Its raison d'etre is to convey the government's view to the people.
It was never designed to a) question the government; b) disagree with the government; c) convey the people's view to the government; d) think creatively about challenges facing Singapore. (unless a-d are somehow pre-sanctioned by the government)
This institutional structure is the cause for the other symptoms, like pro-government bias. Individual writers are simply products of this system. Therefore, I will not reveal individual writer's names. This is not about them; just the system they work in.
In my opinion, this media model has served us well through our formative years. Now that Singapore is trying to develop its knowledge economy, however, this model is terribly outdated. Anyway, I will save my humble media suggestions for another post.
As awareness is the first step, here I simply want to showcase the problem with Singapore's media:
1) Obscuring the whole truth
On 18th August 2009, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, our finance minister, was asked in parliament to reveal the reasons for Charles Goodyear’s resignation from Temasek Holdings. Amongst other things, he said:
"People do want to know, there is curiosity, it is a matter of public interest. That is not sufficient reason to disclose information. It is not sufficient that there be curiosity and interest that you want to disclose information.”
The next day, the Straits Times published the parliamentary conversations. However, for some inexplicable reason, ST decided to leave out the phrase "it is a matter of public interest". See here
As you might imagine, leaving out the phrase changes the statement completely. It is one thing for our finance minister to say, "Yes there's curiosity but we're not going to tell." It is something completely different for him to say, "Yes, it is a matter of public interest but we're not going to tell."
The latter--what was actually said--suggests that even when there is a matter of public interest, the government does not feel that it has to let Singaporeans know. (Whoa.....say what?)
The question of course is: Why did ST feel that it had to censor that bit? Was ST acting alone, correcting on behalf of Mr Tharman? Did ST get a call from somebody higher up?
Whatever the case, this is a clear example of our mainstream media obscuring the whole truth from Singaporeans. How many other political statements over the years have been sugar-coated or white washed? How much censorship?
2) Obscuring the whole truth Part II
Mark Chow, founder of a model agency and a former actor, was sentenced to jail in April 2010 for molesting a lady in 2007. In August, his sentence was extended.
In every single mainstream media report, however, the journalist failed to mention that Mr Chow is a member of the Young PAP. Here is an example.
Why does that matter? Simple. Just imagine what would have been reported had Mr Chow been a member of an opposition party.
The mainstream media has long trumpeted the achievements of the PAP and downplayed any flaws. Conversely, it rarely gives credit to the opposition, and frequently highlights any opposition shortcomings.
In this subtle but insidious way, the mainstream media indelibly shapes the opinion of Singaporeans. How many other stories involving party cadres/politicians have been spun this way?
3) Deciding who Singaporeans can listen to--the case of Chee Soon Juan and the SDP
Let me start by saying that I have never been a big fan of Chee Soon Juan. He has always seemed more prone to bouts of political theater than genuine, constructive politics. But it's entirely possible that my mind has been warped by the biased coverage in our mainstream media. As far back as I can remember, CSJ has been publicly portrayed as a devil. (I first saw his gentler side in a Martyn See documentary, Singapore Rebel.)
Equally worrying, over the past five years or so, CSJ and the SDP have suffered a media blackout. Our mainstream media channels have simply refused to feature them--it is as though the powers that be have been trying assiduously to erase them from our collective imagination.
This carried on as recently as February this year, when the SDP was excluded from one of Channel News Asia's pre-election shows, Talking Point. Excluding the SDP, one of Singapore's major opposition parties, is inexcusable. CNA's response to the incident was, well, underwhelming.
So, even though I have never really understood CSJ's messages or methods, I will defend to the death his right to speak and be heard, to paraphrase one of Voltaire's beliefs. Everybody in our society deserves this--as long as they're not promoting terrorism, racism, or anything else illiberal or unjust.
Who decided to blackout CSJ and the SDP? Have our mainstream media channels been acting independently, or did they get instruction from somebody above? How come they get to decide which politicians I can listen to, and which ones I can't? What other issues/people have been blocked or blacked out? How else has our understanding of Singapore been manipulated?
Notes:
Interestingly, if you analyse mainstream media coverage of the opposition over the past year, you will find nothing about the SDP before March this year. The Reform Party and the Worker's Party got some air time. But not the SDP.
