Finally, Singapore has done atrociously in an international ranking - coming in 140th out of 167 countries in a press-freedom index constructed by media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, behind such bastions of freedom as Russia (138th), Sudan (133rd) and Afghanistan (125th).

More interesting is the official response Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong downplays the significance and methodology of the survey, while highlighting other surveys in which Singapore has done well ('SM to media Use freedom responsibly'; ST, Nov 1).

He notes that the index is only a subjective measure, 'computed through the prism of Western liberals', while implicitly acknowledging that indices like the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom is based on hard, solid facts.

However, such 'hard' indices are also constructed through the filter of the liberal Western 'prism' some value judgments have to be used in deciding the criteria for the 10 broad factors of economic freedom in the Heritage Foundation's index, for example.

Each index should be regarded in its own right, and even though the factors taken into consideration for the press-freedom index may be considered subjective and arbitrary, it still stands that Singapore, judged on the same bases as neighbouring countries like Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, fell far short of even the regional standard.

Slightly more disturbing is SM's remark 'It has not been proven that having more press freedom would result in a clean and efficient government or economic freedom and prosperity.'

Underlying this statement is the assumption that, first, Singapore values an uncorrupt government and its wealth more than freedom of the press; and second, that having a freer press might infringe on the efficiency of the government or the economy.

While the Government is free to choose its own 'core values' for Singapore, this choice might also be questioned. Part of the responsibility of a free press is as a check and balance to the incumbent government, especially in the absence of a strong opposition. Just because the benefits of having a free press are intangible does not mean that they are non-existent.

And perhaps, like courtesy and racial tolerance, freedom of the press may be valuable as an end in itself, even while they can be useful to society.

Perhaps it is time to rethink the tired old official party line of OB markers and social expediency as a rationale for ignoring the non-economic aspects of development.

Leong Chee Tung

* * * * *

9 Nov 2005
Straits Times Forum

I refer to Mr Leong Chee Tung's letter, 'Press-freedom ranking: Why need for concern' (ST, Nov 5).

Mr Leong argued that 'freedom of the press may be valuable as an end in itself'. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong disagrees. An unfettered press that acts irresponsibly can be destructive.

Also, in some Western countries, the media sets the agenda for the nation, and forces elected governments to react to its agenda. This would be against Singaporeans' interest as the media, unlike an elected government, is not accountable to the people.

Mr Leong questioned why SM Goh downplayed the significance of Singapore's ranking on the Press Freedom Index while highlighting our better rankings on the Economic Freedom and Corruption Perception indices, when all three were produced by Western non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The Press Freedom Index relied only on a single survey of correspondents and NGOs promoting freedom of expression, a process which was inherently biased. By the organisation's own admission, the index is also not an indication of press quality.

SM Goh used the three indices, all computed through Western prisms, to show that press freedom does not necessarily lead to a clean and effective government or to economic freedom and prosperity.

Despite Singapore's low press-freedom ranking, we have been placed near the top of every measure of economic and social development by other reputable international organisations, such as the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, International Institute of Management Development and World Economic Forum.

That many countries with better press-freedom rankings had fared poorly in the Economic Freedom and Corruption Perception indices further supports this point.

Mr Leong also observed that SM Goh had assumed that 'Singapore values an incorrupt government and its wealth more than freedom of the press'. It depends on what comprises 'freedom of the press'.

Having a media that is free to expose all wrongdoing of the government can help to keep the government incorrupt and efficient, though this has not always worked in Asia and many other countries.

However, the media should not set the political agenda, engage in partisan reporting, or campaign for its own political ends.

Mr Leong concluded that SM Goh had assumed that 'having a freer press might infringe on the efficiency of the government or the economy'. SM Goh's view is that provided that the media acts in a responsible manner, a freer press can contribute to good governance and economic prosperity.

Today, Singaporeans are better informed about domestic and international developments than people in many other countries. They have ready access to information from both local and foreign media. The foreign media can also freely report on developments in Singapore, but the Government reserves the right of reply to distorted and tendentious reports.

