Don't expect more press freedom in S'pore
James GomezPublished: Mar 30, 2001 11:55 AM | Updated: Jan 29, 2008 6:21 PM
By mid-2000, the Singapore media scene was abuzz with activity. Almost any self-respecting journalist, commentator or observer, local or foreign, wanted to know whether the issuance of new licenses by the People's Action Party (PAP) government to Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and MediaCorp had translated or would translate into more press freedom? Or will things remain as before?
Historically, the media did have a controlled start under the stewardship of British colonial rule and by the end of the rule in Singapore, there was a fairly vibrant print media industry in English as well as in the local vernaculars of Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.
There were also some other minority language publications. Largely these were seen as fairly free. However, independence in 1965, saw the arrival of the People's Action Party and its leader Lee Kuan Yew. The press suffered a setback.
By mid-2000, the Singapore media scene was abuzz with activity. Almost any self-respecting journalist, commentator or observer, local or foreign, wanted to know whether the issuance of new licenses by the People's Action Party (PAP) government to Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and MediaCorp had translated or would translate into more press freedom? Or will things remain
as before?
Historically, the media did have a controlled start under the stewardship of British colonial rule and by the end of the rule in Singapore, there was a fairly vibrant print media industry in English as well as in the local vernaculars of Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.
There were also some other minority language publications. Largely these were seen as fairly free. However, independence in 1965, saw the arrival of the People's Action Party and its leader Lee Kuan Yew. The press suffered a setback.
Over the years, several printing companies were closed or merged, journalists intimidated, arrested or placed under detention without trial and more restrictive legislation was passed to control all forms of the media.
As the years went by and the broadcast media grew, it too was put under strict supervision as indirectly the government either owned or controlled all media. Hence, the issuance of new licences last year was indeed news, because up to now, the media was under the monopolistic control of a one-party government.
Hegemonic position
Although the new licences has seen an increase in the number of media products, that is newspapers, television channels and radio stations, critical, fair and professional reporting on local political activities plus reports on the transparency and accountability of government activity will be slow in coming.
The question for prospective media freedom to surface in the republic arose because the SPH, a long-time monopolistic print media player, has now been forced to compete with its monopolistic compatriot in broadcast, MediaCorp.
The SPH is a publicly-listed company which has had monopoly over all newspapers in the country. Presently, the controlling interests of the company are in the hands of Singapore's big four banks and government-owned companies.
SPH's hegemonic position came about through years of government action and the use of restrictive legislation, such as the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, against other competing newspaper companies, journalists and civil society actors.
MediaCorp is a government-owned broadcast entity that has had the monopoly in broadcast for many years and comes under the government statutory board, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority.
It has evolved over the years and operates in an environment where private ownership of satellite dishes are still disallowed while cable TV's political content remains fairly mainstream.
Accusing fingers
The PAP government issued new licences, one for broadcast to SPH and one for print to MediaCorp to create domestic competition. This is in keeping with the rhetoric of globalisation and transparency thrown up following the Asian economic crisis.
Each of these two media groups in 2000 has put out new publications. SPH-Project Eyeball - an Internet newspaper and Streats - a free newspaper. Today - is put out by MediaCorp which aims, among other things, to look at political issues.
This was followed by the announcement of mobile TV on buses and the trains by MediaCorp. The Singapore Press Holdings is putting out its own Channel U. Both are expected to operate later in 2001.
Thus unlike before, the Singaporean consumer is confronted with a range of media products, some which are free. This has stimulated the search for answers as to whether the Singapore media is opening up and a chance to raise accusing fingers to attempts by some media players to sensationalise to leverage for readership.
In fact the discussion of guarding against the danger of media liberalisation has been taken up with much gusto in Singapore. PAP parliamentarians having been taking the media to task, accusing them of belittling ruling party MPs and beauty pageants all in the same breath.
This has also prompted some within civil society to finally announce a long gestated Media Watch project. Ironically, such an announcement has been seen with suspicion both by government as well as the media industry.
