Singapore Democratic Party

BACK TO HOME PAGE

The energy and vitality that mature democracies generate from liberal discussions and open debates are the fodder that innovation needs to solve modern social, medical, technological, economic, and political problems.

Manifesto: Media

The continued suppression of the media and the censorship of information by the PAP cannot but undermine attempts to build a fundamentally sound society based on openness and accountability. One of the most potent tools for Singaporeans to protect themselves in times of crisis is a media free from the grasp of the state. The measures needed for such an endeavour are as clear-cut as they are urgent.

Free the media

Although such a proposition may not be new, recent circumstances have given greater urgency to the need for Singaporeans to push for the liberalisation of the mass media. As problems confronting the country become more complex, the solutions become more multifarious. A one-size-fits-all answer from the PAP must not continue to be Singapore’s way of solving problems. Building houses, constructing roads, and teaching our children how to read and write are no longer the issues at hand. Today’s society is concerned about quality of life, equality for the disenfranchised, social security for the elderly, the direction of the economy, and the desire for greater political participation. And rightly so. A society fixated on issues of subsistence is a non-progressive society.

For such matters to enter the public discourse, however, the media must be independent enough to reflect diverse and opposing views. The intellectual climate in Singapore cannot develop as long as Singapore’s media remains in its present state. The energy and vitality that mature democracies generate from liberal discussions and open debates are the fodder that innovation needs to solve modern social, medical, technological, economic, and political problems.

In addition to pushing society forward, a free media also has a protective role. Rather than allowing exploitation by extremists, as the PAP is fond of describing, an open and free mass media allows the middle-of-the-road majority to exert a stabilizing force on the system. Autocrats on either side of the political spectrum would find it extremely difficult to drag a country into undemocratic territory. A free press may make democracy very difficult, but it makes dictatorship impossible. Legislation such as the NPPA and the formation of the SBA needs to be reviewed, and the media needs to be free to allow a healthy flow of uncensored information. Only when editors and journalists are free of their shackles can their writing serve to guide and educate.

Introduce the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

A law is needed to protect the people’s rights to a free flow of information and to give citizens ready access to public information. Such legislation would prohibit future governments from introducing measures that would censor the media for the government’s gain. It would also limit the type and amount of information the government can classify as state secrets. At the moment, even financial accounts and economic information handled by the government are considered confidential. The difficulty of former President Ong Teng Cheong in obtaining information from the cabinet about public assets would have been alleviated by an FOIA. Many democracies today have such an act, in one form or another, as part of the government’s obligation to keep itself transparent and accountable to the people.

Conclusion

The PAP’s portrayal of Singapore as the city on the cutting edge of the knowledge-based global economy, while the government continues to smother the media and the free flow of information, may fool the gullible and impress the Machiavellian. Unfortunately, such subterfuge cannot be the way forward if we are to ensure the long-term viability of Singapore.

It is clear that the PAP’s design is to make the system, especially the financial sector, as transparent as possible to the corporate community while continuing to restrict the type of information it deems unhelpful to its hold on power. Unfortunately, many people, both locals and foreigners, feel comfortable with such an arrangement; it allows them to go about the business of accumulating material wealth without being distracted by social and political issues. Such an attitude engenders apathy and cynicism and does nothing to motivate economic, social, and political excellence. It also creates a false sense of security. The stability achieved by manipulating public opinion through a controlled press is illusory. When economic uncertainty appears, much of this stability evaporates. The Asian crisis was greatly exacerbated and even caused, some argue, by the lack of a free flow of information in some of the countries involved. It was a bitter lesson for the region—a lecture, plain and forcefully delivered. Unfortunately Singapore played truant. It is imprudent, however, to assume that the city-state has managed to outwit the teacher.

It is appropriate at this point to quote again what Lee Kuan Yew said at the beginning of this chapter: “Singapore has managed this relentless flood of information not by blocking the flow but by stating its point of view in competition…We defend our position in open argument and let our case stand on its own merits.” History—and readers—will make up their own minds. Lee added: “Countries which try instead to block the flow will lose.”

We couldn’t agree more.

The difficulty of former President Ong Teng Cheong in obtaining information from the cabinet about public assets would have been alleviated by a Freedom of Information Act.

"Singapore has managed this relentless flood of information not by blocking the flow but by stating its point of view in competition…We defend our position in open argument and let our case stand on its own merits."

Lee Kuan Yew