Singapore's model of government and the media has given our country a clean government, social equity and harmony, and, as a result, a strong economy. This is the true test of our approach, which the PAP offers the people and which Singaporeans have supported in successive elections since 1959.

Stanley Loh 
Press Secretary to the Senior Minister

* * * * *

9 Nov 2005
Straits Times Forum

I refer to the letter, 'Press-freedom ranking Why need for concern' (ST Nov 5), by Mr Leong Chee Tung.

Mr Leong thinks Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong downplayed the significance and methodology of the press-freedom survey while highlighting other surveys in which Singapore did well.

I agree fully with SM Goh's observation that it has not been proven that having more press freedom would result in a clean and efficient government or economic freedom and prosperity.

Let us look at those countries ranked above Singapore. I find it much more disturbing to note that most of them did not manage to break free from the grip of corruption and improve the lives of their people over the last 40 years.

Yes, the Press Freedom Index constructed by media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RWB) applies the same criteria and yardsticks in compiling the ranking of the 167 countries. Yes, we even ranked behind Sudan (133rd) and Afghanistan (125th). However, in compiling the index RWB missed out the most important ingredient that makes Singapore tick: The Government's political will to ensure multiracial and multi-religious harmony.

The Government's zero-tolerance policy on corruption and its relentless efforts to create wealth for the people through rigorous economic development have brought Singapore from Third World to First World in just over 40 years.

If RWB included conflicts between ethnic groups as one of the criteria, the ranking of Singapore would be different.

Let us also look at press freedom from another angle. If a country is bogged down by power struggles between various ethnic groups, constant conflict among political parties, corruption and flare-ups among religious factions, does it help its people to have press freedom?

We should never forget that a fair and responsible press in a multiracial country is key to maintaining harmony and ensuring economic development and prosperity.

An irresponsible free press can spark chaos, violence and conflicts, leading to untold miseries for the people. This kind of freedom is too high a price to pay for developing countries. We certainly do not want this.

I would rather live in Singapore, ranked 140th in RWB's international ranking of press freedom, than in a country which ranked 125th but is devastated by internal wars, riven by factional divisions and plagued by foreign intervention.

Paul Chan Poh Hoi 

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Forum

I agree with the comments by Mr Stanley Loh, press secretary to the Senior Minister, in 'S'pore's model of govt and media has worked' (ST, Nov 9).

Having recently returned to Singapore after living in Sydney for three years, I agree with Mr Loh that Singaporeans are better informed about domestic and international developments than people in many other countries.

At the end of the day, I strongly believe what is most important is what works for the individual country, not where we are ranked among other countries.

The challenges Singapore faces in maintaining social cohesion in a small multi-ethnic and multi-religious society cannot be overstated.

As a small country, the Government's primary task is the 'bread- and-butter' concerns of the people.

Investors will always pick a country that can guarantee a stable environment and efficient system rather than one ranked top in the press freedom index but with little else to offer.

We should not be overly concerned with our current position (140th out of 167 countries).

At least we are not hypocrites about where we stand with regard to press freedom.

We make it clear that issues such as race and religion must be handled with great sensitivity, unlike countries which curb press freedom when it is politically expedient.

Let me highlight two examples.

In Australia, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is government funded.

During the war in Iraq, ABC was under continuous attack by the Australian government for its critical reporting of Australian involvement in Iraq, characterised by 'one-sided and tendentious commentary by programme presenters and reporters'.

The government gave it an ultimatum to change its coverage, or it would cut its funding.

More recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair censured the British Broadcasting Corporation for its negative approach to the Bush administration in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

He denounced its coverage as 'full of hatred of America' and 'gloating at the country's plight'.

We know what our interests are and we have compelling reasons for our laws and regulations.

In this regard, we should not change just to please Western-influenced liberals who apply their notion of freedom of the press unthinkingly to Singapore, without the slightest effort to comprehend the rationale behind our policies.

I want to continue to see Singaporeans live in a stable, secure and prosperous environment.

To this end, I will gladly accept a top ranking for choice of location by investors rather than see us sit atop the press freedom index any day.

