Nov 6, 2010
US-style media 'could do great harm to Singapore'
Racial and religious fault lines can be easily exploited, minister says
NEW YORK: With its small population and short history, Singapore cannot withstand - nor is it prepared to accept - the possible harmful consequences of having its media become like the American press, said Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam.
The US media has a wider and freer role than the press in most other countries. But American society, being large, rich and stable, is strong enough to endure the potential damage of having a media that does not always live up to its ideals of being judicious, fair and independent, he said.
Mr Shanmugam drew these comparisons in a speech outlining Singapore's perspective on the role of the media at Columbia University on Thursday.
The US, he told the audience at a university forum on A Free Press for a Global Society, 'has in-built stability'.
'There can be fringe lunatic behaviour, but mainstream Americans are sensible and rational, and extremist sentiment will not threaten the very fabric of society,' he noted.
In many developing societies, however, the glue holding society together is not as strong and 'these societies can easily rupture along tribal, ethnic and religious lines,' he said.
In Singapore's case, racial and religious fault lines can be easily exploited.
Given these differences, Mr Shanmugam concluded that what works for the US - its media and American-style democracy - may not be easily transposed elsewhere.
'The US system will impose costs which a large, rich country like the US can afford; the cost is too high for some of us,' he said.
Singapore's view of the media is that it should be a neutral medium for conveying news. It should not enter the political fray, be a political actor, or campaign for or against a policy position.
Mr Shanmugam acknowledged that such a view often gets negative attention from the international press, but he noted that not all the criticism is objective.
Turning to the question of whether Singapore should adopt an American-style media now that it is a developed nation, Mr Shanmugam said Singapore 'should stick to what has worked for us'.
Again, he compared the differing views of the media in the US and Singapore.
In the US, the media is widely seen as essential for the proper functioning of the democratic process, and the prevailing view is that the risk of having a free and influential press is a price worth paying. Americans also see the risk of their media being shut out from dealing with legitimate issues - thereby weakening US democracy - as the greater harm, Mr Shanmugam observed.
Singapore, on the other hand, may have reached a certain level of development, he noted, but 'we are paranoid about whether we will continue to survive'.
'We never take our survival for granted. We know that when we do take it for granted, we gamble with the lives of our people,' he said. 'No responsible government will do that.'
Not surprisingly, Mr Shanmugam's 45-minute speech drew its share of opposition.
Mr Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told The Straits Times that the minister had presented a robust defence of Singapore's press policies.
But he said he strongly disagreed with Mr Shanmugam's suggestions that Singapore's unique history gave the country standing to flout what he said were international standards.
He said: 'Singapore is proud of its role in the world economy and has become a global centre for business and trade. The country should also embrace international standards for freedom of expression and the press and reform its punitive libel laws.'
See also Review
Nov 6, 2010
West's coverage of China 'ignores bigger picture'
WESTERN media coverage of China's human rights record is often biased and lacking in perspective, says Minister for Home Affairs and Law K. Shanmugam.
Among other things, the Western media appears to focus on one facet of development - human rights - but ignores the bigger picture, he indicated.
'The media... could do more to recognise the true extent of China's astonishing achievements, and ask themselves: Is it really clear that the prescriptions being offered would help China in its continued development? Do we not think that the Chinese leaders know what is good for their country?'
In his speech at Columbia University, Mr Shanmugam cited China's rapid progress to back his point.
Once among the world's poorest countries, China has lifted several hundred million people - more than the total US population of 310 million - out of poverty. It has also become the world's second largest economy after the US, manned by a talented population that is motivated to turn China into a greater power.
It also has an effective leadership succession system that ensures the best reach the top to govern.
China's leaders, noted Mr Shanmugam, have said that Western-style liberal democracy or media would just hinder the country's growth.
'The rest of the world will do well to understand the issues China faces, the results it has achieved and its perspectives, before offering criticisms and prescriptions,' said the Singapore minister.
'It would be quite unfair to give prominence to one facet, the human rights record, as defined by the liberal democracies, without considering the whole picture - the real human rights record - which is the continued upliftment of millions of people.'
TRACY QUEK
Nov 6, 2010
Role of media: No one size fits all
Home Affairs and Law Minister K. Shanmugam spoke on 'The Role of the Media: Singapore's Perspective' at a forum in Columbia University on Thursday. This is an edited excerpt from his speech.
TRADITIONAL liberal theory of media is that it should represent different points of view. That will encourage open discussion and, as a result, there will be better outcomes for society. The media should in effect play the role of the Fourth Estate, checking the government.
That is the theory. The reality is a little different. Let me set out some of the differences as we see them:
The media can have tremendous influence in the political process. It can set the agenda for discussion, it can shape public opinion about the government, and it can make or break politicians. As the Fourth Estate, it is an active player in the political process. Yet, it is the only institution in the political process that is often not subject to any checks and balances. The answer that the public provides the check and balance is a non-answer.
The media in America has a wider and freer role than in almost any other country in the world. That this approach can cause some harm to American society has long been recognised. The view, however, is that the risk is nevertheless a price worth paying.
There is a fundamental assumption underlying this reasoning - that American society is strong enough to withstand the possible harmful consequences arising from such an approach. If, however, that fundamental assumption changes, then there has to be a different calculation. That, precisely, is Singapore's position.