Then something happened, and the mainstream media channels decided that they had to cover the SDP. Perhaps they realised that they would look really foolish ignoring a major opposition party, with new, credible candidates such as Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and Tan Jee Say.
Even then, however, coverage was paltry and biased. The two most egregious examples of poor journalism came from The New Paper. First, it disgracefully played the anti-gay card in a piece on Dr Vincent. Then, without any conclusive evidence, it suggested that CSJ had tried to start a march at one of the election rallies (subsequently refuted by eyewitnesses).
4) Deciding what Singaporeans can listen to--the MDA
Singapore's Media Development Authority is, in its own words, a promotional and regulatory body set up "to champion the development of a vibrant media sector in Singapore: one that nurtures homegrown media enterprises and attracts direct foreign investment for economic growth, new jobs and greater economic dynamism".
Well, in my opinion, it hasn't been very successful. It is difficult, after all, to "champion the development of a vibrant media sector" when one spends so much time figuring out how to censor and restrict.
A recent example:
In mid February 2011, somebody I know who is in charge of a popular television show in Singapore was sent a memo. The memo, allegedly passed down from the MDA, told this person and team that they CANNOT report on certain sensitive issues until after the elections. The list of sensitive issues included Foreign Talent; Housing issues; Soccer/FAS; Income inequality; Public Transport and several others.
I was flabbergasted when I heard this. There are so many problems with this directive. First is the simple declaration of "sensitive issues". Who in Singapore gets to decide what is sensitive or not? Is it a senior politician? Or a senior bureaucrat in MDA? Why should anybody decide what is sensitive or not to us Singaporeans?
Second, and more problematic, even if we agree on "sensitive issues", why can't we talk and hear about them before elections? Isn't election time precisely when we should be discussing these things? We voters have to make important decisions--why are we being prevented from hearing about "sensitive issues" that might influence our vote?
If our media is supposed to be objective, and our democratic process supposed to be fair, I cannot imagine anything more inane than this. Essentially we are being told "Do not discuss sensitive issues during elections when they are actually most important. But please do discuss them after elections when they are of absolutely no political consequence".
5) Appalling journalistic standards
When I first discovered this error, I was confused. I could not believe that a journalist at the Business Times would make such a mistake, particularly since I had always regarded--and still do--BT as the best media outlet in Singapore.
In order to understand this error of monumental proportions, it's probably better that you first scan through the article here.
OK, now that you've scanned the article, what would you think if I told you that the entire main thrust of the article--Singapore moving up the rankings--is bogus? Well, that's the truth. As it turns out, Singapore did not move at all on the Democracy Index--remained exactly where it was, at number 82.
How do I know? Well, when I read this article, I found the headline odd--I couldn't imagine how Singapore had become more democratic in the past year. And so I went online to look for the actual index, which is available free of charge to anybody with an Internet connection.
Within two minutes of looking for it, I had found the report, and the index that shows Singapore at position 82 (you can see it for yourself here). So why would the journalist say otherwise? I dug around a bit, and got a response from BT saying that they had been using information from a press release that was obviously erroneous.
Let that sink in: a BT journalist had written an article based on a press release without checking the facts--facts, remember, that any lay person could have checked within two minutes.
It really amazed me. And it got me thinking. There are only two possible explanations, as I see it:
One, this BT journalist is similarly slipshod with all his/her work.
Two, because the content showed Singapore in a positive light, the journalist decided to forgo fact checking. In other words, this journalist only checks facts when it is something negative about Singapore.
Either way, it is a terrible indictment of the kind of work that goes on at BT.
How many other stories about Singapore are based on false information? When do Singaporean journalists actually check facts? How do editors tolerate such sloppiness?
(yes, those of you who work in PR/ Journalism might say, "So what? Every journalist uses press releases". OK. But that doesn't make it right. Especially when you muck up big time.)
6) Spin
On the same day, three different newspapers had three different angles to the same story. I put all here for you to understand the different approaches each takes.
FT: See here
WSJ: See here
ST: See here
The ST, as you will see, can always be counted on to deliver the most fantabulous spin about Singapore. In this case, it talks up the growth in Temasek's assets, and relegates the part about net profits declining.
In my mind, net profit is what's important to Singaporeans--that's our national income! Somebody who just glanced the ST's headlines without reading more would presume that it was a fantastic year.
There you go. If you have more and better examples of poor journalism in Singapore, do let me know. And, if you disagree with my diagnosis, I'd be keen to hear your thoughts too.