Siow Jia Rui

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Forum

I write in reply to Mr Paul Chan Poh Hoi ('Press freedom? I would choose S'pore anytime'; ST, Nov 9).

In particular, Mr Chan wrote 'We should never forget that a fair and responsible press in a multiracial country is key to maintaining harmony and ensuring economic development and prosperity.

'An irresponsible free press can spark chaos, violence and conflicts, leading to untold miseries for the people. This kind of freedom is too high a price to pay for developing countries. We certainly do not want this.'

While I share Mr Chan's patriotic feeling for Singapore, he makes two implications I disagree with: that a free press is necessarily irresponsible and unfair, and that a controlled press is necessarily responsible and fair. There are instances where a newspaper's uninhibited reporting has led to greater awareness of social injustices, such as racism or government failure.

Notable examples include the Washington Post investigation of the infamous Watergate scandal and the New York Times expose of the Tuskegee experiment, in which black patients suffering from syphilis were secretly deprived of treatment to see how it affected them and their children.

There are also many instances in which controlled media have been extremely irresponsible: Rwandan state radio instigation of genocide is an obvious example.

There are other examples of how a free press does not cause the effects Mr Chan claims. Britain has a media that is famously free, even by the standards of the United States. The British media coexist harmoniously in a multicultural society. The free press does not cause 'chaos, violence and conflicts, leading to untold miseries for the people' as Mr Chan claims in his generalisation.

On the contrary, the press in Britain has consistently highlighted and condemned racism and bigotry that leads to the very chaos and violence depicted by Mr Chan. Arguably, this has helped Britain in its multicultural approach.

To address the context of Singapore, I disagree with Mr Chan's argument that a free press is inappropriate because it 'is too high a price to pay for developing countries'.

In developing countries like India, it is often the free press that leads the way to actual change.

My disagreement stems from whether Singapore is a developing country in the first place. Having studied abroad in Germany and the US, I disagree that Singapore is less developed than either country in any way.

I disagree with Mr Chan that we do not want a free press he may speak for himself, but he does not speak for me in this regard.

My belief is that, having come so far, in order to progress further, Singapore needs more open dialogue, feedback and discussion to foment the type of creativity and out-of-the-box thinking we will depend on in future.

Such openness and transparency can come about only in a free environment for dialogue to take place. A free press is a necessary step to create a conducive climate for open dialogue.

On a personal level, we cannot progress without feedback from other people. Analogously, on a societal level, we need feedback that can come only from a free and relatively unbiased press to be able to progress from where we are to where we want to be.

Teh Pei Jing Texas, US

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Forum

I refer to the recent reports and letters on press freedom, or the lack of it, in Singapore.

Given today's borderless cyberspace of the World Wide Web and Internet-speed communications, I believe freedom of the press is a non-issue as far as Singapore is concerned.

While a muzzled press may restrict the flow of information in countries where the reach of the Internet is still embryonic, for an IT-savvy nation like Singapore, the press is no longer the sole source of information.

This explains how information from all quarters offering both truths and lies can be had effortlessly and even wirelessly in Singapore via the Web. Hence, so-called press freedom is nothing but a dying battle cry that has little impact on anyone who can read, type and is computer-literate.

In today's lightning-speed communications with which a newsworthy murmur can be relayed globally in an instant, such talk of press freedom is silly because one cannot stop the flow.

Unlike in the past, when sources of information could be snuffed out easily even before newspapers hit the street, cyberspace today is just too big to police - and so it will remain at large.

So, while press freedom was once a coveted element of democracy, I do not think it matters now because one does not need the local press to be kept informed.

Paul Wee Kian Nghee

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

The letter 'Press freedom? I would choose S'pore anytime' (ST Nov 9) shows that there can be different angles in interpreting Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong's speech on press freedom.

SM Goh said a responsible and free press can contribute to good governance and economic prosperity. The letter writer however inextricably binds a free press to irresponsibility, anarchy, strife and racial conflicts.

In any case, our government always seems to address the issue of press freedom together with law and order and economics. The crime rate, racial conflicts, corruption and economic performance of countries are often lumped into the discussion.

