Singapore’s press: A balancing act, which harmlessly tilts to one side

A discussion I’ve written in school, which incidentally is the culmination of my thoughts after my internship:

————————————————

Singapore’s press can be said to be internationally renowned. The country’s official media outlets are often singled out – by media organisations down to the man on the street – for not conforming to Western ideals of a free press.

Their stand: the government of a developed country like Singapore should not impinge on the media’s fundamental access to freedom of speech or reportage, especially in political issues. Otherwise, what else is the media for?

Many arguments revolve around one issue: the role of the media. However, what they often neglect is the role of the media in Singapore, which, when placed in context, would provide for a stronger argument.

First, the role of the media. One of the hallmarks of journalism is the “power” to keep the government in check. But many also forget that one responsibility of journalists is sensible, responsible reporting. This means reporting not just the citizens want, but need, to know, bearing in mind how the entire nation will be affected.

And how does this relate to the role of the media in Singapore?

In Singapore, the political and cultural climate is such that the role of the press is not to act as the fourth estate, or to keep a hawk’s eye over the government. This has been repeatedly pointed out by Singapore’s government. The foremost role of Singapore’s media is nation building, the government reminds. Otherwise, politically sensational news might cause widespread riots or public disorder, which the small country is not equipped to handle.

Whether we agree with the government or not, responsible reporting dictates that journalists do not have the freedom to stir trouble whenever and wherever they want. It is about putting self-righteousness on hold with a bigger interest – that of the nation – in mind. Which means unless a political scandal has taken place, reportage should generally support the government’s cause.

In other words, arguing over a “one-size-fits-all” definition about the role of the media is not enough. We should recognise the role of the media in Singapore’s context: one that has been moulded to cater to Singapore’s culture and climate.

And why should the media conform to this rule?

For the simple reason that for a publication like The Straits Times to continue, the government (MICA, if I’m not wrong?) reviews its “performance” yearly before deciding on whether to grant an extension.

So a pro-government press? It is hard to dispute that.

But for the right reasons?

Yes, as long as the government continues keeping their backyards clean, there is no reason for the press to stand on the opposite side of the court. This may not conform to the ideal of the West, but this is Singapore’s ideal which has worked. And as long as the country chugs along steadily with no political scandals in sight, why should we disagree?

Advertisement