Expressing Freedom
A few weeks ago, I was with a group of peers at a "old-style kopi tiam" -type cafe discussing the issue of freedom of expression in Singapore. Some of them expressed the commonly-held belief that we, as a society, as a country, are not free when it comes to the media – since it is the government-controlled disseminator of political propaganda. I believe that we can and should look at this issue from a few perspectives: (1) Historical and Political; (2) Legal; (3) The Reality of a Free Press. (All references are cited at the bottom for readers to verify) (I apologise that this is a very long entry).
1. Historical and Political
In 1984 the government created a massive conglomerate known as the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) which controls all the newspapers in Singapore. It also installed Lim Kim San, a former PAP minister and president of Singapore, former chief of the Internal Security Department – Singapore’s dreaded secret police, and close associate of MM Lee (then PM), as the Chairman.
Management shares in SPH were issued to persons who were approved by the government, and they cannot be transferred without similar approval[1]. Naturally, editorial control rests in the hands of the PAP leadership, through its nominees. The government makes no apology for this. SM Goh reasons that the Western role of the press as an “adversarial watchdog of the government” is unsuitable for Singapore. He argues that the role of the press in Singapore is to help the ruling party “forge consensus”[2]. In summary, the press is not to engage in criticism of government officials and policy. This has also resulted in the selective coverage of opposition views in the newspapers.
These structures led the late David Marshall, former senior counsel and Chief Minister of Singapore, to characterise the Singapore press as “Either PAP wallahs or boot lickers… They are running dogs of the PAP and poor prostitutes.[3]”
However, to fully appreciate the rationale for these statements listed above, it is imperative that one consider Singapore’s historical development. Singapore was a British colony between the years of 1824 and 1963. In 1963, as part of her bid for independence, she merged with Malaysia. Independence from Malaysia was gained, rather unexpectedly, in 1965. As a result, Singapore was suddenly faced with various serious problems. The separation from Malaysia meant a loss of the potential common market, calling into question Singapore’s survival as a city-state. In addition, the Communists, who were a close ally in the run up to independence, now became a threat to the security of this infant and fragile state. Also, although the period of membership in Malaysia was brief, it had nevertheless given Singapore’s minority Malay population a taste and sense of its own interests and political significance as a community in the larger regional picture. These culminated in a series of very disruptive racial riots in 1960s. All this was further exacerbated by the prospect of sever loss of employment and national revenue with the British bringing forward its military withdrawal from Singapore.
Political
In order to ensure her survival, Singapore had to be quick to translate her historical conditions conceptually through the construction of a national ideology. The PAP government thematised the historical conditions into an ‘ideology of survival.’ First, if Singapore was to survive, the population must be transformed into a tightly organised and highly disciplined citizenry, all pulling together in the same direction with a sense of public spiritedness and self-sacrifice in the national interest[4]. Secondly, economic development at a national level and ‘making a living’ on the individual level was imperative.
Ideology
In spite of the Singapore government’s repeated claim that they are unencumbered by ideology[5], its ideological success, it is suggested[6], may be interpreted to fall within the neo-Marxist conception of the processes of ideological formation in the development of a new social order[7]. Marx suggested that after a revolutionary group has captured state power, the very first item on the political agenda is to ‘universalise’ the historically determined ideas and interests which have led to this group securing power[8]. This meeting of the government and the governed at the ideological level should result in a high degree of legitimacy for the government. In addition, where specific but effective coercion is used only against those who do not share the same normative value, a high degree of social stability will result.
It is further suggested that the new normative order will only come about if there is material comfort and development. Thus, it must necessarily be supported by the ruling government’s ability to improve the material life if these ideas and values are to retain its ideological currency[9]. Subsequent economic success will ‘validate’ and legitimise the ideological concepts themselves. SM Goh (then PM) said in an article in the local newspaper, “What they want is a good government which produces results,” “They want a government to concentrate on the basics, like better pay and lower cost of living, better neighbourhood schools for their children and better jobs. They want a safe, stable society, one good for their children to grow up in.”[10] PM Lee Hsien Loong (then Deputy PM) echoed this in his speech at the opening of the National Youth Seminar, “At the most fundamental level, the strategic challenges facing Singapore have not changed – to make a living for ourselves, to ensure the security of our homes and families, to build ourselves a better future in an uncertain world.”[11]
Pragmatism
Since the necessity of economic growth has been ideologically raised to the ‘only reality’, any process that contributed to economic growth was therefore ‘practical’, indeed ‘necessary’ for the survival of the nation state. The ideological effect of ‘Pragmatism’ generated a ‘crisis mentality’ in government and subsequently became the term used to gloss over government policy[12]. Pragmatism here refers to the more, colloquial meaning of the term – akin to a modern business man: worried about the “bottom line,” the “results,” not caught up in senseless philosophical hair-splitting[13].
After four successive clean sweeps in the general elections between 1968 and 1980, the PAP began to take the electorate’s support for granted, with apparent disregard of the latter’s sentiments or sensitivities. It saw its role in the notion of ‘trusteeship’ rather than to respond to people’s expressed preferences at any one time. SM Goh (then PM) said, “As a custodian of the people’s welfare, it exercises independent judgement on what is in the long-term interests of the people and acts on that basis.” This has entailed “administering bitter medicine to overcome economic challenges” and “tough policies necessary for economic development.” “With a comfortable majority and strong mandate, we have been able to take a long-term view in addressing our economic problems.”[14] Assured of its own ‘correctness’ and of the ‘necessity’ and ‘rationality’ for continuing economic growth, the government’s execution of its public policies was relentless. ‘We made tough but unpopular policies; became a refrain of the Party/government.’[15]
These policies were not to be without political costs. The rapid economic growth which had greatly improved their material life, and an annually replenished, better-educated voters with no experience of past economic and political struggles but a ‘keener awareness of the negative effect of an over-regulated society,’[16] led to PAP wining by a smaller majority then it had previously been used to in the 1984 elections. A post election survey showed that the result was a venting of deep dissatisfaction with the style of the PAP government, described as ‘arrogance of power, an inflexible bureaucracy, growing elitism, and the denial of consultation and citizen participation in decision-making[17].’