But what does that all mean?
It's important to recognise a couple of things. First, one might reasonably expect to find some of the same issues in other countries. Every media channel, whether Fox News, The New York Times, or The Economist, has a bias of some sort. Editorial at all of Rupert Murdoch's media outlets, for instance, are seemingly controlled by the great man.1
Furthermore, no media channel is perfect. Every journalist makes occasional mistakes. In fact, editorial standards are probably much higher in Singapore than they are in, say, Malaysia or the Philippines.
However, we Singaporeans need to hold MediaCorp and SPH accountable to much higher, almost perfect, standards. Why? Two reasons. First, Singapore's politicians and bureaucrats go to great lengths to trumpet our media model. Every few months, Singaporeans are treated to some shameless gloating and back-patting about Singapore's media--how it is so objective, fact-based and unbiased. Just last year, for instance, Ministers Lui Tuck Yew and Shanmugam said as much separately.
As the six examples above show, this is simply untrue--our media suffers from some fundamental problems, and we need to acknowledge that.
On a related note, we must demand perfect standards because Singaporeans have no media choice--there is no media competition here. In other countries, if a reader does not like coverage from a particular source, he/she can simply choose to read or watch something else. Here we cannot. We are told that we need only one source/owner because it is infallible.
The result of all this is that many Singaporeans place unquestioned faith in our mainstream media. If our dear government says it's good, it must be, right? Mr Lui quoted a survey that found that 68% of Singaporeans consider newspapers a trusted source of information (compared with an international average of 34%).
In other words, more than two-thirds of Singaporeans believe in the credibility of our newspapers. As I've tried to show, however, we should not have unwavering faith. Instead, we should read and watch with a critical and questioning mind.
Finally, I would like to reiterate the point about individual writers, and even publications--they are all just symptoms of a broader issue. There is no point haranguing them--many are doing the best they possibly can given the constraints they operate within.
We have a systemic problem. Self-censorship is an insidious, vicious cycle that feeds upon itself. There is no Grand Government Censor who pre-approves every article before it is published. Self-censorship evolves like a military order, where a General's call for a 10am fall-in gets amplified through the chain of command, ultimately forcing lowly corporals to get ready at 9am. Similarly, self-censorship exerts its ruinous force on the system by forcing each editor/journalist below to draw an even safer line.
Every Singaporean is just a player in this paralysing game. Some suggest that the only victors are the PAP, although maybe even they have been undermined of late. Consider their poor performance in the last elections. Outgoing Minister Lim Hwee Hwa said that "it was a surprise for us that the resentment is so deep and the unhappiness is so deep". Well, Ms Lim, perhaps if our media channels were freer to say what they wanted and convey the views of disgruntled Singaporeans, you may not have been so surprised.
Ultimately, what Singaporeans need to do is collectively seek reform of our media sector--which will, amongst other things, free our media channels and journalists to do an even better job.
1 Ken Auletta, writing in The New Yorker, call this 'anticipatory censorship'. He quotes David Yelland, the former deputy editor of the Post and ex-editor of Rupert Murdoch's largest London tabloid, the Sun, who told the London Evening Standard, "All Murdoch editors...go on a journey where they end up agreeing with everything Rupert says. But you don't admit to yourself that you're being influenced. Most Murdoch editors wake up in the morning, switch on the radio, hear that somethings has happened and think, 'What would Rupert think about this?' "
("Murdoch's best friend", The New Yorker, April 11 2011)
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I have to take a break
It may seem peculiar for me to take a break now, after only just re-starting my blog. But as I enter the last two weeks of my twenties, I am ensconced in a rather circumspect and philosophical mood. I recently read that 'one of life's greatest skills is knowing when to let go', and, well, now I have to let go--until further notice, this will be my last posting on "Musings from Singapore". a hiatus, brief, I hope.
I am not forgoing the pen--or keyboard, as it were--altogether. Trouble is, I can't seem to get enough of it. Between my full-time job at the EIU; my regular contributions for Lexean (the webpage is finally up and running!); my baby steps towards my mountain of a book; and penning postings on the blog that accompanies the book, I simply don't have time to regularly write on this blog.
