Singapore's objective media - McLuhan's paradox personified?

Sterile, but objective. If nothing else, the Singapore mainstream media has gained for itself an international reputation for being so adamant about upholding the "truth" that the Singapore public has grown to demand nothing less than this standard in the news they read and the media they choose to read it from.

This mentality has, over the years of Singapore's short media history, led to a close association (or confusion) between the media and the message. One would argue that The Straits Time, our most widely circulated newspaper to date, holds that very premium quality that goes towards building much of its reputation for objectivity and phenomenon market share.

Any issues with that? None, unless you consider the editorial piece “what is democracy? A tortoise, not a hare” (23 Sep 2006) by Janadas Devan, Senior Writer for The Straits Times.

The very fact that it is an editorial commentary lends it considerable weight - only the most senior of The Straits Times’ stable of writers have the privilege to pen commentaries.

Unfortunately, this privilege has been, in my opinion, much abused by Devan. I would challenge that the article is not only lacking in a balanced analysis of its topic, which is modern democracy, but borders on misleading.

Devan starts with a definition of democracy - a system of governance identified by open voting and constitutional law. He then proceeds to compare the ''success" of different countries, chiefly Thailand and Britian but eventually leading to his views on Singapore and what one can infer is the United States, by oblique reference to the latter’s famed "free press". His point of contention: That open voting and constitutional rights do not necessarily lead to a peaceful life for citizens, suggesting that the social democracy that typifies nations like Singapore would.

The argument seems sound, with one major problem: Devan's preamble on democracy. It does not take much effort to Google for its definition - both Wikipedia and Dictionary.com seem to describe a system of government that has "for the people, by the people" as its chief objective. Voting rightfully becomes a means to that end.

But Devan's own dictionary seems to have an additional clause on constitutions. While it is noted that constitutional rights form an important part of many democracies, it is by no means a key defining characteristic of democratic government. Conversely, "power to the people" and "clean and open elections" seems to be.

Without going into details of the practical implementation of democracy - nations have by and large steered clear of "ideal democracy", opting instead to adopt certain parts for their own nation building needs - it seems obvious that Devan's skewed definition has led to a rather biased view. If his purpose in writing the article is to profess that ''moderate democracies" like Singapore are doing a better job, then it should be called into question, simply because of its blatant disregard for accuracy.

It is a sad reminder to this nation that our mode of democracy has not led to journalism that is for the people, by the people, even by our most well-respected daily. N

"Loudhailers for the voiceless underdog" - Today

Print copy of "Sometimes, protest is the only way", by Today, here. Ok, this title's quite a match. Best of all, my wife read it and said, for once, she understood every word! Too bad my Turkish boy was not included. All the aunties and uncles in my tour group were fawning over him, and I thought they would love to see him in the papers...

More interestingly, Voices' editor sent me an e-mail with Ho Kong Loon's reply, and it goes:

Ref: When actions don’t speak louder than words (Sept 19)

Howard Lee’s arguments were cogent and well marshaled. I salute him for his passion and conviction.

I assure him I had full knowledge of most of his pointers when I penned my commentary.

Today forum (Voices) is indeed a dynamic market place for contending ideas. Readers, Howard and I would surely appreciate this avenue to ventilate our differing views.

Thank you, Howard, for the additional curve to my learning process.

It was not published, but I thank Ho sincerely for his feedback. If he reads this by any chance, I would also like to assure him that my point in responding to him was purely for the sake of offering a different perspective. To me, the media should always be a platform where opinions and ideas can be exchanged freely - that proverbial open marketplace of ideas.

A good day for writers, I think, although it took me a while to realise that my letter was published... N

Sometimes, protest is the only way

The following was sent to Today Voices. This is really just me offering another perspective to what I feel is a biased topic, given our government's relentless pursuit for peace and order. Just another two cents...

Incidentally, this is also my first post with an image in it! Yes yes, big fat hairy deal, but tech is not really one of my fortes, so pride comes naturally with such an accomplishment... :)

* * * * *

I read with some disappointment Ho Kong Loon’s article, “When actions speak louder than words” (Sep 19).