Obviously, the PAP’s approach based on ‘pragmatism’ to ensure ‘survival’, had lost much of its ideological currency. The need to establish a new ideological consensus with the electorate became an explicit item on the political agenda[18]. As a Minister said, “We just can’t always be telling them to compare their situation to that of the 50s and ask them to be grateful.’[19] The search for appropriate and effective replacement national ideology began with moral education through religious knowledge and Confucianism in schools, in the early 1980s. This subsequently failed and evolved into the currency of Shared Values and communitarianism.
In addition to this new ideology, in 1990, SM Goh (then Deputy PM) promised, as one of three goals for the 1990s, to “practise a more constructive, participatory-style democracy.” This “gentler” approach along with policies of consultation points towards an increase in the scope for freedom of speech and the right of political participation beyond the vote. Indeed, it can be seen as a slight shift in the conception of such rights from a more “negative” attitude to more “positive” terms, with the state facilitating and promoting its exercise.
Another feature of the neo-marxist conception of the processes of ideological formation is that moral leadership also underwrites the leaders’ ability to improve the economic well-being of the people[20]. This coincides with the PAP ‘confucianising’ itself, having failed to ‘confucianise’ the masses. As such, they believe themselves to be ‘honourable men’ or ‘junzi’. The epitome of this is in the then PM Goh’s proclaiming that ‘Lee Kuan Yew is a modern Confucius.’[21]
Along with these methods, a hegemony/consensus relationship develops between the government and the governed. Here, those who delineate will be brought ‘back into check’, while those who abide by the new order results in a condition of ‘high consensus’[22]. The depth of ideological hegemony/consensus of the PAP government was clearly evident in the common sense of the population as reflected in its electoral popularity. This process can be clearly observed in Singapore’s political climate, and has led to Singapore being described by some as ‘The Air-Conditioned Nation’[23] – possessing a society with a unique blend of comfort and central control[24].
No one can deny that our government has managed to transform all the political and security threats that we encountered in the early years and made Singapore into the success that it is. It is within this context of preventing those kinds of turmoil from repeating themselves that we, as a nation, have the regulations and restrictions in place – that’s what they have been predicated upon. Being such a small national, we are clearly more vulnerable to such incidences completely destabilising the entire country and undoing all the good work that our forefathers have toiled all and hard for. I believe that this rationale is sound and most of us would accept it.
2. Legal
Although it has been said that the concept of “freedom” is not strong in the Singaporean imagination[25], the founding document and supreme law of Singapore, the Constitution, explicitly set out to create fundamental liberties and freedoms. What follows are some explanation of the Constitution of Singapore with specific attention being devoted to Freedom of Speech and both the formal and informal ways in which this right is regulated. It will be apparent that although her political and legal philosophies may differ, Singapore’s approach to human rights in practice is not very much different from its western counterparts e.g UK and the US.
The Constitution of Singapore
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore was drafted by the departing British and was adopted upon independence in 1965. Parts II and III declare Singapore as a sovereign republic and seeks to protect that sovereignty. However, the Constitution goes much further to declare freedom at a personal level[26]. Part IV includes fundamental liberties or freedoms of: (1) liberty of person and the prohibition of slavery (Art 9 and 10); (2) freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, descent or place of birth (Art 12); (3) freedom of movement and the right to remain in Singapore (Art 13); (4) freedom of speech, assembly and association (Art 14); and (5) freedom of religion. These rights work together to create a sphere within which individual citizens are assured of certain freedoms.
There are however some points of note which are worthy of discussion here. The provision of these freedoms are far from being unique to Singapore. There are many counterparts in other constitutions, especially those granted independence by the British in the post-World War II period and those having adopted the “Westminster” style of government. The provisions here also have some correspondence with the provisions contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights. This may indicate that Singapore, although having not ratified any of the international conventions on civil and political rights subsequent to the UDHR, is committed to the protection of human rights. This can be seen by the fact that Singapore has chosen to maintain the Constitution as it was drafted by the British while breaking bonds with another symbol of its colonial past – Privy Council – abolishing it as the highest court of appeal in 1994. The significance of this can also be seen to provide evidence that Singapore does not view ‘culture’ as stagnant, and is willing to embrace at least some characteristics of its colonial heritage.
Secondly, it should be noted that the rights contained in Singapore Constitution are “negative” in nature. This means that they act to prohibit the state from interference, rather than impose duties upon the state to actively assist in its promotion as in the case of “positively” formulated rights.
Thirdly, it is notable that the Constitution not only creates these fundamental liberties, but it also qualifies them. It is explicit that the fundamental liberties in the Constitution are not meant to be absolute. It must be remembered that this does not mean that they are not held to be universal. The latter is in relation to its existence, the former, extent and limits. Thus, the criticism levelled against Singapore in this area is that the rights are more tightly circumscribed than in other societies. However, it must be observed that even in countries where there are no explicit qualifications in their human rights documents, implicit restraints have been deemed warranted. The approach in America provides a case in point. Freedom of speech (formulated in more or less absolute terms) is liberally applied to public officials and figures. It extends to excuse mistakes made by the press and statements that would, under Singapore law, be defamatory. Even so, the American exercise of freedom is not absolute, no matter how the rhetoric of rights resounds. A qualification is implied. In relation to public officials, the press in America can be sued if there was actual malice in the making of a defamatory statement. As such, it is clear that limits, whether broader or narrower, are found and enforced in this area in all societies, irrespective of whether the freedoms are written into the Constitutions in absolute or qualified terms.
