11/4/19

INTRODUCTION

           On the tip of the Malaysian peninsula in Southeast Asia lies a peculiar little island. A former British colony that, on the surface, has become a western-style first world democracy. The city-state of Singapore has seen tremendous economic growth since its independence in 19651. It is seen as one of Asia’s main business and financial centers and it is also a key western ally in the Southeast Asian region. By most accounts, Singapore is a huge western success story, having embraced capitalism, democracy, foreign investment, and even the English language.

           Yet somehow, even with all of these rapid advancements, something is missing in Singapore. The government, supposedly democratic, is labeled by the Center for Systemic Peace’s “Polity Project2”  as a “closed anocracy” (a government which has some aspects of a democracy but remains “largely autocratic3”). The country has been under single party rule since the British left in the early ‘60s. Entitled the “People’s Action Party,” or PAP, the party has repeatedly marginalized opposition politicians4, heavily restricted freedom of assembly and speech5, and centralized control of the press6.

           I believe that this curious lack of press and other types freedom in Singapore is symptomatic of a cultural, political, and philosophical disparity between Singapore and the west which has been caused by a unique set of historical developments. I also argue the case for press freedom and consider how it may be achieved.

COLONIAL-ERA NEWS MEDIA IN SINGAPORE

In order to understand why the media landscape in Singapore has developed in the unique way that it has, it is useful to look at the city-state’s colonial history. Singapore’s current dominant newspaper, The Straits Times, was started as a newspaper which catered to colonial immigrants. Interestingly, the first ever edition of The Straits Times, published in 1845, espouses a very western-style philosophy toward news:

We need not seek out arguments in support of the unfettered liberty which the Press should possess, because there are few in whose breast a doubt is entertained respecting the benefits derived and derivable from Public Journalism. The Press is allowed to be ‘the fourth estates’ and … A knowledge of the fact that the Press is free serves to deepen the conviction that its end is fulfilled so long only as it upholds fearlessly the integrity of national institutions, laying bare to the eye whatever abuses spring up or exist … These are the primary uses of the Press, to which the communication of intelligence and miscellaneous information are merely secondary7.

The Straits Times was founded under “fourth estate” philosophy, as an entity which allows the people to monitor the actions of their government by providing accurate information and ensuring government transparency. This term is thought to have first been coined by Member of British Parliament Edmund Burke in 1787, who argued that the press was a “fourth estate” more important than any of the three estates of parliament: “in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there [sits] a Fourth Estate more important far than they all8.”

In the time following the Japanese occupation during World War II, journalism flourished in Singapore, with popular publications available in all of Singapore’s 4 ethnic languages9.

Singaporean communications expert Basskaran Nair theorizes that the British allowed ethnic news agencies to operate as a “deliberate attempt to encourage the ‘divide and rule’ policy in regards to the internal media structure10.” Because the ‘divide and rule’ method had been somewhat successful in the formation of maps, census, and museums11, the British likely believed that the press would be no different. In 1947, the Central News Agency catered to Chinese readers, the United Press of India to Indian readers, and the Antata News Agency to Malay readers12. In 1948, as a precaution, the British passed the “Printing and Presses Act,” which gave the colonial government the right to ban any publication that it considered to be harmful.

           The media during this period wasn’t only fragmented linguistically, it was also deeply fragmented in coverage, with the Chinese and Indian news focusing on domestic politics of their respective countries, and the Malay news focusing on Malayan issues in the region13. In 1950, this fragmentation came to a head during the Maria Hertogh incident. Maria Hertogh was a Dutch girl who had been adopted by Muslim parents. In 1950, a British judge ruled that she needed to be returned to her Dutch parents, and she was subsequently taken from her adopted Muslim parents and placed in a Christian convent.

The Malay newspapers stoked the anger of its readers by portraying the incident as a religious issue. One newspaper, the Dawn, even published a free edition that included inflammatory “open letters” to those involved in the incident. There was also a large discrepancy in the photographs shown of Maria Hertogh in the convent, with English newspapers showing smiling photos and the Malay papers showing photos of her weeping14. All of this inflammatory coverage caused mass rioting in the streets, prompting the British to declare emergency regulations. 9 died and over 100 were injured15.

The Chinese media was similarly inflammatory during this period. Even though the British used the Printing and Presses Act to ban some of the official Chinese newspapers that had spread communist sentiment in support of Mao’s new government, underground publications had sprung up in Chinese schools around Singapore. The colonial government was not equipped to deal with this development16. In 1954, when the British announced compulsory conscription for youths into the military, communist interests used their underground media structures to mobilize their network of students to violently protest. Said the colonial government:

“A critical press and support from left-wing elements gave impetus to building up a student movement17”

Clearly, British injection of the ‘divide and rule’ strategy into journalism and news media had been a catastrophic failure, turning sentiment against the colonial rulers.