So, please read my book's blog, which I co-write with my buddy Sumana. That has regular postings. Leave us comments, which will help us as we write our book. It should be out in the next year (mind you, I've been saying that for the past three).
goodbye for now,
whoever you are,
sudhir
I am not forgoing the pen--or keyboard, as it were--altogether. Trouble is, I can't seem to get enough of it. Between my full-time job at the EIU; my regular contributions for Lexean (the webpage is finally up and running!); my baby steps towards my mountain of a book; and penning postings on the blog that accompanies the book, I simply don't have time to regularly write on this blog.
So, please read my book's blog, which I co-write with my buddy Sumana. That has regular postings. Leave us comments, which will help us as we write our book. It should be out in the next year (mind you, I've been saying that for the past three).
goodbye for now,
whoever you are,
sudhir
Friday, August 31, 2007
Happy Birthday Malaysia
Of all the newspapers, I think The Economist sums up Malaysia's birthday the best:
After 50 years, Malaysia should stop treating a third of its people as not-quite-citizens
(I hope the link to this article works. If not, pick up this week's issue of The Economist)
After 50 years, Malaysia should stop treating a third of its people as not-quite-citizens
(I hope the link to this article works. If not, pick up this week's issue of The Economist)
Monday, August 27, 2007
Sir Ian McKellen
There is an article on Sir Ian McKellen in the Aug 27th New Yorker. Wonderful insight into his life.
Made me think about a couple of things:
The Singapore audience
I watched Sir Ian in two shows last month, at our very own Esplanade—King Lear and Seagulls. Was blown away. Not just by Magneto (although he was spectacular). But by the whole production. All the actors, the set, the sounds, everything. Very happy that such top-notch productions are finding their way to Singapore.
A British colleague of mine was very upset with the audience, however. She lamented the inappropriate laughter at inopportune times (e.g. when King Lear was visibly going mad, a sorry scene about an old man’s dementia). That left a sour taste in her mouth. She said that she felt like going to each actor backstage and apologising to them.
So, I was somewhat surprised to read Sir Ian’s own glowing review of our audience. In his words, “Singapore was a wow—full houses and standing ovations”.
Hmmm, no mention of annoying laughter. Maybe we weren’t so bad, after all.
Homosexuality
Sir Ian’s struggle with his sexuality is discussed frequently in the article. What I found interesting is that he only ‘came out’ in Britain in 1988, amidst a dominant British climate of gay intolerance. Today, much progress has been made in Britain on the front: gays in the military, an equal age of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals, civil partnership. Sir Ian is an active gay-rights campaigner.
But what struck me was that it was less than 20 years ago that he had the nerve to come out in Britain. Very recent. Societal acceptance of homosexuality in Britain, the US, and many parts of the West is a fairly new thing. And even then, not everybody has accepted it. For every San Franciscan hippie, there is a right-wing, God-fearing member of the Christian Army in the South, denouncing sexual liberalism.
Singapore’s relationship with homosexuals has been uncomfortable, to say the least. There is still legislation banning homosexuality in our country. Senior politicians in our country have been unclear on the issue—on some occasions arguing that gays should have rights, on others asserting that the law shouldn’t be changed. And there is a suspicion that the government cosies up to gays not out of respect for their rights, but out of love for their ‘pink dollar’. One month we permit a gay activity, the next we clamp down on an innocuous ‘gay run’. In this uncertain climate, it must be difficult to feel free as a homosexual in Singapore.
My sense is that there is a lot more homophobia in Singapore than we care to admit. When I was in (all-boys) secondary school, from 1990-1993, I was surrounded by homophobes. Some students I knew would take great pride in beating up gays. The rest of us listened to their stories, non-plussed. In Army, homophobia was rampant. When I left Singapore for California in 1999, I was a homophobe.
Four years in Berkeley changed that. Living and studying in the midst of homosexuals changed my (horribly biased) perception of them. I now have gay friends and colleagues. And am the happier for it. Am a more well-rounded person for it.
However, while I had become accepting of homosexuality, many of my old friends had not. Lots of them harbour homophobic tendencies. Some show it, others don't.
And even though they may not be outright homophobes, a lot of people in Singapore I chat to—young and old, religious and secular—have reservations about gay rights. For many of them, these are core worldview beliefs that may take some time to change.
So, while many liberals in Singapore go on about the slow pace of change here vis-à-vis gay rights, when I compare it to supposedly liberal societies having only recently become gay-friendly, I actually think we’re doing ok. I don’t mean to condone homophobia, or anti-gay legislation in any way, which is outright bigotry.