Our view is that our small society, with a short common shared history, enclosed within a small island, cannot withstand the harm that can be caused by giving our media the role that the United States media has. By the time we have some light, after all the heat, irreparable harm may have been caused - or at least a level of harm that we as a society are not prepared to accept.
To use an analogy, the US is an aircraft carrier. We are a little skiff. A lot of things that can take place on an aircraft carrier would not be possible in a skiff.
Our view on the role of the media is as follows:
The media can and should convey the views of opposing political actors - and people can judge for themselves. But if a journalist or a newspaper owner wants to take part in the political process, then he or she should join a political party, and not use the privileged access to the media to push a political perspective.
Obviously, our views are not very popular. And unsurprisingly, Singapore gets some negative attention from the international media. But when I look at some of the criticism, I wonder at the objectivity. Let me give an example:
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) comes out with an annual ranking of countries on press freedom. This year, they ranked Singapore 136th, below Iraq (130th), Zimbabwe (123rd) and Guinea (113th).
Last year, the International Herald Tribune ran a story headlined, 'Ousting Guinea's brutal junta'. The first paragraph read: 'Over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.'
Singapore is apparently below Guinea in press freedom, and has been since 2003.
What is RSF's methodology? As I understand it, they go to each country and choose some people to ask what they think about press freedom in that country. The scores thus seem to depend entirely on who is chosen to be questioned, and how subjective that person is. It is not the same group of people who assess each country by a defined set of criteria.
Contrast all of this with a Gallup poll. In 2005 and 2006, Gallup asked residents in 128 countries whether they had confidence in the quality and integrity of their media. Sixty-nine per cent of Singaporeans polled answered in the affirmative. The figure for the US in the Gallup poll was 32 per cent.
Could Singapore have done as well if our media played the role that the American media plays? Alternatively, given our current level of development, should we change? I will give a couple of reasons why I believe that we should stick to what has worked for us.
First, we can look at developing countries that adopted the US model. By comparison to them, we perform better in terms of the human development index and stability. And the media in these countries is not a model we want for Singapore.
Second, we can look at the US itself. For an outsider like me - and I am an admirer of many aspects of the US system - it is not so clear any more that every aspect of the US system will work well, particularly for us. The questions that arise for an observer include:
Tom Friedman of The New York Times had a commentary on US politics a few days ago, which ended thus: 'A dysfunctional political system is one that knows the right answers but can't even discuss them rationally, let alone act on them, and one that devotes far more attention to cable TV preachers than to recommendations by its best scientists and engineers.'
If the marketplace of ideas is working well, then why this lament? Other commentators have made similar points: I refer to them not so much to say they are right. The only point I make is that serious people say this, they are knowledgeable, and these do not appear to be extreme or fringe views - and we outside America must consider them when considering if the US system will work for us. I don't seek to prescribe for the US.
Even from a larger perspective, moving beyond the media, there can be serious questions as to whether American-style democracy can work for everyone.
I refer to the legislative process, with its earmarks and gridlock; the role of lobbies and vested interests; the amount of money needed for elections; the time congressmen spend networking and raising money; the deep political divides; and the general aversion of candidates to deal with serious issues in their campaigns.
The system works for America. This is a great country and will remain so. But can the rest of us adopt this system? My own view is that the US system will impose costs that a large, rich country like the US can afford - but the cost will be too high for some of us.
We believe that our system works for us, and we don't shut out the world. We have more than 5,500 foreign newspapers and publications in circulation in Singapore. Close to 100 TV channels are carried on our cable networks. Nearly 200 correspondents from 72 foreign media organisations are based in Singapore.
Also, household broadband penetration is more than 100 per cent; and our population is English-educated and Internet savvy. Singaporeans rank among the world's most-travelled populations. In 2008, 6.8 million passenger trips were made, more than the number of Singapore residents.
Let me now address the issue of our libel laws - which often excite much interest, internationally.
Our libel laws are based on English common law.If you make a personal attack of fact against a person's reputation - for example, by alleging that he is corrupt or that he embezzled state funds - then you should be prepared to prove it in court. We do not believe that public discourse should degenerate to a base level, by allowing untrue personal attacks.
We would like to keep political debate focused on issues. You can attack government policies fiercely. That will not be defamatory. And let the people choose the candidates based on alternative policies.
America takes a different view. We respect that, but we disagree that that approach leads to a better debate - and in saying this, I am aware of the 'chilling effect' argument.
It is also sometimes suggested that our libel laws are used to perpetuate a one-party system in Singapore. As proof, commentators will refer to the fact that the governing party has been in power since independence in 1965.
There are several responses to this. I will give just one. Remember that Singapore is a city state. There are no great geographical variations, no serious economic differences between regions, no great demographic variations. It is one relatively small city; the comparison should be with city politics in the US.
If you consider cities in the US - for example, San Francisco - you also see uninterrupted hold on power by one party for decades. So in city politics, it is possible for a party to retain power for a long time.
My basic point is that each of us has to choose what works for us. Over time, it is possible that a set of core values can evolve across countries - but this has to be agreed rather than imposed.
Recent Comments