I find this approach rather obfuscating and leads to all sorts of confusing arguments for and against press freedom. Although it is true that press freedom, law and order, and economics overlap and impact upon each other, it hinders understanding if they are too tangled up with each other in the debate. Allow me to clarify why this is so.

The view that some countries which have more press freedom than Singapore are doing worse economically, have higher crime rates and social unrest may not prove anything about press freedom.

This is because these socio-economic problems are often caused by a lack of business culture, lax law enforcement, the want of socio-ethical values and numerous other factors. These are big issues in themselves apart from press freedom.

As for the fact that Singapore has thrived economically, the credit should to a large extent be given to our local businessmen and not just to the government alone.

Although the government says that our people need more entrepreneurship and has been promoting it as a fashionable thing, in reality it is just another word for our long-existing and strong business culture.

Just to give an indication of how deep and pervasive our business culture is, the Yellow Pages in Singapore were thicker than those of much larger cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco during the good times.

What I am saying is that our economic performance is rooted is something else than the government's stringent control of the press.

Therefore it is more helpful to discuss press freedom as a principle of democratic and good governance rather than tangle it with economics, law and order.

As a principle of democratic and good governance adopted by developed countries, why is there the thinking in Singapore that press freedom implies an irresponsible press bringing harm to society?

Are there no laws in our country that ensure the press is responsible? There are laws against sedition, defamation, propagation of lies, inciting racial and religious conflicts, just to name some. Under such legal circumstances, in what ways can a free press be irresponsible?

The Western press has often been derided by our authorities to show how undesirable press freedom can be.

If there is any insinuation that the Western press is irresponsible and causes many problems for their societies, little of such things in fact exist as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Today we have the wonderful internet which allows anyone to verify this fact.

There are countless news publications online. Reading the articles and reports, one cannot help but think that they are very safe and balanced in their approach. And why?

Because the same types of laws, not to mention the sense of social responsibility, found in our land also exist in other developed countries. The press people know full well that they can be sued or charged if they go out of line.

In fact despite their press freedom you can still find mind-numbing political-correctness in the pro-Establishment papers especially in the aftermath of a national crisis like 9/11. What more if there is a want of press freedom?

If anything, press freedom will help a nation by highlighting unaddressed problems. This implies that the press is in a position to advocate and frame political issues, as signified in the term 'Fourth Estate'.

But even without press freedom, it is already playing such a role. This is because it is forced to propagate the views of the Establishment in an unthinking manner, what SM Goh called 'parroting' the government's views.

I believe one of the bones of contention about press freedom in Singapore is that the government has more than just the laws to control the media.

It has the Internal Security Act to arrest journalists and it can jail anyone without trial if it thinks they are creating problems through the press.

To me this is totally unnecessary for those who use civil ways to resolve issues. Journalism is such a civil profession and it should not be lumped together with gangsters which the ISA was initially intended for.

There are numerous critical national challenges which our country must continually confront and resolve. A subservient press which constantly self-censors important views just because they are not politically correct is not helpful for our country's progress.

Conversely, if there are more viewpoints to issues this will help people to think critically and broaden their minds and hearts.

The government and nation will then not risk lulling themselves into a belief that everything is progressing well when there are unaddressed and critical challenges.

At the end of the day, the idea of press freedom is to promote understanding, orderly and civil communication, and the resolution of issues for society. Can this be wrong?

The world will surely pass us by if our country does not allow its people to discuss, debate and resolve issues civilly.

Chia Hern Keng 

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

I refer to the letters by Mr Stanley Loh 'S'pore's model of govt and media has worked' and by Mr Paul Chan Poh Hoi 'Press freedom? I would choose S'pore anytime' (ST Nov 9).

They failed to show how economic prosperity is inextricably linked to press freedom. While Singapore has done very well in economic and social indicator rankings, the same can be said of other countries that were placed at the top of the Press Freedom Index.

For instance, Switzerland, one of the economic role models for Singapore, was placed alongside other European nations such as Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Netherlands at the top of the Press Freedom Index.