NEWS MEDIA IN THE PEOPLES’ ACTION PARTY ERA

Having witnessed firsthand Singapore’s divisive ethnic media inciting riots, violence, and deepening the divides between Singapore’s ethnic communities, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was understandably very jaded when it came to journalism in Singapore:

What amazes me is that this powerful instrument does not require of its practitioners special professional training nor codes of conduct to govern them. You can be a journalist without understanding the impact on the minds of millions when you write smut and circulate it through millions of copies to literate and semi-literate people18.

                                                                    -Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew

Speech as Guest of Honor at Singapore Press Club, 1972

Lee took power in 1959 with the rise of the PAP, and the British officially left Singapore in 1963. Lee Kuan Yew had an alternative vision of the press that eschewed the idea of press as the “fourth estate:”

The mass media can help to present Singapore’s problems simply and clearly and then explain, how, if they support certain programs and policies, these problems can be solved. Most important, we want the mass media to reinforce, not to undermine, the cultural values and social attitudes being inculcated in our schools and universities19.

                                                                                  -Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, 1971

The reference to “certain programs and policies” that Lee makes here almost certainly refers to PAP policies, which journalists were expected to support under the new regime.

If journalists did not support PAP policies and PAP leadership, they faced consequences. The short-lived Singapore Herald, envisioned by its founders as a competitor to Singapore’s only English-language newspaper at the time, The Straits Times, did not even last one year in 1971 due to its publishing of occasional articles which were critical of the government. The Herald published letters from national servicemen complaining about camp conditions and regularly published news before the government had officially released it. To retaliate, the government pulled all advertising from the Herald, banned Herald reporters from press conferences, and refused to renew the work visas of its foreign journalists20. The newspaper’s publishing license went deliberately unrenewed21.

In another incident in 1971, a Straits Times journalist saw an ad in the paper encouraging Malaysians to enlist in the Singapore National Service. The journalist thought that was interesting because it would entitle enlisted Malaysians to Singaporean citizenship, so he wrote an article about this finding. The next day, government agents stormed the “Times House” headquarters and detained the journalist, asking him who had leaked the story, not believing that he had written it based on an ad. As a sort of ironic punishment, the journalist was forcibly re-enlisted in the National Service for two additional years even though he had already served for four22.

These and countless other government brushes with news media in Singapore have created a culture of “self-censorship” over the years, which has changed media’s role in Singapore from the “fourth estate” philosophy espoused the Straits Times’ founding issue into something much more reminiscent of Lee Kuan Yew’s 1971 imagining23. On top of this cultural aspect, the Singapore government has also established strong ties to all of the dominant media structures in the country, including Singapore Press Holdings (which owns the majority of Singapore’s newspapers24) and MediaCorp (the only free broadcaster in Singapore, a company which is evolved from the colonial state broadcasting unit)25. These factors contribute to Singapore’s abysmal press freedom score in international rankings26.

Remembering the media-perpetuated riots of the colonial era, the PAP usually cites something like ‘racial harmony and societal stability’ in explaining why the press is so regulated. It says that because media is unelected, it has no right to hold the political power that it does in western nations:

A  faith  in  the  media  as  Fourth  Estate  also  allows  the  media  to  become  a  powerful  political  actor,  despite  being  unelected. It can and often does make or break governments. It can and often does decide which party wins elections. It can and often does make politicians of all stripes fawn on media barons27.

                                                 -K. Shanmugam, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law, 2015

Detractors say that media regulation is a part of the PAP’s bid to maintain its heavily dominant power status in the Singapore government28.

WESTERN JOURNALISM VS ‘SINGAPOREAN JOURNALISM’

           To be fair, the criticisms brought up by Minister K. Shanmugam in articulating the PAP position on press freedom are valid ones, and any policy, even one which is universally lauded by advocacy groups and western governments, deserves to be scrutinized (note: “any policy deserves to be scrutinized” is a sentiment with which the PAP has often shown itself to disagree). I think that in this case, however, the PAP misunderstands the spirit of a free press policy while overstating potential problems that can arise from this policy.

Even though the Singapore government and the PAP supposedly have a track record for non-corruption29, nobody knows if this is truly the case because no professional journalists have been allowed to investigate government corruption in Singapore.

Speaking to the point that media is unelected, this is true, however in the west people do have power over which media sources they decide to read and which ones they deem to be credible. In this instance, the mass market gives people power over the media30.