Formal Qualifications to Freedom of Speech
Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution provides: “(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations. (2) Parliament may by law impose… such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence…” (emphasis mine)
Security
The Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secrets Acts are relevant here. These, as mentioned above, give the government far-reaching powers to detain, without trial, anyone deemed to be a threat to Singapore’s national security. It should firstly be remembered that these two pieces of legislation were vestiges of Singapore’s colonial past. Secondly, it must be noted that these laws are still not unique to Singapore – every country has laws in place to prevent the sharing of national secrets. Thirdly, as mentioned above, during the early years of Singapore’s development as a nation-state, the government faced many problems with the communist rebels trying to cause chaos. It was in this state of ‘emergency’ that these laws were exercised. It is worthy of note that the ISA has not been exercised by the Singapore government since the 1980s.
The aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the World Trade Centre, known as 9/11, has seen the enactment of the so-called Patriot Act and other measures which bear a uncanny resemblance to the laws in Singapore in this area[27]. This is ironic considering these laws have been previously criticised in the United States as well as other Western democracies.
Press Control
The Controls of the press in Singapore operate at two levels: (1) the older and more common are the various licensing and national security laws. Press laws inherited from the British require all newspapers to be licensed[28]. These licences can be revoked at any time, effectively killing the publication. Journalists must also beware the ISA, under which they can be detained indefinitely without trial. They can be fined or jailed if they are found to be in contempt of court. The Official Secrets Act deters reporters from acting on leaks in information, while libel laws compel them to take extreme care with any information that could hurt an official’s reputation.
The government has not been trigger-happy in its use of the almost limitless powers it possesses; they prefer to have the editors independently come to the right conclusions[29]. This is where the second level of controls come in. Singapore’s press system is not sustained just by coercion, but by consent. At the corporate level, publishers can hardly complain about the PAP’s press model. MM Lee understood perfectly that the media business is, first and foremost, a business: that a press allowed to make money out of a system will support that system; and that publishers value their bottom-line more highly than they do their editorial freedom[30]. Thus in 1984, the SPH was formed giving it a monopoly of the newspaper market. This resulted in making SPH one of the most profitable newspaper companies in the world[31]. Furthermore, by granting them attractive par and bonuses, and stock option schemes, journalists in the national press have little incentive to jump ship to an anti-government vehicle, even if one existed[32].
The editorial positions of the national press have been described variously as prostitution and self-censorship, but editors believe they are practising responsible and intellectually-honest journalism. Editors see the press as having both a contributing role and a vested interest in Singapore’s success. Their support for the ruling party and its programmes is significant and seems genuine. They point to the PAP’s record of good government, and say that it does not warrant the kind of negatively and cynicism that is second nature to journalists in many other countries. Indeed, the PAP does not just deliver on its threats; it also delivers on its promises[33].
3. The Reality of a Free Press
The fact that the press has particular political leanings should not come as too much of a surprise. It is submitted that the very notion of a ‘free press’ is questionable. Even in the UK, where such values are claimed to be valued much higher, newspapers are not entirely independent. The Telegraph, for example, is commonly referred to as the Tory-graph, for its Conservative tendencies. In fact, the only national daily that has an official editorial policy which is politically non-aligned is the Independent.
Proprietors of newspapers do tend to exercise editorial control on political grounds. Under the current legal provisions, they are free to be fair and balanced if they want to be, but they are not under an obligation to.
The PAP, unlike most authoritarian regimes, does not suppress the press in order to cover up corruption or hide its mistakes. It does so out of a conviction that the press has a narrow and short-term view of the public interest, and that this can obstruct good government. Unlike the classic liberal formulation, where the press is seen as a pure expression of democracy, in the Singapore model the elected government is the embodiment of democratic expression. The government, thus expresses the will of the people, and must be protected from the unelected press, which is prone to being swayed by private commercial interests, narrow ideological missions, or the journalists’ inflated egos[34]. Cherian says that:
“The PAP therefore maintains that the press should be independent, but subordinate to an elected government. In practice, this means that the tone of stories is crucially important. Stories can be critical, but must be respectful towards the country’s leaders. They cannot ridicule or lampoon, or erode public respect for those in office. If disagreement persists, it is the government’s duty to make a final decision, and journalists should not use their access to the public to continue plugging their contrary point of view. If they do, they would be judged to be engaging in politics, the proper place for which is in the electoral battleground[35].”
It may come to as a surprise to many, especially Singapore’s critiques, that in the pages of The Straits Times, more than anywhere else, is where Singaporeans read alternative views and participate in public debate[36]. One clear evidence of the newspaper’s freedom to report and the government’s second level controls at work, can be seen in the way the Straits Times reported on the case of Francis Seow, the former leader of the Law Society and opposition candidate now living in the US after having been convicted in absentia on tax charges. In his semi-autobiographical book, To Catch a Tartar, gives this account of his trial for tax evasion:
“They (the income tax authorities) rudely served me with summons to appear before the subordinate courts to answer six alleged tax evasion charges, when only 14 days into the aforesaid period of 35 days (originally given to him) had barely elapsed… It was most irregular.”
Seow goes on to allege that, but not substantiate, executive interference in speeding up his prosecution.