These countries are neither on the brink of economic collapse nor ranked very low in terms of government corruptibility. In fact, Iceland and Finland were ranked 1st and 2nd in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2005, while Denmark was ranked 4th, one spot above Singapore.

In addition, Denmark, Ireland, Iceland and Finland rank higher than Singapore in terms of GDP per capita, according to the CIA World Factbook.

Instead of looking at countries that were ranked at the bottom of these indices, I suggest that the government look at countries that were placed above it in various indices to determine the best course of action for Singapore.

Neither the incorruptibility of the government nor economic prosperity is founded on press freedom, but a free press could mean the difference between a top country like Denmark and a moderately good one like Singapore.

The government should examine whether the lack of press freedom has prevented Singapore from reaching greater heights in terms of economic and social progress.

It should admit that there is a long way to go in terms of press freedom and, like when Singapore became independent in 1965, we can be heartened that the only direction we can go from here is up.

Christopher Ledesma Choo Weisen

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

I read with some dismay Mr Paul Chan Poh Hoi's letter 'Press Freedom? I would choose S'pore anytime' (ST Nov 9).

He seems to have totally misunderstood the issue facing the nation and the media ie. whether there is cause for concern for the low ranking in press freedom and what must we do to improve our ranking.

But most importantly, he makes this incredible assertion without substantiating it that press freedom correlates with increased strain on multi-ethnicity and religious harmony.

What makes it even more incredulous is that he writes in the context of Singapore and ignores all the factors which make it terribly unlikely that greater press freedom would strain the harmonious relations that the various racial and religious groups enjoy today.

Firstly, Singapore is not torn or 'bogged down by power struggles between various ethnic groups' and does not have 'flare-ups among religious factions'.

As such, there is no dichotomy in having to choose between greater press freedom and a 'peaceful nation'. Unless Mr Chan can demonstrate that having greater press freedom causes such flare-ups, it does a great disservice to the 'fair and responsible' media which we have that it cannot handle such rights and privileges.

Secondly, the context of Singapore ensures that such a scenario is highly unlikely to occur. Not only do we have a media that is sensitive to the supposedly fragile societal order that we have, but we also have a government and laws that ensure that no individual or body will threaten this peace with the threat of criminal sanction.

We have seen the authorities crack down hard on racist bloggers under the Sedition Act. There are laws against libel and slander and Singapore has some of the strictest interpretations of these laws. The freedom of speech has never been and will never be absolute.

Furthermore, there is a concerted effort by the government and the media to emphasise that this peace is not a given but requires action on the part of all citizens to be understanding and tolerant.

As such, it can be stated with conviction that we are not a developing nation riven by ethnic tensions. Nor are we a nation that does not understand or preaches intolerance. Furthermore, we have the rule of law and a media which understands that it has a role to play in maintaining this harmony.

So the question really must be, why not more press freedom? It does not have to mean more tabloids.

Shaun Lee Wei Han

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

I was extremely confused when I read the letters 'S'pore's model of govt and media has worked' by Mr Stanley Loh and 'Press freedom? I would choose Singapore any time' by Mr Paul Chan Poh Hoi (ST Nov 9).

It appears to me that both Mr Loh and Mr Chan are confusing two totally separate issues hardware and heartware.

In Singapore, we talk about the need to build hardware and software in our people. From the letters, both of them show a bias toward hardware.

The reputable international organizations mentioned by Mr Loh carry out surveys on the hardware of a population income, infrastructure and demographics.

Mr Chan, likewise, mentions 'efforts to create wealth' and 'conflicts between ethnic groups'. The latter measures the numerical incidence of violence but unfortunately it does not include phenomena such as minorities sitting together in their own groups in school canteens or how much racial teasing among students affects its victims.

Hence, it is merely another quasi-demographical trend. On the other hand, the Press Freedom Index measures level of commitment to maintaining press freedom shown through actions, that is it aims to quantify a mindset and attitude, not infrastructure or demographics.

In fact, the level of press freedom is a measure of the level of tolerance of different ways of thinking.