Unfortunately, I believe that Ho’s take on civil society organisations (CSOs) reflect a common sentiment in Singapore society. Since the 1960s, the lack of any large scale civil unrest in Singapore has led to an acceptance – nay, an embracement – that quiet, civilised streets are the most desirable thing for our nation. This mentality, I propose, has been ingrained into our national psyche, such that we believe it to be the best for the world, too.

Of course, there is good reason for us to believe so. We live in our micro world of abundance, and are witnesses to the shrinking proportion of our low-income families. Education has provided almost equal opportunities for everyone. To add, we are a society born of trade and no natural resources. Should our government decide to open our doors to, say, another apple exporter, we are only gleeful that it might cost a few cents less, not worry about whether we can sell the rotting stocks on our farms at the wholesalers.

Seasoned with our acclaimed good governance rhetoric, and we begin to believe that everything can be solved from the comfortable seat at a negotiation table. Indeed, I believe Ho would have produced many sensible, reasonable and diplomatic students in his time as an educator, who would have done us proud as Singapore’s voice of reason in the world.

But in reality, the rest of the world does not work this way. Not every country can claim that an excess of 90% of its population have completed 10 years of basic schooling. We must realise that not everyone has the benefit of a good education to let them articulate their woes before an international body. Even writing a petition and getting 100 signatures might be difficult for some. Add to that the fact that petitions would take some time to reach the powers that be, probably way after the decision that would critically impair their livelihood has been made, and the prospect of an instant mass demonstration looks really appealing.

Imagine this situation: A little village boy sits outside a jewelry shop for tourists, somewhere in central Turkey, selling dried fruits, nuts and head scarves for one lira a pack. The only life he knows is that an occasional tourist, happy from the 1000 lira bargain he has made at the shop, might have some pity on him and spare some change. His younger brother takes over soon and he rushes home to help his mother carry a handmade carpet, painstaking weaved in 3 months, to another tourist shop, where she sells it for 300 lira. The shop owner pays her, fingering the fine workmanship and valuing it at 1500 lira on the open market.

Unjust? Never mind, perhaps someday, the young boy would be able to stand in front of the World Bank president and tell him to bring justice to their lives. Perhaps. Or it might just make more sense for him to gather a few more families and break down the doors of tourist shops.

For this reason, the existence, actions and motivations of CSOs are more important than the perceived unrest they cause. They might not even constitute those at the direct mercy of big profiteering corporations or corrupt governments, but their passion and their cause is blatantly focused – to represent and help those who will be disadvantaged by the decisions of those they perceive to be greedy or ignorant, with whom negotiation would likely be futile. Public protests serve as loudhailers for those who cannot articulate their grievances, whatever the reason. CSOs wish to be heard out loud, precisely because there are people who are unaware of or chose to ignore the unfairness going on in our world.

But what is the effectiveness of public protests, if Ho’s description of the “theatrics” suggests little more than a “carnival atmosphere”? Here’s the news flash: Opinion leaders and key policy makers, those whose very decisions would affect billions, cannot choose to ignore, or be seen to ignore, a public demonstration that happens just as they are walking to their meeting venue.

Public protests are about bringing critical mass to the human rights of every individual drowned in the tidal wave of progress. CSOs understand that. They probably also understand that, even if they could secure a place at the negotiating table, as Ho professes, the weight of their votes would be puny. But rousing public sentiment to their cause would force governments and corporations to take heed as their voters and customers begin to question their decisions and take sides. The further their voices reach, the greater their support; hence, putting them in a little room to protest is a laughable concept. Public protests are a calculated political move by CSOs fully aware of what their actions can lead to. They should not be mistaken as unruly groups of “manipulators, instigators, the intoxicated, the uninhibited, the over-enthusiastic or the lunatic fringe”.

Ho’s letter might also have given, I believe, the wrong impression that when CSOs protest, their aim is to create a racket of unnecessary showmanship, orchestrated only for the benefit of the public eye and foreign journalists. But no rational human being would leave his job and family to take a chance at a protest, unless they are convinced that it is the last resort. There was a time when I witnessed dockworkers in Australia storming picket lines to demand for better work benefits. There was no bloodshed, but I believe that negotiation would have failed them many times before they resorted to such actions, for staying off work for them meant taking a risk with their paychecks.