Given that many imagine the Straits Times is a government-controlled press that does not have any freedom, it would be expected that there was a suppression of all facts that might support allegations of irregularity. However, this did not occur. An article in the Straits Times 17 March 1998 contains a statement by Seow’s counsel that the tax authorities “instead of waiting… slapped charges on my client .” Also, in an article titled “Magistrate Grants 3-week Adjournment Then Reverses Decision”, reported was the fact that the court’s recall of Seow and changing the dates of the proceedings. As such, there does not seem to be very much different between Seow’s “free” account and that of the apparently “government-controlled” Straits Times reported account. The newspapers did not give an opinion on what Seow saw as “rude” or “irregular”, but all the essential facts were present. Its reports also did not make allegations of political mechanisms were used to effect the outcome. Attention was drawn to the fact that the initial decision was changed, along with the reasons given. In fact, its arguable that the Straits Times' account was more free of bias than Seow's. From the information given, readers would be able to draw their own conclusions.
An American Example
This was an interesting series of videos I found on YouTube called “OutFoxed” which, despite targeting the Fox news network owned by Rupert Murdock, is really about how ALL media in America (no less) is biased. I place them here for anyone who is interested to view and also to dispel the belief that the seemingly free media as is perceived to exist in America is better and desirable in Singapore. Enjoy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hkh853zz3Bg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GF2LramU0ew
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0kDGKW5CSGk
Unfortunately, these are the very things (cast as objectivity) that we hope we have in Singapore news (i.e. criticisms of politicians).Although all they are doing is promoting one political ideology while putting the other down.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=trwzGWtuUMs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JjgZlHCldBo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SKiAXCVKBfE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ucoo1Mdo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eo_9EZh-9aU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jqak4B2p6g
One comment that I thought was particular thought provoking was that of a commentator stating that the reason why Fox is so effective in promoting propaganda is because people don’t realise or suspect it. The irony is that in Singapore, the majority of people mistakenly believe that everything is propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhF84BEtbyE
It seems that everyone of the news stations in America “fell” in line to declare Bush the winner of the presidential election in 2000 (despite the available information being allegedly inconclusive) could be interpreted to suggest that all the news stations are guilty of bias. This would then seem to suggest that it is so common place (even in countries with a supposedly free media) that the accusations being levelled at the Singapore media is completely unfounded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZp0ftiZg2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Wu7_TE5Wg
This video suggests again that ALL of America’s are falling in line and following the lead of Fox news. ALL of them are politically biased in favour of the American government (the Republicans). Of course this could be (as they suggest) because there’s a lot of money to be made by doing so, or that that is precisely what the MAJORITY of the American people want to hear. You decide. But whichever way you decide, don’t make the mistake of thinking that any media is objective, or that they are better than Singapore’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiONYN3dJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3u-zOYi6g
End Notes:
[1] Tan, T.L., 1990, The Singapore Press: Freedom, Responsibility and Credibility, Times, 6.
[2] Sunday Review, 16 July 1995, “How The Press Can Best Serve Singapore? Be Fair, Be Trusthful, Be Part of a Virtuous Cycle.”
[3] Tay, S.C., 2004, Imagining Freedom, Eastern University Press, 98.
[4] Chua, B.H., 1995, Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, Routledge, 18.
[5] Some of the contradictions of policies implemented by the Singapore government may lend support to the claim of an absence of ideological commitment over a sustained period of time.
[6] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 1.
[7] This does not surprise some observers as they remember that the PAP was in coalition with communists during its initial ascendancy to power, and party leaders have admitted to having learnt some valuable lessons from them.
[8] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 2.
[9] Ibid., 3.
[10] Straits Times, 29 Dec 1994, “There are limits to openness”.
[11] George, C., 2001, Singapre: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark, 16.
[12] Ibid., 19.
[13] Ibid., 229.
[14] Ibid., 18.
[15] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 20.
[16] Ibid., 23.
[17] Ibid., 21.
[18] Ibid., 11.
[19] Straits Times, 19 Sept 1984.
[20] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 3.
[21] Straits Times, 24 Apr 1990.
[22] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 3.
[23] This description of Singapore is derived from comments made by Singapore’s former Prime Minister, Lee Kwan Yew when the Wall Street Journal asked several 20th Century luminaries to pick the most influential invention of the millennium. He named the air-conditioner. “The humber air-conditioner has changed the lives of people in the tropical regions,” he said. “Before air-con, mental concentration and with it the quality of work deteriorated as the day got hotter and more humid.. Historically, advanced civilisations have flourished in the cooler climates. Now, lifestyles have become comparable to those in temperate zones and civilisation in the tropical zones need no longer lag behind.” (Cherian, G., 2001, Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark Books,14)
[24] Cherian, G., 2001, Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark Books, 15.
[25] Tay, S.C., Op Cit., n.21, 81.
[26] The two different levels correspond to the government being empowered to take charge of the nation-state (national level) and the individual being empowered to resist that same government in respect of the declared areas of personal freedom (personal level). These are seen as interlocking each other.
[27] Tay, S.C., Op Cit., n.21, 87.
[28] Although there is now no longer the requirement in the UK that newspapers or printing presses be licenced.
[29] Newspaper editors are expected to have an instinctive grasp of Singapore’s national interests and how to protect them. They interact regularly with cabinet ministers to keep these instincts honed.
[30] George, C., Op Cit., n.71, 67.
[31] SPH was expected to make net profits of around S$375 million in the financial year ending in Aug 2000. Net profits in the half-year to Feb 2000 were slightly over S$200 million, on turnover of S$493 million.
[32] George, C., Op Cit., n.71, 68.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid. 69.
[35] Ibid., 70.
[36] Ibid.