Mr Chan mentions the famous point about an irresponsible free press sowing the seeds of disharmony. Strangely, the countries which have the highest levels of press freedom are also the countries which score highest in the index and related indices Denmark, Norway.

Switzerland is 7th in press freedom, far higher than Singapore's 140th, and we all know that the Swiss are multi-ethnic and yet harmonious. In fact, Swiss harmony is one of the topics in the school Social Studies syllabus.

Following Mr Chan's logic, Switzerland would be rife with ethnic violence, constant conflict among political parties and corruption. Sure, Switzerland scores two notches below us in the Corruption Perceptions Index, but the raw score is merely a difference of 0.3.

Denmark ranks one notch above us. Iceland, the least corrupt nation, ranks 3rd for press freedom. All this shows that more press freedom does not necessarily lead to heightened corruption or anarchy.

Mr Chan sees a fair and responsible press as essential for our multiracial community. Is it impossible to add 'free' to that list of adjectives?

In Mr Loh's letter, several terms need clarification. What is considered 'distorted andtendentious'? Anything which criticises government policy? What is considered 'partisan reporting'? Any supportive reporting that is not for the ruling party? What is 'press quality'?

It is clear that the surveys Mr Loh cites are just as 'inherently biased' as the Press Freedom Index, although both are biased toward different aspects the former toward political-economic factors, the latter toward political-psychological.

One interesting question begs a reply though if we had ranked much higher than even Mr Chan's proposed 125th, would we then have seized the chance to use that to justify a rejection of the results from other surveys ranking us less favourably?

Mr Loh and Mr Chan both have narrow-mindedly seized on our strengths to justify our weaknesses. Mr Loh especially utilizes the ends-justify-the-means paradigm.

Both, I feel, should be reminded that the process is just as important as the final outcome, and that we should seek to improve our heartware as much as we should seek to improve or maintain the quality of our hardware.

Clement Wee Hong En

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

Mr Stanley Loh, press secretary to the Senior Minister, said 'an unfettered press that acts irresponsibly can be destructive. Also, in some Western countries, the media sets the agenda for the nation, and forces elected governments to react to its agenda. This would be against Singaporeans' interest as the media, unlike an elected government, is not accountable to the people' (ST Nov 9).

What Mr Loh said is true, as the elected government has to account for its actions because it alone has the people's mandate. The press gives its opinion, for which it is not accountable to the electorate.

In this sense the government carries the baby should anything go wrong, while the press in utilising its freedom of expression within the democratic process can claim that it is expressing an opinion and not making a judgement.

It can be argued that in the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon was brought down by such press opinions. However, it cannot be denied, notwithstanding Watergate and the Vietnam War, that absolute freedom of the press can do irreparable damage to the nation.

The polemic resides in the semantics of the word 'responsible' and where it starts and ends. What is irresponsible and where does it start? Interpretations will vary, depending on which side of the fence one stands.

This is a fact of life. Must we have freedom at any cost? Freedom is an abstraction and is subjective. Do we throw out peace and harmony to worship at the altar of an abstraction?

Reporters Without Borders (RWB) will of course plump for freedom, this abstraction, and for as great a breadth of it as possible, and even peregrinating into the frontiers of the irresponsible.

This freedom touted as the quintessence of democracy was seen in the Flor Contemplacion case. The Philippine press lambasted us with vulgarities and whipped up national feelings which put Singaporean lives in danger.

While this was going on in the Philippines, where a bomb was exploded near the SIA office in Manila and our flags were burnt, the Filipino citizens here were going about their daily business in peace and safety.

The Filipino maids congregated in their hundreds at Lucky Plaza, Cathedral of the Good Shepherd, the vacant ground behind the Orchard MRT, to spend their leisure hours on Sunday without any harassment or retaliatory action from Singaporeans. No Philippine flags were burnt and no bomb was detonated at the Philippine embassy.

Why? Because we understood the reality of a limited freedom. We understood that our press also had the potential to whip up feelings, fan emotions into eruption against the Filipinos. This could not be allowed in the name of democracy or freedom of expression.