Old style
While a legitimate concern is to contain sensationalism, the truth of the matter is, nothing in substance has really moved. On the ground there aren't enough vibes to suggest present media developments would be something that will significantly break with the past.
The primary problem is that the issuance of a new set of licences has not been followed up with a simultaneous easing up of laws that regulate the press or something progressive like a Freedom of Information Act.
Under the present Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, all publishers of periodicals are compelled to apply for a licence from the Ministry of Information and the Arts. Additionally, there are various sections within the Internal Security Act, Official Secrets Act, Penal Code, Undesirable Publications Act, Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and Sedition Act that can be employed against violations contained therein.
There are also the guidelines for broadcast set up by the Singapore Broadcast Authority that include jurisdiction over the Internet. These acts are not exhaustive and need to be taken together with case law surrounding defamation suits decided by the courts in Singapore to comprehend the full extent of possible censorship.
In spite of the Internet and information technology, journalists continue to complain they still can't get information easily and on time. They still have to put up with old-style suspicion and reluctance on the part of civil servants when it comes to releasing information.
Additionally, in clear contradiction to globalisation, the government has supplemented its invitation to regional and international media to house their operations in the city-state by enacting legislation to regulate both foreign print and broadcast media stationed in Singapore from 'interfering' in local politics.
Government-linked firms
From a human resource point of view, all of the journalists moving within the domestic media market come from the old media in Singapore. Their values and ideas still remain very much rooted in the old system.
New entrants on the other hand are inexperienced. For those wanting to opt out, they join the foreign media agencies. Hence in short, the current reality surrounding press freedom and plurality now is not very different from the past.
The proliferation of radio channels in Singapore, for instance, some years ago has not brought greater press freedom and critical analysis. In this regard, the new print tabloid publications remain just that - tabloids.
Focusing on where to eat, entertainment, fashion and local gossip - it's all geared towards chasing that advertising dollar with a touch of sensationalism. Most media watchers do not think that the new print and broadcast players will be markedly more vigorous.
Where it counts, on critical political issues, nothing has changed - especially when it comes to local political reportage and investigative pieces on government transparency and accountability. There isn't enough openness for journalists to get information.
The PAP government still has financial investments in these two media companies through its government-linked corporations. And most are prepared to use these criteria to dismiss any genuine media reform agenda.
In this regard, before one starts asking whether the Singapore media has or will be liberalised, we need to first understand that there is a need to look beyond the issuance of licences. Specifically, we need to concurrently ask whether the current laws and values of the local journalists and media operators will support media freedom, accountability and responsibility.
JAMES GOMEZ is author of Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame and director of the Singapore-based NGO, the Think Centre.
Historically, the media did have a controlled start under the stewardship of British colonial rule and by the end of the rule in Singapore, there was a fairly vibrant print media industry in English as well as in the local vernaculars of Mandarin, Malay and Tamil.
There were also some other minority language publications. Largely these were seen as fairly free. However, independence in 1965, saw the arrival of the People's Action Party and its leader Lee Kuan Yew. The press suffered a setback.
Over the years, several printing companies were closed or merged, journalists intimidated, arrested or placed under detention without trial and more restrictive legislation was passed to control all forms of the media.
As the years went by and the broadcast media grew, it too was put under strict supervision as indirectly the government either owned or controlled all media. Hence, the issuance of new licences last year was indeed news, because up to now, the media was under the monopolistic control of a one-party government.
Hegemonic position
Although the new licences has seen an increase in the number of media products, that is newspapers, television channels and radio stations, critical, fair and professional reporting on local political activities plus reports on the transparency and accountability of government activity will be slow in coming.
The question for prospective media freedom to surface in the republic arose because the SPH, a long-time monopolistic print media player, has now been forced to compete with its monopolistic compatriot in broadcast, MediaCorp.
The SPH is a publicly-listed company which has had monopoly over all newspapers in the country. Presently, the controlling interests of the company are in the hands of Singapore's big four banks and government-owned companies.