We might also argue, as Ho has, that having to clean up the mess from public demonstrations is a burden that the host has to bear. Again, this is not the prevalent characteristic of public demonstrations. I believe that this perception is born of the media’s tendency to focus on events that have turned ugly. Most public protests could have been quiet affairs that exert their own local influence without coming to the attention of the media. I remember the lecturers of my university protesting for better pay, but their dedication and professionalism has kept our classes going as scheduled – the protests were done in their free time and, most poignantly, during our graduation ceremony. It was their fight, but they recognised that the final beneficiaries are still their students.

Of course, we need not offer apologies for clamping down on CSOs – this is our land, so play by our rules. But as a member of the global community, it would only do Singapore good to think out of the confines of our dignified and orderly society, and start to understand the difficulties that our fellow global citizens face. When we begin to see that a public protest could be their most logical recourse for justice, not just a mere voicing of their grouses, we might also begin to empathise with the causes of CSOs. For sure, if they succeed, they might create a dent in our global economy. But if it means that some Turkish village boy can have a better shot at life, I’ll take my chances. N

In memory of Steve Irwin

The Aussie grads in my office gathered for a hush at the end of day.

The news broke earlier yesterday morning: Steve Irwin, the famed Croc Hunter of Australian TV, has died.

The memory was poignant among us, although for different reasons. We all watched Irwin one way or another when we were Down Under. Jenn lamented the waste and the tragedy for the family. Chucky sniffed for a loss of this larger-than-life TV personality, who has brought a unique joy into Australian entertainment.

I can't help feeling a sense of peace, despite the tragic loss of a visionary, that Irwin died doing what he believed was the most important thing in the world - fostering a better public understanding of our natural environment. I am sure that, had he survived, he would have, much like Rodney Fox, declared: "Don't blame the stingray, it's gorgeous! I was just stupid..."

But I remember Irwin best as someone who broke boundaries in the media industry. With his daring antics, he was probably the first to turn a biology class into a media zoo, literally. His show connected the everyday bloke to nature. Irwin made his point by example, simply by being out there.

In many ways, his media presence was not unlike Princess Diana - he had a cause to fulfill, and he knew that the best way to do it is through media publicity. Some would call his stunts reckless and show-boating. For me, Irwin was just doing what he did best, what he believed he must do, and enjoyed himself all the way. I wonder how many of us can actually declare that while standing tall and proud before God.

To me, Irwin was an artful media user and a passionate environmentalist, characteristics which I respect and hold dear to my heart. He was a man with a cause bigger than himself, and knew exactly how he must accomplish it.

Australia has lost another great. I share their loss, as I offer my salute to the Croc Hunter. N

Ang's reply to "Blogging past the grey areas"

Here is Ang Peng Hwa's reply to my letter - sorry if it takes some searching in the Today's PDF mode, but I can't seem to get the text version, which is usually a direct link.

I'm glad that Mr Ang has clarified on what I now see as a shared view that being nice online does not always mean staying safe, or vice versa for that matter.

Still, my only discomfort is that the law and OB markers are never that clearly defined, as Martyn See's brush has suggested and which I have quoted. My contention is that the law has been "OB marked" as well, no less by the authorities who wish to wield them. I feel the main problem is that OB markers are never defined, which makes it rather easy, I challenge, for a potential defaulter to fault along them in the "application of the law", which as Mr Ang puts it is never easy for legal greens to grasp.

I'm also wondering if Mr Ang's seminar participants were more concerned about the exact word of law, or the areas where its application might suddenly pop out as OB and bite them hard. Sure, some cases are quite well defined, such as the cases of our “racists bloggers”, but not so clear for mr brown’s last foray in Today, which drew a thumbing-down from MICA and some suspect a chastisement from Today.

Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, please. However, there is no short way to define or debate on such a touchy issue. I would prefer a bit more time for a proper study – if only I can find the time…Mr Ang, no hard feelings for this - all purely for academic openess, and I appreciate your respond immensely! N