A few weeks ago, I was with a group of peers at a "old-style kopi tiam" -type cafe discussing the issue of freedom of expression in Singapore. Some of them expressed the commonly-held belief that we, as a society, as a country, are not free when it comes to the media – since it is the government-controlled disseminator of political propaganda. I believe that we can and should look at this issue from a few perspectives: (1) Historical and Political; (2) Legal; (3) The Reality of a Free Press. (All references are cited at the bottom for readers to verify) (I apologise that this is a very long entry).
1. Historical and Political
In 1984 the government created a massive conglomerate known as the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) which controls all the newspapers in Singapore. It also installed Lim Kim San, a former PAP minister and president of Singapore, former chief of the Internal Security Department – Singapore’s dreaded secret police, and close associate of MM Lee (then PM), as the Chairman.
Management shares in SPH were issued to persons who were approved by the government, and they cannot be transferred without similar approval[1]. Naturally, editorial control rests in the hands of the PAP leadership, through its nominees. The government makes no apology for this. SM Goh reasons that the Western role of the press as an “adversarial watchdog of the government” is unsuitable for Singapore. He argues that the role of the press in Singapore is to help the ruling party “forge consensus”[2]. In summary, the press is not to engage in criticism of government officials and policy. This has also resulted in the selective coverage of opposition views in the newspapers.
These structures led the late David Marshall, former senior counsel and Chief Minister of Singapore, to characterise the Singapore press as “Either PAP wallahs or boot lickers… They are running dogs of the PAP and poor prostitutes.[3]”
However, to fully appreciate the rationale for these statements listed above, it is imperative that one consider Singapore’s historical development. Singapore was a British colony between the years of 1824 and 1963. In 1963, as part of her bid for independence, she merged with Malaysia. Independence from Malaysia was gained, rather unexpectedly, in 1965. As a result, Singapore was suddenly faced with various serious problems. The separation from Malaysia meant a loss of the potential common market, calling into question Singapore’s survival as a city-state. In addition, the Communists, who were a close ally in the run up to independence, now became a threat to the security of this infant and fragile state. Also, although the period of membership in Malaysia was brief, it had nevertheless given Singapore’s minority Malay population a taste and sense of its own interests and political significance as a community in the larger regional picture. These culminated in a series of very disruptive racial riots in 1960s. All this was further exacerbated by the prospect of sever loss of employment and national revenue with the British bringing forward its military withdrawal from Singapore.
Political
In order to ensure her survival, Singapore had to be quick to translate her historical conditions conceptually through the construction of a national ideology. The PAP government thematised the historical conditions into an ‘ideology of survival.’ First, if Singapore was to survive, the population must be transformed into a tightly organised and highly disciplined citizenry, all pulling together in the same direction with a sense of public spiritedness and self-sacrifice in the national interest[4]. Secondly, economic development at a national level and ‘making a living’ on the individual level was imperative.
Ideology
In spite of the Singapore government’s repeated claim that they are unencumbered by ideology[5], its ideological success, it is suggested[6], may be interpreted to fall within the neo-Marxist conception of the processes of ideological formation in the development of a new social order[7]. Marx suggested that after a revolutionary group has captured state power, the very first item on the political agenda is to ‘universalise’ the historically determined ideas and interests which have led to this group securing power[8]. This meeting of the government and the governed at the ideological level should result in a high degree of legitimacy for the government. In addition, where specific but effective coercion is used only against those who do not share the same normative value, a high degree of social stability will result.
It is further suggested that the new normative order will only come about if there is material comfort and development. Thus, it must necessarily be supported by the ruling government’s ability to improve the material life if these ideas and values are to retain its ideological currency[9]. Subsequent economic success will ‘validate’ and legitimise the ideological concepts themselves. SM Goh (then PM) said in an article in the local newspaper, “What they want is a good government which produces results,” “They want a government to concentrate on the basics, like better pay and lower cost of living, better neighbourhood schools for their children and better jobs. They want a safe, stable society, one good for their children to grow up in.”[10] PM Lee Hsien Loong (then Deputy PM) echoed this in his speech at the opening of the National Youth Seminar, “At the most fundamental level, the strategic challenges facing Singapore have not changed – to make a living for ourselves, to ensure the security of our homes and families, to build ourselves a better future in an uncertain world.”[11]
Pragmatism
Since the necessity of economic growth has been ideologically raised to the ‘only reality’, any process that contributed to economic growth was therefore ‘practical’, indeed ‘necessary’ for the survival of the nation state. The ideological effect of ‘Pragmatism’ generated a ‘crisis mentality’ in government and subsequently became the term used to gloss over government policy[12]. Pragmatism here refers to the more, colloquial meaning of the term – akin to a modern business man: worried about the “bottom line,” the “results,” not caught up in senseless philosophical hair-splitting[13].
After four successive clean sweeps in the general elections between 1968 and 1980, the PAP began to take the electorate’s support for granted, with apparent disregard of the latter’s sentiments or sensitivities. It saw its role in the notion of ‘trusteeship’ rather than to respond to people’s expressed preferences at any one time. SM Goh (then PM) said, “As a custodian of the people’s welfare, it exercises independent judgement on what is in the long-term interests of the people and acts on that basis.” This has entailed “administering bitter medicine to overcome economic challenges” and “tough policies necessary for economic development.” “With a comfortable majority and strong mandate, we have been able to take a long-term view in addressing our economic problems.”[14] Assured of its own ‘correctness’ and of the ‘necessity’ and ‘rationality’ for continuing economic growth, the government’s execution of its public policies was relentless. ‘We made tough but unpopular policies; became a refrain of the Party/government.’[15]
These policies were not to be without political costs. The rapid economic growth which had greatly improved their material life, and an annually replenished, better-educated voters with no experience of past economic and political struggles but a ‘keener awareness of the negative effect of an over-regulated society,’[16] led to PAP wining by a smaller majority then it had previously been used to in the 1984 elections. A post election survey showed that the result was a venting of deep dissatisfaction with the style of the PAP government, described as ‘arrogance of power, an inflexible bureaucracy, growing elitism, and the denial of consultation and citizen participation in decision-making[17].’
