Do you have an independent media that can report on whatever goes on in your country, including negative info, with immunity to prosecution? Do you have individual protection in that case?
If you don't, then you can't reliably get the truth except for people taking personal risks on blogs and stuff. You can only hope your regime will provide it to you through media they control. And never do anything seriously wrong. Having read history books, I don't think that's even possible in the long run.
How do you define "independent media"? My impression is that the media industry in Singapore is near-centralized because of the size of the market. There's really just not enough people to support multiple large news organizations.
I'm not sure if there's anything that the media "can't report". When the government fucks up, the media reports it. When a terrorist escaped detention, it was reported. When soldiers die, it gets reported. When there's corruption, it's reported. [1] [2] [3].
What sort of event do you foresee happening that wouldn't get reported? The media even acknowledges the State's past detentions-without-trial [4] [5]. There's some visible bias, but it's visible, and any intelligent person can infer that things are a little less tidy and clean.
I actually protested against some attempted media regulations a few years back. None of us were prosecuted, or worried about being prosecuted.
The people running our government are smart people. They know that they need to be respected and be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people. You can't really hide anything for long, and especially not somewhere as small as Singapore. The truth always comes out sooner or later. I dare say it's far likelier that states like the USA hide things from their people– and that's not a value judgement about the USA itself, but a statement about the difference in size of Govt. A tiny island-city-state can't sustain the sort of epic state apparatus that would get up to crazy shit.
I've only lived in Singapore for three years, but I do read the Straits times every day (I'm a paper and digital subscriber), get the daily update in email, and subscribe to their notifications.
The straitstimes is fascinating in that it so different from any newspaper that I'm familiar with in the United States (I subscribe to the NYT, and have the SJ Mercury news, and WSJ in the past). In many ways, it feels like a government newsletter, with clearly government approved messaging on things like the budgets, healthcare, elections, etc..
The "Structure" of the newspaper stories, particular on the front page, is also remarkably consistent over the last few years - usually with a story from one of the following collection - Story about a maid, story about something good in Singapore, Story about something bad in the rest of the world that wouldn't happen in singapore, story about someone who did something bad, and got caught, and what their punishment was, story about issues regarding racial/religious harmony. The complete lack of LGBT stories is also fascinating. And you will almost never, ever see a story regarding the liberalization of drugs.
For better or worse, the media is clearly not independent - whether that's a good or bad thing is unclear to me. Singapore is certainly a very safe and clean place to live in, with little visible signs of poverty and/or urban blight that is so common in American Cities. I know it's the only city I've ever felt comfortable about my mother roaming around anywhere at night.
Maybe there's something to be said about a bit of totalitarian rule?
Nazi Germany had the lowest crime rates in modern recorded history (if you don't count "government crimes"). When a government is able to act unilaterally with impunity your safety is still at risk, only the risks come from the government rather then street criminals. The real risk in Singapore is, what comes down the road? What happens if they implement laws that restrict free speech, or criticizing the government? What sort of position will people be in to oppose future government oppression when they live in a Totalitarian state that is completely controlled and monitored? At the end of the day, ceding your rights and freedoms to government officials with the idea that you can trust them to do the right thing is dangerously naive, and has never ended well.
Singapore promotes racial harmony, religious acceptance. They are opposed to drugs, corruption, and littering.
About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues, and, honestly, they aren't particularly strict about it, even though it is technically illegal for homosexual men (but not women) to have sex with each other. Ironically, you probably run into more serious discrimination issues in certain states/towns in the United States than you would in Singapore. It's just something that's frowned upon, rather than very actively prosecuted - and there is a healthy gay rights movement here.
And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in.
>And, once again, I would much rather cede my rights and freedoms to a government that creates a safe, clean, and tolerant environment, where I, and my family can live in safety, than a government which, while protecting my rights/freedoms, created an environment that was unsafe, dirty, and intolerant, and in which I and my family were not safe to walk around in.
That's like saying, "I'd rather stab myself in the eye with a pen then a pencil". My point is that nobody who values their dignity and freedom ever cedes their rights to any government, for any reason.
>About the only place I would suggest they perhaps are behind in terms of what I would consider important modern civil liberties are their attitudes towards LGBT issues
If you don't see a civil liberties issue with the government putting censors on you, your vehicle, and every street corner to monitor everything you do, everywhere you go, when you sleep, when you eat, and when you take a shit, and to regulate your personal behavior in each of these matters, as they claim it relates "to the public good" we have a very different definition of "civil liberties".