SPH's hegemonic position came about through years of government action and the use of restrictive legislation, such as the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, against other competing newspaper companies, journalists and civil society actors.
MediaCorp is a government-owned broadcast entity that has had the monopoly in broadcast for many years and comes under the government statutory board, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority.
It has evolved over the years and operates in an environment where private ownership of satellite dishes are still disallowed while cable TV's political content remains fairly mainstream.
Accusing fingers
The PAP government issued new licences, one for broadcast to SPH and one for print to MediaCorp to create domestic competition. This is in keeping with the rhetoric of globalisation and transparency thrown up following the Asian economic crisis.
Each of these two media groups in 2000 has put out new publications. SPH-Project Eyeball - an Internet newspaper and Streats - a free newspaper. Today - is put out by MediaCorp which aims, among other things, to look at political issues.
This was followed by the announcement of mobile TV on buses and the trains by MediaCorp. The Singapore Press Holdings is putting out its own Channel U. Both are expected to operate later in 2001.
Thus unlike before, the Singaporean consumer is confronted with a range of media products, some which are free. This has stimulated the search for answers as to whether the Singapore media is opening up and a chance to raise accusing fingers to attempts by some media players to sensationalise to leverage for readership.
In fact the discussion of guarding against the danger of media liberalisation has been taken up with much gusto in Singapore. PAP parliamentarians having been taking the media to task, accusing them of belittling ruling party MPs and beauty pageants all in the same breath.
This has also prompted some within civil society to finally announce a long gestated Media Watch project. Ironically, such an announcement has been seen with suspicion both by government as well as the media industry.
Old style
While a legitimate concern is to contain sensationalism, the truth of the matter is, nothing in substance has really moved. On the ground there aren't enough vibes to suggest present media developments would be something that will significantly break with the past.
The primary problem is that the issuance of a new set of licences has not been followed up with a simultaneous easing up of laws that regulate the press or something progressive like a Freedom of Information Act.
There are also the guidelines for broadcast set up by the Singapore Broadcast Authority that include jurisdiction over the Internet. These acts are not exhaustive and need to be taken together with case law surrounding defamation suits decided by the courts in Singapore to comprehend the full extent of possible censorship.
In spite of the Internet and information technology, journalists continue to complain they still can't get information easily and on time. They still have to put up with old-style suspicion and reluctance on the part of civil servants when it comes to releasing information.
Additionally, in clear contradiction to globalisation, the government has supplemented its invitation to regional and international media to house their operations in the city-state by enacting legislation to regulate both foreign print and broadcast media stationed in Singapore from 'interfering' in local politics.
Government-linked firms
From a human resource point of view, all of the journalists moving within the domestic media market come from the old media in Singapore. Their values and ideas still remain very much rooted in the old system.
New entrants on the other hand are inexperienced. For those wanting to opt out, they join the foreign media agencies. Hence in short, the current reality surrounding press freedom and plurality now is not very different from the past.
The proliferation of radio channels in Singapore, for instance, some years ago has not brought greater press freedom and critical analysis. In this regard, the new print tabloid publications remain just that - tabloids.
Focusing on where to eat, entertainment, fashion and local gossip - it's all geared towards chasing that advertising dollar with a touch of sensationalism. Most media watchers do not think that the new print and broadcast players will be markedly more vigorous.
Where it counts, on critical political issues, nothing has changed - especially when it comes to local political reportage and investigative pieces on government transparency and accountability. There isn't enough openness for journalists to get information.
The PAP government still has financial investments in these two media companies through its government-linked corporations. And most are prepared to use these criteria to dismiss any genuine media reform agenda.
In this regard, before one starts asking whether the Singapore media has or will be liberalised, we need to first understand that there is a need to look beyond the issuance of licences. Specifically, we need to concurrently ask whether the current laws and values of the local journalists and media operators will support media freedom, accountability and responsibility.
JAMES GOMEZ is author of Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame and director of the Singapore-based NGO, the Think Centre.
View Comments0