Obviously, the PAP’s approach based on ‘pragmatism’ to ensure ‘survival’, had lost much of its ideological currency. The need to establish a new ideological consensus with the electorate became an explicit item on the political agenda[18]. As a Minister said, “We just can’t always be telling them to compare their situation to that of the 50s and ask them to be grateful.’[19] The search for appropriate and effective replacement national ideology began with moral education through religious knowledge and Confucianism in schools, in the early 1980s. This subsequently failed and evolved into the currency of Shared Values and communitarianism.
In addition to this new ideology, in 1990, SM Goh (then Deputy PM) promised, as one of three goals for the 1990s, to “practise a more constructive, participatory-style democracy.” This “gentler” approach along with policies of consultation points towards an increase in the scope for freedom of speech and the right of political participation beyond the vote. Indeed, it can be seen as a slight shift in the conception of such rights from a more “negative” attitude to more “positive” terms, with the state facilitating and promoting its exercise.
Another feature of the neo-marxist conception of the processes of ideological formation is that moral leadership also underwrites the leaders’ ability to improve the economic well-being of the people[20]. This coincides with the PAP ‘confucianising’ itself, having failed to ‘confucianise’ the masses. As such, they believe themselves to be ‘honourable men’ or ‘junzi’. The epitome of this is in the then PM Goh’s proclaiming that ‘Lee Kuan Yew is a modern Confucius.’[21]
Along with these methods, a hegemony/consensus relationship develops between the government and the governed. Here, those who delineate will be brought ‘back into check’, while those who abide by the new order results in a condition of ‘high consensus’[22]. The depth of ideological hegemony/consensus of the PAP government was clearly evident in the common sense of the population as reflected in its electoral popularity. This process can be clearly observed in Singapore’s political climate, and has led to Singapore being described by some as ‘The Air-Conditioned Nation’[23] – possessing a society with a unique blend of comfort and central control[24].
No one can deny that our government has managed to transform all the political and security threats that we encountered in the early years and made Singapore into the success that it is. It is within this context of preventing those kinds of turmoil from repeating themselves that we, as a nation, have the regulations and restrictions in place – that’s what they have been predicated upon. Being such a small national, we are clearly more vulnerable to such incidences completely destabilising the entire country and undoing all the good work that our forefathers have toiled all and hard for. I believe that this rationale is sound and most of us would accept it.
2. Legal
Although it has been said that the concept of “freedom” is not strong in the Singaporean imagination[25], the founding document and supreme law of Singapore, the Constitution, explicitly set out to create fundamental liberties and freedoms. What follows are some explanation of the Constitution of Singapore with specific attention being devoted to Freedom of Speech and both the formal and informal ways in which this right is regulated. It will be apparent that although her political and legal philosophies may differ, Singapore’s approach to human rights in practice is not very much different from its western counterparts e.g UK and the US.
The Constitution of Singapore
The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore was drafted by the departing British and was adopted upon independence in 1965. Parts II and III declare Singapore as a sovereign republic and seeks to protect that sovereignty. However, the Constitution goes much further to declare freedom at a personal level[26]. Part IV includes fundamental liberties or freedoms of: (1) liberty of person and the prohibition of slavery (Art 9 and 10); (2) freedom from discrimination on the grounds of race, religion, descent or place of birth (Art 12); (3) freedom of movement and the right to remain in Singapore (Art 13); (4) freedom of speech, assembly and association (Art 14); and (5) freedom of religion. These rights work together to create a sphere within which individual citizens are assured of certain freedoms.
There are however some points of note which are worthy of discussion here. The provision of these freedoms are far from being unique to Singapore. There are many counterparts in other constitutions, especially those granted independence by the British in the post-World War II period and those having adopted the “Westminster” style of government. The provisions here also have some correspondence with the provisions contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights. This may indicate that Singapore, although having not ratified any of the international conventions on civil and political rights subsequent to the UDHR, is committed to the protection of human rights. This can be seen by the fact that Singapore has chosen to maintain the Constitution as it was drafted by the British while breaking bonds with another symbol of its colonial past – Privy Council – abolishing it as the highest court of appeal in 1994. The significance of this can also be seen to provide evidence that Singapore does not view ‘culture’ as stagnant, and is willing to embrace at least some characteristics of its colonial heritage.
Secondly, it should be noted that the rights contained in Singapore Constitution are “negative” in nature. This means that they act to prohibit the state from interference, rather than impose duties upon the state to actively assist in its promotion as in the case of “positively” formulated rights.
Thirdly, it is notable that the Constitution not only creates these fundamental liberties, but it also qualifies them. It is explicit that the fundamental liberties in the Constitution are not meant to be absolute. It must be remembered that this does not mean that they are not held to be universal. The latter is in relation to its existence, the former, extent and limits. Thus, the criticism levelled against Singapore in this area is that the rights are more tightly circumscribed than in other societies. However, it must be observed that even in countries where there are no explicit qualifications in their human rights documents, implicit restraints have been deemed warranted. The approach in America provides a case in point. Freedom of speech (formulated in more or less absolute terms) is liberally applied to public officials and figures. It extends to excuse mistakes made by the press and statements that would, under Singapore law, be defamatory. Even so, the American exercise of freedom is not absolute, no matter how the rhetoric of rights resounds. A qualification is implied. In relation to public officials, the press in America can be sued if there was actual malice in the making of a defamatory statement. As such, it is clear that limits, whether broader or narrower, are found and enforced in this area in all societies, irrespective of whether the freedoms are written into the Constitutions in absolute or qualified terms.