We not only had to safeguard the Filipinos in our midst, we also had in the name of decency and responsibility to protect the foreigners here because they came in trust of our justice.

The crux of the whole issue is that freedom cannot be absolute. Freedom like everything else has to conform to rules and it is not immune to them, as the RWB believe. What underpins freedom is justice. It is the insurance for our lives, behaviour and property, and the premium we pay is obedience to its tenets.

Our press, therefore, was not allowed to reciprocate the obscenities hurled at us. Does the RWB consider this a lack of freedom of the press? Our society is fragile and the bonds keeping the balance between races and religions are easily broken to plunge our society into civil strife.

Has the RWB taken this into consideration? What price freedom?

The English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes said there can be no freedom without law and order. So was he against freedom per se? Law and order protect and sustain freedom. But, paradoxically, these factors also curtail freedom.

This is the balance where the symbiosis of law, order and freedom in Hegelian dialectic follow the quid pro quo. Despite the limits on press freedom, it is still a forum for reckoning. It can work in freedom, responsibility and independence.

It, however, cannot work in the name of freedom for prejudice, injustice and ignorance. The government has the responsibility to stop this aberrant freedom before it destroys society.

To see freedom at any price is to be like the man who resolves not to go into the water until he learns to swim. There is obfuscation of reality by an ideology.

Dudley Au

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

I refer to the letters by Mr Stanley Loh 'S'pore's model of govt and media has worked' and by Mr Paul Chan 'Press Freedom? I would choose S'pore anytime' (ST Nov 9).

I agree with some of the points they made, namely that a responsible press is just as important as a free press and that the press should not take over the elected government in setting the political agenda because it was not democratically elected by the people.

However, both writers are missing the point of having a free press. A free press is important to expose corruption and injustice within the government, big business and society.

This duty is owed to the public and its freedom is there to ensure that it would not be partial to anyone or any sector of society.

Terms like 'responsible' and 'setting the political agenda' are vague and they are not self-evident. What is considered responsible to one group may be irresponsible to another. Would responsibility include reporting every news from a pro-government perspective?

Let us not leave it to one particular group to decide what is a responsible press. Rather, it should be in the sphere of public opinion that society decides when the press has gone too far in a particular situation.

Mr Chan suggests that many of the countries above Singapore in the Press Freedom Index are 'devastated by internal wars, riven by factional divisions and plagued by foreign intervention'.

What has these got to do with press freedom? With or without press freedom, the destructive elements can set in if there is no social or political stability. A free press can add to political stability because it acts as a check against corruption and helps to alleviate the plight of the oppressed.

If Mr Chan wants to point to countries that apparently have a freer press than Singapore but are poorer in terms of economic prosperity, how would he respond to nations like Denmark (1st) and Finland (2nd) which are just as prosperous and stable as a developed nation like Singapore?

We should compare Singapore with developed countries rather than to compare it with Third World countries like Sudan and Afghanistan.

Kevin Yong Ee Wen

* * * * *

14 Nov 2005
Straits Times Online Forum

On the article 'SM to Media Use freedom responsibly' (ST Nov 1), I want to comment on the ranking system used by Reporters Without Border, which ranks Singapore 140th among 167 countries for media freedom.

I do not feel ashamed that Singapore is placed thus. The ranking was based on a completely different set of values upheld by the Western democracies.

What may be an ideal free press for a Western democracy may not be ideal for Singapore. If the government takes responsibility in ensuring the well-being of every Singaporean, there is no need for crusading journalism in our country, at least for now. However, this does not mean the death of crusading journalism.

We must not forget that our press has served as a counter-balance against misbehaviour by public figures. If our press is not free, it will not be able to report such wrongdoings. Similarily, the debate on the Integrated Resort is a product of the freedom to exchange views between the people and the government through the press.

I feel that the role of a free press in the Singaporean context is to preserve the freedom of all Singaporeans. The preservation of freedom in Singapore must not be an act of voicing opinions freely and irresponsibly.

It should be an act of creating or building on constructive opinions that will benefit Singapore as a whole and overcoming those who disrupt the cohesiveness in our society.

Alvin Lee Wen Pin