But I do think that some people will take a lot longer to come round than others. Blasting their draconian views won’t always work. Sometimes it might. It’s a delicate game.
I think that although there is still a long way to go, gays in Singapore should also be proud of how far we've come. Just think--in 1993, there was still active entrapment of gays by Singapore policemen, posing as would-be lovers.
I’m happy that Sir Ian spoke out for gays when he was here. His words should influence many.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
wednesday i'm no love
I saw the Cure two weeks ago, at the Singapore Indoor Stadium. We had managed to get fantastic seats, front row of our section, a mere six feet from the poor sods in front who had paid $50 more.
They started playing at about 8.30, and we were in heaven, dancing and yelling and having a ball and a blast and the time of our lives. It didn’t take us long to piss off some people.
“Could you please sit down” was the nicest comment from behind. As the four of us kept rocking away, some of the unfortunate seat-bound tried appealing to the girls in our group, “Can you get them to sit down???” To no avail.
As the expletives started flying, we got increasingly annoyed, and so I turned around and cried, “It’s the Cure for godsake. It’s a rock concert! Are you going to be sitting the entire time??!!??”
They were.
Finally, some smart ass behind us did the sneaky thing and alerted one of the pseudo security guards/ ushers to our misbehaviour (standing and partying at a Cure concert). A sorry youngster half our size came screaming down the stairs and started yelping at us. Not wanting to cause any more of a scene, we sat down.
After about 20mins of listening to the Cure while seated, we had had enough. I climbed to the top of the stairs, and started dancing there, a long way off from our prized seats, which remained empty the rest of the show.
From above, peering down on the Singaporean audience, I felt sorry for Robert Smith and gang. These legends had flown all the way only to be faced with an audience that was sitting down and bobbing their heads up and down. Even the crowd in the pit was more interested in their latest digicam-phone than in the band.
I told a friend, “If you just looked at the crowd, you’d think you were at a jazz concert!”
“Are you kidding? More like an opera!”
(second friend) “No way. This is like a bloody funeral….”
At that moment, I was really pissed. But on the other hand, everybody behind us must have also thought we were real jack-asses for blocking their view. Who is right? I don’t really know…I mean, we felt it ludicrous not to stand at a rock concert. But they thought that the proper thing to do was sit, listen and appreciate. And we certainly weren’t going to change their minds that night…
But it’s a great metaphor, no? –
In any society, there are people who might stand and block the view of others because they think it’s the right thing to do.
Those who are blocked can either stand up and see the difference, or remain seated and scream at the blockers.
The blockers, when screamed at, can hold their position steadfastly, even amidst a torrent of abuse.
Or they can sit back down obediently.
Or they can go right to the back, to the outskirts of the group, and do their own thing there, hoping and wishing and praying that those still seated will eventually hear the same tune, and stand up.
In
We should have just bought the cheapest tickets.
Monday, August 13, 2007
a migration of poor standards
I’m getting a little bit tired of Indians saying how much they like my country, Singapore.
The gushing never stops. Towering buildings; glitzy shopping malls; roads without potholes; clean, drinking water; spotless streets; safe neighbourhoods; efficient administration; incorruptible government; gateway to the world; ….they could go on forever.
(Every now and then, one of them questions the lack of genuine democracy here, while yearning for the chaos of Indian coffeeshop chatter and multiparty elections. But only for a moment.)
So, Indians love Singapore. Accountants, bankers, engineers, IT guys—no matter. They all love Singapore so much.
But what’s wrong with that? Well, I was particularly irked by a comment from a very senior Indian banker (so much so that I decided to write all this).
He said, “I don’t understand why you Singaporeans keep complaining about your Ministers’ salaries. After all, they deserve it—they do such a fantastic job! Look how well your country is run! You have no idea what corrupt government is. You have no experience of a fat, inefficient, bureaucratic administration, like we do in India. If you knew what that was like, you’d have no problems paying these guys their multi-million dollar salaries. What’s an extra million or two, after all?”
Indians love Singapore so much because they keep comparing our country to theirs. Many of them feel that we Singaporeans are ungrateful and spoilt—we’ve had it so good for so long, we know not what real hardship is.
There may be some truth to that, but I’m actually fed up with this general line of reasoning, because
1) Why are we comparing ourselves to India?