Formal Qualifications to Freedom of Speech
Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution provides: “(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression; (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations. (2) Parliament may by law impose… such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence…” (emphasis mine)
Security
The Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Official Secrets Acts are relevant here. These, as mentioned above, give the government far-reaching powers to detain, without trial, anyone deemed to be a threat to Singapore’s national security. It should firstly be remembered that these two pieces of legislation were vestiges of Singapore’s colonial past. Secondly, it must be noted that these laws are still not unique to Singapore – every country has laws in place to prevent the sharing of national secrets. Thirdly, as mentioned above, during the early years of Singapore’s development as a nation-state, the government faced many problems with the communist rebels trying to cause chaos. It was in this state of ‘emergency’ that these laws were exercised. It is worthy of note that the ISA has not been exercised by the Singapore government since the 1980s.
The aftermath of the terrorist attacks in the United States on the World Trade Centre, known as 9/11, has seen the enactment of the so-called Patriot Act and other measures which bear a uncanny resemblance to the laws in Singapore in this area[27]. This is ironic considering these laws have been previously criticised in the United States as well as other Western democracies.
Press Control
The Controls of the press in Singapore operate at two levels: (1) the older and more common are the various licensing and national security laws. Press laws inherited from the British require all newspapers to be licensed[28]. These licences can be revoked at any time, effectively killing the publication. Journalists must also beware the ISA, under which they can be detained indefinitely without trial. They can be fined or jailed if they are found to be in contempt of court. The Official Secrets Act deters reporters from acting on leaks in information, while libel laws compel them to take extreme care with any information that could hurt an official’s reputation.
The government has not been trigger-happy in its use of the almost limitless powers it possesses; they prefer to have the editors independently come to the right conclusions[29]. This is where the second level of controls come in. Singapore’s press system is not sustained just by coercion, but by consent. At the corporate level, publishers can hardly complain about the PAP’s press model. MM Lee understood perfectly that the media business is, first and foremost, a business: that a press allowed to make money out of a system will support that system; and that publishers value their bottom-line more highly than they do their editorial freedom[30]. Thus in 1984, the SPH was formed giving it a monopoly of the newspaper market. This resulted in making SPH one of the most profitable newspaper companies in the world[31]. Furthermore, by granting them attractive par and bonuses, and stock option schemes, journalists in the national press have little incentive to jump ship to an anti-government vehicle, even if one existed[32].
The editorial positions of the national press have been described variously as prostitution and self-censorship, but editors believe they are practising responsible and intellectually-honest journalism. Editors see the press as having both a contributing role and a vested interest in Singapore’s success. Their support for the ruling party and its programmes is significant and seems genuine. They point to the PAP’s record of good government, and say that it does not warrant the kind of negatively and cynicism that is second nature to journalists in many other countries. Indeed, the PAP does not just deliver on its threats; it also delivers on its promises[33].
3. The Reality of a Free Press
The fact that the press has particular political leanings should not come as too much of a surprise. It is submitted that the very notion of a ‘free press’ is questionable. Even in the UK, where such values are claimed to be valued much higher, newspapers are not entirely independent. The Telegraph, for example, is commonly referred to as the Tory-graph, for its Conservative tendencies. In fact, the only national daily that has an official editorial policy which is politically non-aligned is the Independent.
Proprietors of newspapers do tend to exercise editorial control on political grounds. Under the current legal provisions, they are free to be fair and balanced if they want to be, but they are not under an obligation to.
The PAP, unlike most authoritarian regimes, does not suppress the press in order to cover up corruption or hide its mistakes. It does so out of a conviction that the press has a narrow and short-term view of the public interest, and that this can obstruct good government. Unlike the classic liberal formulation, where the press is seen as a pure expression of democracy, in the Singapore model the elected government is the embodiment of democratic expression. The government, thus expresses the will of the people, and must be protected from the unelected press, which is prone to being swayed by private commercial interests, narrow ideological missions, or the journalists’ inflated egos[34]. Cherian says that:
“The PAP therefore maintains that the press should be independent, but subordinate to an elected government. In practice, this means that the tone of stories is crucially important. Stories can be critical, but must be respectful towards the country’s leaders. They cannot ridicule or lampoon, or erode public respect for those in office. If disagreement persists, it is the government’s duty to make a final decision, and journalists should not use their access to the public to continue plugging their contrary point of view. If they do, they would be judged to be engaging in politics, the proper place for which is in the electoral battleground[35].”
It may come to as a surprise to many, especially Singapore’s critiques, that in the pages of The Straits Times, more than anywhere else, is where Singaporeans read alternative views and participate in public debate[36]. One clear evidence of the newspaper’s freedom to report and the government’s second level controls at work, can be seen in the way the Straits Times reported on the case of Francis Seow, the former leader of the Law Society and opposition candidate now living in the US after having been convicted in absentia on tax charges. In his semi-autobiographical book, To Catch a Tartar, gives this account of his trial for tax evasion:
“They (the income tax authorities) rudely served me with summons to appear before the subordinate courts to answer six alleged tax evasion charges, when only 14 days into the aforesaid period of 35 days (originally given to him) had barely elapsed… It was most irregular.”
Seow goes on to allege that, but not substantiate, executive interference in speeding up his prosecution.