A competitive news atmosphere means that while press barons do exist, they and their relationships with politicians regularly get called out and publicized by other news media31. In the example cited here, a New York Times journalist details Donald Trump’s relationship with press baron Rupert Murdoch. This type of coverage further informs the public as to the actions of their elected officials and as to which news sources might be credible or not. All of this means that, although there is no regulatory body which holds media to account in the west, the people and journalists themselves self-regulate the media.

Speaking to the points that news media can “make or break governments” and “decide which party wins elections,” I disagree. While news media has a huge influence over perceived legitimacy of governments and elections, major western news sources rarely invent stories for fear that they might lose their credibility, and with it, their audience and funding. What’s left for them to report then is facts and sometimes (hopefully on the opinion page) journalists’ opinions about these facts. Considering this, we see that governments “make or break” themselves through their own actions. The press can only report and opine on the government’s actions.

The point that news media can decide elections is unconvincing as well. Media is able to share opinions with people, but for those opinions to be influential, people need to agree with them — and agree with them in large enough numbers enough to influence the popular vote. This is how democratic discourse is designed to work.

Media can and often does show bias in non-opinion based coverage, but to make or break elections and governments, it needs source material to report on. This is even rings true for decidedly-malicious news sources. In 2016, news media funded by Russian operatives accurately exposed corruption in the top levels of America’s Democratic party32. This is not to say that Russian intervention is a positive, as fake news online related to foreign meddling has certainly become a problem. Usually, however, wherever fake news exists there is also corrective coverage available from more credible sources.

Also, outlets which regularly engage in excessive bias are often seen as less prestigious than outlets which have stricter objectivity standards33. A good example of this is the Wall Street Journal. The number one newspaper by circulation in the US, this publication is consistently rated to be one of America’s most objective and trustworthy news sources3435.

This is not to say that western media is perfect. The western news landscape is confusing, biased, and often-times contradictory. At times, it fuels division and is purposefully inflammatory and provocative because sensationalism has been shown to sell36. What’s more, it can be very difficult for the average westerner to discern fact from opinion because some journalists, those who do not hold themselves to a high standard of transparency and objectivity, discreetly mix their opinion in with fact in a way that is easy for the uncritical eye to miss.

Even with all of these crippling problems, however, a free press still gives citizens in the west the tools that they need to informedly self-govern, tools that Singaporeans currently lack. Says Burmese journalist Win Tin, “Freedom of information is the freedom that allows you to verify the existence of all the other freedoms37.”

CONCLUSION AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

The Singaporean government is afraid that if a free press policy were implemented in Singapore, it would facilitate a comeback of the divided, ethnic media structure of the colonial era. I think that this fear is misplaced. Singapore is a very different city today than it was in the ‘50s and ‘60s. The British ‘divide and rule’ strategy is long gone. Now, more than 83% of Singaporeans above the age of 15 speak English as a first or second language38. Meanwhile, more than 97% of Singaporeans are literate in at least one language39. This makes communication and discussion among the population much easier and more seamless. The increased homogeneity of language and high rate of education is a drastic change from the colonial era. Because of this, it is unlikely that a free press would become linguistically and ethnically fragmented like it did 60 years ago.

Singaporeans deserve the freedom to monitor what is going on in their government, voice their dissenting opinions, and influence the direction in which their own country progresses moving into the future.

Although little progress in this regard has been made in the field of journalism, the arts has successfully been able to push for decreased censorship and more freedom. When the film Singapore Rebel, produced by Martyn See, was investigated by Singapore police in 2005 for a possible violation of the Films Act, See thoroughly reported every step of the investigation on his blog. In response, a group of 11 Singaporean film producers openly petitioned the government to “clarify how the Films Act would be applied40.”

This story was soon picked up by international media, embarrassing the Singapore government and tarnishing its reputation abroad. By 2008, the Films Act was relaxed (although it was not repealed)41. Singapore often bills itself as a “small island with no natural resources,” a narrative which is pushed by the government with the subtext that foreign investment and political stability (read: PAP rule) are crucial for Singapore’s functioning economy42. Because of this, Singapore’s reputation and prestige abroad are deeply important to the PAP. The filmmakers took advantage of this fact by harnessing the internet and international media to embarrass the government. I believe that the same method can be used by Singaporeans to push for increased press freedom.

Some Singaporeans, such as political dissident Alex Tan, are already using the internet to push for increased press freedom, so it is possible that this trend is already in motion. It’s worth noting, however, that the government recently refused to renew Alex Tan’s passport, reportedly grounding him in Singapore43.

The future of Singapore remains bright, and it will only get brighter with an increase of public discourse that can now take place on the internet. However, with the threat of censorship still looming44, it’s time for the PAP to give up on its campaign to monopolize thought.