There are several different groups of people who enjoy comparing Singapore to countries clearly worse off than us. Our politicians; our neutered media channels; well-off Singaporeans who have succeeded here; and foreigners (like the Indians).
Perhaps sometimes there is reason to compare and reflect on our successes, but there’s a bit too much of that going on. In order to progress, we should be engaging in upward comparison, not downward comparison.
In other words, we should not be asking
“How did Singapore succeed economically where so many other poor countries have failed?”
But instead, we should be asking
“How come there are other countries that are more developed politically, socially and economically than Singapore? What did they do right? How do we get there?”
2) Do expatriates really know what’s going on?
My Indian banker friend may not think an extra million or two is much. But not everybody is in his shoes. There are plenty of Singaporeans who are finding it tough to keep up. The bottom 30% of households has actually seen their real income drop over the past 7 years, even as Singapore continues to grow millionaires at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world. Income inequality is rising fast.
In this climate, raising the salaries of Ministers to stratospheric levels does, for many, appear like ‘legitimised corruption’ (a term bandied around on an online discussion group, Singapore Review).
I think a premium must be paid, because that is one way to lure the best. However, the current salaries seem a bit much (average salary of government minister--US$1.25m)
Sometimes it is good to get an external perspective on things. Other times, it is misleading. When a jet-setting Indian banker makes big proclamations about Singapore, its politics and its economy, after having lived only in a bubble of expense-account French wine and company-paid luxury apartments, it smacks of bias.
(For sure, I too don’t fully understand the challenges that many of my less well-off countrymen face.)
The irony? The well-heeled, sharp-tongued banker, having lived here for 6 months, will probably get much more air time from our government and its press than the fourth-generation Singaporean single mother in a 1-room HDB flat, her everyday a struggle.
Of course, it’s not just Indians from India who say these things. People from all over the world come here and say similar things. They’re just comparing life here as they see it with life as it was from where they came…only natural.
But that shouldn’t stop us from understanding the realities of life in Singapore, and trying our best to match up (and beat) the world’s best.
The gushing never stops. Towering buildings; glitzy shopping malls; roads without potholes; clean, drinking water; spotless streets; safe neighbourhoods; efficient administration; incorruptible government; gateway to the world; ….they could go on forever.
(Every now and then, one of them questions the lack of genuine democracy here, while yearning for the chaos of Indian coffeeshop chatter and multiparty elections. But only for a moment.)
So, Indians love Singapore. Accountants, bankers, engineers, IT guys—no matter. They all love Singapore so much.
But what’s wrong with that? Well, I was particularly irked by a comment from a very senior Indian banker (so much so that I decided to write all this).
He said, “I don’t understand why you Singaporeans keep complaining about your Ministers’ salaries. After all, they deserve it—they do such a fantastic job! Look how well your country is run! You have no idea what corrupt government is. You have no experience of a fat, inefficient, bureaucratic administration, like we do in India. If you knew what that was like, you’d have no problems paying these guys their multi-million dollar salaries. What’s an extra million or two, after all?”
Indians love Singapore so much because they keep comparing our country to theirs. Many of them feel that we Singaporeans are ungrateful and spoilt—we’ve had it so good for so long, we know not what real hardship is.
There may be some truth to that, but I’m actually fed up with this general line of reasoning, because
1) Why are we comparing ourselves to India?
There are several different groups of people who enjoy comparing Singapore to countries clearly worse off than us. Our politicians; our neutered media channels; well-off Singaporeans who have succeeded here; and foreigners (like the Indians).
Perhaps sometimes there is reason to compare and reflect on our successes, but there’s a bit too much of that going on. In order to progress, we should be engaging in upward comparison, not downward comparison.
In other words, we should not be asking
“How did Singapore succeed economically where so many other poor countries have failed?”
But instead, we should be asking
“How come there are other countries that are more developed politically, socially and economically than Singapore? What did they do right? How do we get there?”
2) Do expatriates really know what’s going on?
My Indian banker friend may not think an extra million or two is much. But not everybody is in his shoes. There are plenty of Singaporeans who are finding it tough to keep up. The bottom 30% of households has actually seen their real income drop over the past 7 years, even as Singapore continues to grow millionaires at a faster rate than anywhere else in the world. Income inequality is rising fast.
