Today’s article titled, “Fear factor – is it just an excuse?” dated December 15, 2003 highlights once again the biasness of the local media and the lack of free speech within our country.
In a nutshell, the article posted by Teo and Ng highlights PAP politicians and civil society speakers in the forum who speaks about people’s fear of being detained by ISD and defamation suit; before reporting counterclaims that the fear is mostly self-imposed.
Though I was not present at this forum, what struck me was the similarity of the tone of this event with a previous but smaller scale event organized by the Think Centre which I attended and contributed an article.
Veteran opposition politician and democracy fighter, JB Jeyaretnam and others who were at the earlier event spoke of this fear. James Gomez, who was also present at this Think Centre forum, wrote about this fear in his book, “Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame”.
The event had much more credible speakers on the chair and the timing was perfect – to commemorate Human Rights Day. Not forgetting that this event was also awarding its FIRST Human Rights Defender award in SINGAPORE (for the first time) to Mr Jeyaretnam. With much news value and angles worth exploring, TODAY did not devote a single article about the forum.
When it comes to an event with MPs, they wrote a story portraying them as alternative.
This biased practice where Singapore media gives coverage to government sanctioned events but neglect the alternative is strikingly and painfully embarrassing to witness.
One could argue that the publication of, “Fear factor – is it just an excuse?” which conveyed a similar message is at least worth commending – signs of a more open media of the system.
Such explanations are however skirting the issue because it merely practices double standards. If the media chooses to cover stories based on the “acceptability of the organiser because of their relations with the ruling government” and the type of “speakers” present; but not the news value or content; then they effectively prevent information access.
One could argue that informed Singaporeans are aware of the biasness of the local media. More importantly, publishing articles that appear to portray itself as a responsible open and impartial news organization (when it is partial) and Singapore as a much more open country than it really is, is creating a false illusion, not only to the uninformed but also to those sitting on the fence; effectively hoodwinking the public into believing that we are heading towards a more consensual form of governance.
The article itself presents debatable flaws presented by various camps of arguments. The article quoted Dr Amy Khor and I paraphrase: that when forum participants speak about the fear itself; it is a sign of opening up. She added such forums of similar nature should be held more often.
As much as the articulation of fear in itself constitutes an acknowledgment, it does not imply an equal relaxation on the ruling government’s side.
Recently, the government publicly flogs Alpha Union for prolonging their tussle with the SIA management, Coming down hard on an article by Australian expert, Michael Backman, entitled “Is Singapore paranoid?" ironically published in TODAY recalls Catherine Lim’s earlier saga. Not forgetting government’s law suits against Dr Chee Soon Juan and JB.
I am dubious about the goals of the forums held by universities and government approved organizations as suggested by Dr Amy Khor when the government and the media effectively silences real alternative voice. Such forums marked by attendance of MPs would not attract the real dissidents but merely mouth pieces who because of “fear”, would choose to practise self-censorship; hence making this “talk of openness and plurality of views”, a social event akin to a tragicomedy circus show.
The article also reported Dr Cherian George commenting on “PAP’s control without resorting to the sort of brutality that produces the moral outrage that will make people take to the streets”
Dr Cherian George hits base with his opinions but many countries in the world have activists and demonstrators hitting the streets whether their governments are brutal or not. The lack of brutality can well be but definitely not the only reason.
How else explain the worldwide phenomenon of public display through demonstrations when people are displeased with their government; but the entire lack of it in Singapore – yes we are truly unique in that sense.
MP Tan Cheng Bock’s replies to TODAY about the fear needs no regrugitation – that it was due “to the strong-handed way the leadership in the past imposed views and policies”.
He ended with a note that sincere and factual opinions expressed which DO NOT ATTACK the INTEGRITY of the LEADERS or the PARTY” will not be met with any fear of legal action.
The MP has clearly stated the government’s stand on alternative viewpoints. Read the line in CAPs again. It is clear that we are not allowed to question or speak ill of the party and its leaders regardless of situation or topic.
Well done Mr Tan, Well done TODAY!
Report: Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia: Conference on Burma: How Asians Can Help
The welcome meeting on 7 December commenced at about 10 am with welcome remarks by Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and Chairman of Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia (ARDA) and introduction of SDP members present.
Our guests from overseas include Tsai Ming Dan representing Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) , which is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of democracy and human rights in Taiwan and abroad.
Other guests who were at the morning discussion includes Malaysia’s Parti Keadilan vice-president Tian Chua and Alternative Asean Network on Burma (Altsean) representative, Debbie Stothard.
After a brief introduction from Dr Chee on ARDA and Singapore’s involvement with the Burmese military government, Debbie went on to provide more details about the country’s current political and social climate; which despite sanctions from U.S., disapproval and actions from the international community, seems to be going nowhere. The group discussion also includes specific ideas on how ARDA can strategise and mobilise effective resources towards democratizing Burma.
Lunch is served at New Shanghai, King’s Plaza. After the break, we proceed to King Copthorne for further discussion before a media conference at 4 pm. A public forum was originally scheduled in place of the discussion but the permit was denied by the police with reason given as “contrary to the public interest”.
The press conference was attended by a small group of local and foreign press including Associated Press, Channel I, and Today (of which they publish an article the next day – a gesture of token free speech).
At the press conference, Dr Chee highlighted the importance of having a public forum. He reiterated that Singaporeans need to know about our government’s alleged business dealings with the Burmese military government, State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which is repressing democratic reforms within the country.
He also highlighted money laundering, drug trade and increasing AIDS infection in Myanmar as issues that could affect the region.
Tian Chua and Debbie Stothard also commented on the Burmese situation and denounced the military government and ASEAN’s effort to liberalize the countries, which are cosmetic at best.
Debbie mentioned the “7 point road map” which was proposed by Burmese Prime Minister, Gen Khin Nyunt; supposedly leading to democracy in Burma as a hoax. The road map is criticised for having no time frame; lacking in commitment to conduct dialogue with ethnic minorities; and has among drug lords among members within the convention. The road map which has broken down many times since discussed in 1991, has been in suspension since 1996.
Sam Rainsy who arrived in time for the press conference because of a late flight, was surprised at the ban and quipped that Singapore is not an “open” country as he thought it appears.
ARDA ended the press conference by announcing that they would reconvene for another meeting the next day and would release an official statement on how it would help to alleviate the situation in Burma.
Typical of local media, nothing was mentioned about the event with the exception of TODAY, which ran a short article missing out sore points that would antagonize the government.
If the paper is afraid allegations are untrue, they should have contacted the relevant government bodies to verify facts.
The event proves once again that despite governmental efforts of “opening up” and “duopolising” the media industry, the players continue practising self – censorship to avoid confronting the powers to be; and in the process, lacks the will and power to demand transparency and accountability from the authorities.
ARDA was formed after a Declaration of unity at the Asia Regional Good Governance Conference held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 5 August 2000. The main purpose of the alliance is to promote democracy, human rights, and good governance in Asia with members pledging their mutual support and assistance, particularly during times of political crises.
Altsean focuses on mainly exposing human rights violations in Burma and publishes promotional and briefing materials to support the cause. It publishes a quarterly report card on the situation of the country which are downloadable on its homepage.
Relevant Links:
ARDA: http://www.asiademocracy.org/index.html
Altsean: http://www.altsean.org/
