Critical news analysis from the Singapore Media Watch:
http://mediawatchsg.blogspot.com/
Asian nations must find own political, media models: PM
The Straits Times
7 October 2006
Peh Shing Huei
The above article by ST journalist Peh Shing Huei can be considered
at best an "unedited" transcript of PM Lee's speech at the 7th
Asian-European Editors' Forum. There was no input, processing or
analysis from the writer at all.
The forum was organized by Germany's Konrad Adenauer Stiftung
research foundation and the Straits Time. The foundation is a
political foundation focused on the employment of political
education to promote peace, freedom and justice.
Though not stated explicitly in the article, we can expect audience
in the forum to comprise of journalists, policy-makers, government
and corporate leaders from Singapore and Europe.
The gist of PM Lee's message can be summarized as follows:
1. Liberal democracy and free press is not compatible with
Singapore.
2. The internet is not a reliable source of information compared to
the mainstream media.
3. Europe should play a bigger role in Asia.
In the aftermath of the IMF-WB meetings where Singapore's
reputation had taken a beating in the foreign press for the banning
of 27 civil activists, PM Lee appeared to be doing some damage
control here to defend and justify his government's actions.
The basis of his justification lies in the often quoted vague
argument employed by past Singapore leaders that Western democracy
and a free press is not compatible with Singapore.
"But what worked for the West - liberal democracy - may not be the
best option for Asia", he cautioned.
"Unthinkingly importing institutions from other countries and
grafting them into the local political system can end up doing more
harm than good."
What exactly is "liberal democracy"? Depending on one's upbringing,
values and beliefs, it is not surprising to have different
interpretations. PM Lee did not elaborate on his perception of
"liberal democracy". He also chose not to specify what "harm" it
can do to Singapore.
As an advocate of greater "openness" for Singapore, it is baffling
that PM Lee did not go into detail on how he intend to build an
"open" and "inclusive" society for Singapore without learning or
adopting from other countries.
He countered by providing examples in Thailand and Indonesia where
"Western-style democracy had not always led to stable, legitimate
and effective government".
Thailand's political woes stem primarily from the previous PM
Thaksin's abuse of his position to entrench himself in power and
possibly to enrich himself through dubious transactions now under
investigation by the Thai courts. How can the failings of a person
be blamed squarely on a system?
Indonesia has progressed remarkably in many areas under President
Bambang Yudhyono's leadership most notably the ending of the
30-year civil war in the province of Aceh which seems an
improbability under Suharto. Democractic reforms have also led to
greater accountability, checks and balances and participation from
ordinary citizens. Either PM Lee is not unaware of these facts or
he chose to ignore it.
PM Lee's choice of Thailand and Indonesia as examples of why
"Western-style" democracy will fail in Singapore is inappropriate
given the wide chasm between our society, standard of living and
theirs. Hong Kong and Taiwan which have a predominant Chinese
population, modern economies with high GDP and an established
middle class will make better examples. Both countries have a
robust democracy, a relatively free press and a proactive civil
society. We don't see them sliding into chaos, instability and
economic depression.
The next section of PM Lee's speech is intended solely for
Singaporeans as he takes pot-shots at the emergence of the internet
as an alternative media. Rather than acknowledging the presence and
growth of such media, he proceed instead to attack its credibility
and cast doubts on the authencity of its reports:
"The challenge for every newspaper and society is to maintain
public debate on a high plane and counter the "half-truths and
untruths" of the cyberworld. "
We are curious to know what PM Lee meant exactly by "high plane".
Does it refers to moral authority or legitimacy? Whatever it is, PM
Lee probably believes that public debate should only be conducted
through government-sanctioned sources. The hidden message to
Singaporeans is this: the internet should not become their primary
source of news as it is full of lies and untruths and only the
state media has the authority to disseminate news which is
objective, balanced and credible.
No one person, organization or media have a monopoly of truth. What
we read or see is always a reflection of what goes through tainted
glasses wore by the orginator.Truth can be selected, distorted or
shaped to serve the hidden agendas and vested interests of various
groups.
In order for real public debate to take place, there must be
pluralism and balance in the media. Allowing for diverse views to
be represented freely without any fear or restraint will better
reflect the actual sentiments of citizens. Serving only to "report"
the government's plans and policies with little feedback from
citizens doesn't quite constitute "debate".
This negative protrayal and condemnation of alternative online
media as untruth, unreliable and even dangerous by the state media
will continue in the days to come. After the PM, other ministers
and MPs will take the heed and step forward to reinforce the
message. Once repeated long enough, it will be perpetuated and
eventually imbibed as "truth" by a Singaporean who derives his news
only from the mainstream media.
The misconception that "Western democracy and a liberal press" is
not suitable for Singapore has already been deeply ingrained in the
Singaporea psyche. Whether the government will suceed this time in
influencing Singaporeans' perception of the alternative media in an
era where information can be produced by anybody at any place and
time remains to be seen.
The challenge will be formidable if not for the fact the mainstream
local media still enjoy a near monopoly of news. However, as young
IT-savvy Singaporeans become more widely read and exposed to
non-traditional sources of uncensored news, can their appetite and
trust for objective journalism be quenched satisfactorily by
Singapore newsmakers?