In this climate, raising the salaries of Ministers to stratospheric levels does, for many, appear like ‘legitimised corruption’ (a term bandied around on an online discussion group, Singapore Review).
I think a premium must be paid, because that is one way to lure the best. However, the current salaries seem a bit much (average salary of government minister--US$1.25m)
Sometimes it is good to get an external perspective on things. Other times, it is misleading. When a jet-setting Indian banker makes big proclamations about Singapore, its politics and its economy, after having lived only in a bubble of expense-account French wine and company-paid luxury apartments, it smacks of bias.
(For sure, I too don’t fully understand the challenges that many of my less well-off countrymen face.)
The irony? The well-heeled, sharp-tongued banker, having lived here for 6 months, will probably get much more air time from our government and its press than the fourth-generation Singaporean single mother in a 1-room HDB flat, her everyday a struggle.
Of course, it’s not just Indians from India who say these things. People from all over the world come here and say similar things. They’re just comparing life here as they see it with life as it was from where they came…only natural.
But that shouldn’t stop us from understanding the realities of life in Singapore, and trying our best to match up (and beat) the world’s best.
Monday, September 18, 2006
The Forbidden City
I quite enjoyed this musical.
So must our government. One of the underlying themes of the show is how an unregulated, untrammelled, free-wheeling media can distort the truth, and the chaos that distortion can cause.
Basically, English painter forms a close relationship with Empress Cixi. Empress opens up to her, sharing her life story. English painter relates all this to a sly English journalist who she's falling in love with. He happily humours the painter's infatuation as he writes a fantastic tale of an evil Empress mother murdering her son. This story gets broadcast, much to the chagrin of Empress and English painter.
English journalist goes on a long drawl about how his readers want something exciting and juicy, not the truth. The truth doesn't sell. And, also, about how he is part of a cunning international plot to destabilize China, on a mission from the Crown!
The free press, a dangerous institution indeed.
Other themes that were touched on: Orientalism, Historical narratives and powerplays. Also, the power of literarature versus painting:
One can share in the English painter's frustration, who after having completed a fine painting of the Empress, sees her attempt to portray this towering woman completely washed aside by the fibs the English journalist tells.
Hers is just a portrait, his a narrative long remembered, more easily reproduced.
So must our government. One of the underlying themes of the show is how an unregulated, untrammelled, free-wheeling media can distort the truth, and the chaos that distortion can cause.
Basically, English painter forms a close relationship with Empress Cixi. Empress opens up to her, sharing her life story. English painter relates all this to a sly English journalist who she's falling in love with. He happily humours the painter's infatuation as he writes a fantastic tale of an evil Empress mother murdering her son. This story gets broadcast, much to the chagrin of Empress and English painter.
English journalist goes on a long drawl about how his readers want something exciting and juicy, not the truth. The truth doesn't sell. And, also, about how he is part of a cunning international plot to destabilize China, on a mission from the Crown!
The free press, a dangerous institution indeed.
Other themes that were touched on: Orientalism, Historical narratives and powerplays. Also, the power of literarature versus painting:
One can share in the English painter's frustration, who after having completed a fine painting of the Empress, sees her attempt to portray this towering woman completely washed aside by the fibs the English journalist tells.
Hers is just a portrait, his a narrative long remembered, more easily reproduced.
Monday, September 11, 2006
random quote
"an insane asylum has lots of creative ideas, but you have to have management discipline to have a meritocracy of ideas"
Friday, August 25, 2006
The things that matter
In an article in The Straits Times Review today, Senior Writer Ong Soh Chin, gushing about Singapore, writes,
"There are few places in the world where the things that matter - transport, education, housing, health care - work as efficiently without having to pay an arm and a leg."
She is correct that we do provide those things cheaply. My question is - how did Ms. Ong decide what "the things that matter" in this world are? Is that her opinion? Her friends'? Our government's?
It would be prudent if our government - and its ardent orators - sometimes asked us what "the things that matter" are.
Rather than always telling us.
"There are few places in the world where the things that matter - transport, education, housing, health care - work as efficiently without having to pay an arm and a leg."
She is correct that we do provide those things cheaply. My question is - how did Ms. Ong decide what "the things that matter" in this world are? Is that her opinion? Her friends'? Our government's?
It would be prudent if our government - and its ardent orators - sometimes asked us what "the things that matter" are.
Rather than always telling us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)