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams
As Stanislav says, it's about whether the government is in the threat profile. All of human history, including in Asia, shows that the protective government eventually go corrupt. The more power they have then, the worse things will be for the citizens. This already happened more than once in Asia.
So, the question isn't no rights/freedoms for safety vs rights/freedoms without safety. What are you even talking about? Aren't you aware that there are countries with plenty freedom and low violence? And even areas of my country (U.S.) that are similar due to culture? You can keep free speech/expression, free press, due process, and so on without it turning into the Wild Wild West. At worst, people will be more honest and blunt with a bad guy here and there going free instead of innocent people being locked up.
Singapore is a police state governed by a single party/family with very limited freedom of press (enforced via strict libel laws). Granted, the rulers are enlightened, and it is very much a stable "rule of law" country...it is also multi-cultural with necessary tolerance on religion. Hopefully Singapore can evolve into something a bit less authoritarian while keeping those qualities.
Interesting write-up. More interesting is that the paper fits your description closely when I loaded it. Might read it a bit more often out of curiosity.
"Maybe there's something to be said about a bit of totalitarian rule?"
Or a combo of culture that cares with strong enforcement of good laws. I think that would suffice. Remember that there's pretty safe democracies without totalitarianism.
I define it as a media that is financially independent from the government and with little influence from them. I wasn't aware that the media reports as much as it does based on what Singaporeans told me in past. There could be a bias there.
I appreciate the links. Ill look into them. One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. Journalist that ask thd big questioms with alternatives provided with references showing they'd likely work. We get that in American media, including HN, all thd time. That's critical for reform.
Do you have examples of that in Singaporean media?
> One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. [...] That's critical for reform.
I think this is one of those things where we run into one of those massive fundamental differences in perspective– about the value of contradiction and its role in reform.
I don't personally believe that "contradictory reporting -> reform". I surprise myself a little by saying that – in my teenage days I spent a lot of time writing blogposts that were deliberately critical of the media and the State. I got a lot of traffic to my blog, but I don't feel like I made much of a difference. I don't feel like I contributed towards reform. All I did was give people links that they could share on Facebook to argue with their friends about. I'm starting to share Obama's perspective on this– if you want real change, you have to get involved in the political process. And that doesn't actually require the sound-and-fury way of doing things.
I think INDEPENDENT THINKING is necessary for reform, and diverse, independent thought doesn't necessarily always emerge from A vs B. In fact, I've come to believe (from personal experience, mostly) that contrarian thinking tends to lead to very entrenched opposing camps, which leads to deadlock.
As another comment pointed out– Singapore is always constantly reforming, and a healthy, steady pace [1]. Our population sees no need for massive adjustments. I personally think in areas like legalizing gay marriage, removing the mandatory death penalty for drugs, etc we really ought to take some big leaps, but people are already making those arguments and progress is slow. But there is progress. And it's not the state that's holding the progress back– large portions of the population legitimately are indifferent or conservative or "if it ain't broke...".
So anyway– to answer your question– the media rarely contradicts the Govt or the system directly. But that doesn't necessarily mean what it seems. Criticisms exist, they're just subtly put.
Here's a very interesting article [2], from someone who's known to be a high-ranking journalist from a pro-establishment background:
> There is also the argument that a stronger opposition is good for Singapore's political development, not just as leverage against the PAP. Even some PAP ministers have said this.
> According to this view, a strong opposition provides checks and balances on the ruling party. It sets Singapore further along the path towards a two-party system, the dream of political liberals who do not buy the PAP's argument that Singapore is so tiny and so exceptional, it can only be governed by the PAP's pre-selected A-team of political leaders, and that it lacks the talent base for other parties to build up a credible alternative. Each election that sees capable individuals joining the opposition dents that argument.
> All that is needed next is for those capable individuals to coalesce around one or two serious political parties and their leaders, learn to compromise and work together, and win voters' support. Singapore can then become a "normal" country with a political system that remains stable even when parties alternate in power.
> It may undergo a period of turbulence in the transition, but settle into a stable equilibrium. Then, the biggest risk for Singapore - of having a system untested by alternation of political power - will be neutralised.
That might not seem like a big deal, but it was published by a "high-ranking" journalist in the national newspapers, legitimizing a non-PAP future for Singapore. It would've been unthinkable 10 years ago. And that's the kind of progress and reform we're proud of. A response to that might be "that's so tame, that's so mild!" – but we like it that way. Less blood and death. Nobody gets pepper-sprayed or tazed. It's more elegant.