Given that many imagine the Straits Times is a government-controlled press that does not have any freedom, it would be expected that there was a suppression of all facts that might support allegations of irregularity. However, this did not occur. An article in the Straits Times 17 March 1998 contains a statement by Seow’s counsel that the tax authorities “instead of waiting… slapped charges on my client .” Also, in an article titled “Magistrate Grants 3-week Adjournment Then Reverses Decision”, reported was the fact that the court’s recall of Seow and changing the dates of the proceedings. As such, there does not seem to be very much different between Seow’s “free” account and that of the apparently “government-controlled” Straits Times reported account. The newspapers did not give an opinion on what Seow saw as “rude” or “irregular”, but all the essential facts were present. Its reports also did not make allegations of political mechanisms were used to effect the outcome. Attention was drawn to the fact that the initial decision was changed, along with the reasons given. In fact, its arguable that the Straits Times' account was more free of bias than Seow's. From the information given, readers would be able to draw their own conclusions.
An American Example
This was an interesting series of videos I found on YouTube called “OutFoxed” which, despite targeting the Fox news network owned by Rupert Murdock, is really about how ALL media in America (no less) is biased. I place them here for anyone who is interested to view and also to dispel the belief that the seemingly free media as is perceived to exist in America is better and desirable in Singapore. Enjoy.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Hkh853zz3Bg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GF2LramU0ew
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0kDGKW5CSGk
Unfortunately, these are the very things (cast as objectivity) that we hope we have in Singapore news (i.e. criticisms of politicians).Although all they are doing is promoting one political ideology while putting the other down.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=trwzGWtuUMs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JjgZlHCldBo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SKiAXCVKBfE
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X-6ucoo1Mdo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Eo_9EZh-9aU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Jqak4B2p6g
One comment that I thought was particular thought provoking was that of a commentator stating that the reason why Fox is so effective in promoting propaganda is because people don’t realise or suspect it. The irony is that in Singapore, the majority of people mistakenly believe that everything is propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhF84BEtbyE
It seems that everyone of the news stations in America “fell” in line to declare Bush the winner of the presidential election in 2000 (despite the available information being allegedly inconclusive) could be interpreted to suggest that all the news stations are guilty of bias. This would then seem to suggest that it is so common place (even in countries with a supposedly free media) that the accusations being levelled at the Singapore media is completely unfounded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZp0ftiZg2c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Wu7_TE5Wg
This video suggests again that ALL of America’s are falling in line and following the lead of Fox news. ALL of them are politically biased in favour of the American government (the Republicans). Of course this could be (as they suggest) because there’s a lot of money to be made by doing so, or that that is precisely what the MAJORITY of the American people want to hear. You decide. But whichever way you decide, don’t make the mistake of thinking that any media is objective, or that they are better than Singapore’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSiONYN3dJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3u-zOYi6g
End Notes:
[1] Tan, T.L., 1990, The Singapore Press: Freedom, Responsibility and Credibility, Times, 6.
[2] Sunday Review, 16 July 1995, “How The Press Can Best Serve Singapore? Be Fair, Be Trusthful, Be Part of a Virtuous Cycle.”
[3] Tay, S.C., 2004, Imagining Freedom, Eastern University Press, 98.
[4] Chua, B.H., 1995, Communitarian Ideology and Democracy in Singapore, Routledge, 18.
[5] Some of the contradictions of policies implemented by the Singapore government may lend support to the claim of an absence of ideological commitment over a sustained period of time.
[6] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 1.
[7] This does not surprise some observers as they remember that the PAP was in coalition with communists during its initial ascendancy to power, and party leaders have admitted to having learnt some valuable lessons from them.
[8] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 2.
[9] Ibid., 3.
[10] Straits Times, 29 Dec 1994, “There are limits to openness”.
[11] George, C., 2001, Singapre: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark, 16.
[12] Ibid., 19.
[13] Ibid., 229.
[14] Ibid., 18.
[15] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 20.
[16] Ibid., 23.
[17] Ibid., 21.
[18] Ibid., 11.
[19] Straits Times, 19 Sept 1984.
[20] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 3.
[21] Straits Times, 24 Apr 1990.
[22] Chua, B.H., Op Cit., n.51, 3.
[23] This description of Singapore is derived from comments made by Singapore’s former Prime Minister, Lee Kwan Yew when the Wall Street Journal asked several 20th Century luminaries to pick the most influential invention of the millennium. He named the air-conditioner. “The humber air-conditioner has changed the lives of people in the tropical regions,” he said. “Before air-con, mental concentration and with it the quality of work deteriorated as the day got hotter and more humid.. Historically, advanced civilisations have flourished in the cooler climates. Now, lifestyles have become comparable to those in temperate zones and civilisation in the tropical zones need no longer lag behind.” (Cherian, G., 2001, Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark Books,14)
[24] Cherian, G., 2001, Singapore: The Air-Conditioned Nation, Landmark Books, 15.
[25] Tay, S.C., Op Cit., n.21, 81.
[26] The two different levels correspond to the government being empowered to take charge of the nation-state (national level) and the individual being empowered to resist that same government in respect of the declared areas of personal freedom (personal level). These are seen as interlocking each other.
[27] Tay, S.C., Op Cit., n.21, 87.
[28] Although there is now no longer the requirement in the UK that newspapers or printing presses be licenced.
[29] Newspaper editors are expected to have an instinctive grasp of Singapore’s national interests and how to protect them. They interact regularly with cabinet ministers to keep these instincts honed.
[30] George, C., Op Cit., n.71, 67.
[31] SPH was expected to make net profits of around S$375 million in the financial year ending in Aug 2000. Net profits in the half-year to Feb 2000 were slightly over S$200 million, on turnover of S$493 million.
[32] George, C., Op Cit., n.71, 68.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid. 69.
[35] Ibid., 70.
[36] Ibid.
posted by Clem | 4:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home