RSF ranked Singapore no. 140 out of 167 countries. See Confucius not allowed to teach here for some details.

Many excellent points were made by these letter-writers, and it is not my intention to regurgitate them here. But 3 points seem to be left aside most of the time, which made me write. All three come out of the government's spin.

But first, a bird's eye view of the published articles.

Freedom of expression is widely accepted in countries with a well-developed political culture as a human right. Moreover, the United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognises freedom of expression as a human right too.

The Singapore constitution too mentions freedom of expression as a fundamental right, though that much-amended piece of paper also has numerous ifs and buts.

Of course, no right is absolute; it's too utopian. But it's important to bear in mind that any abridgement of a right must meet the burden of proof.

It's the same way we approach an individual's liberty to go about his life and affairs. If we want to jail him, the onus is on us to show justification; he does not have to prove why he ought to be at liberty.

This principle is completely absent in the current debate. From the start, the government spun the argument as one of having to choose between civil peace and full stomachs on the one hand and press freedom on the other. The former is made the "true test" of a political system and with it, the desirability of press freedom.

Stanley Loh, the Press Secretary to the Senior Minister, said (Straits Times 9 Nov 2005, letter no 2 in the appendix), wrote:

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.

You'd notice that even the mention of "electoral mandate" is spin, but this is not the place to go into how our elections are far from free and fair.

Many of the writers in the Straits Times Forum saw through this "true test" claim.

Chia Hern Keng (in letter no. 7) wrote:

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.

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?

While Christopher Choo (in letter no. 8) pointed out,

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.

Indeed, there are so many examples of countries with more advanced economies, higher per capita GNP, and yet have high standards of media freedom.

Further on, Christopher Choo said, 

a free press could mean the difference between a top country like Denmark and a moderately good one like Singapore.

The government also raises the fear of racial and religious strife as an outcome of a free press. In his 31 October speech, Goh alluded to this by saying,

Editors and journalists must have high personal integrity and sound judgment - people who understand Singapore’s uniqueness as a country, our multi-racial and multi-religious make-up, vulnerabilities and national goals.

Paul Chan (letter no.3) echoed this:

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.

Teh Pei Jing (letter no. 5) disagreed.

[Paul Chan] 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.

Clement Wee (letter no. 10) provided another rebuttal:

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.

What you see is typical of a lot of debate in Singapore. The government makes bald assertions that tend to appeal to fear, while its critics are easily able to cite examples showing how poorly founded are those assertions.

Satisfying though this situation may be, it however leaves the government in the habit of sitting back and saying, well, if you think it should be otherwise, prove your case.

The reality may well be so, since they have the raw power, but it is also important to stress the moral point: that freedom of expression is, in the first place, a human right, and that strictly speaking, it is for the government to offer a convincing case why that right should be infringed, not the other way around.

* * * * *

Goh Chok Tong said, in his 31 October 2005 speech,

press freedom does not equate to press quality.

Stanley Loh, his Press Secretary wrote (letter no. 2)

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.

They do not! Why is satellite broadcasting banned? Why is there still film censorship? Why is the magazine 'The Advocate' banned? Why must political websites be registered, complete with a surety bond to ensure "good" behaviour? Why can't people make documentary videos of various politicians and their struggles?

This "quality press" claim is just another spin angle that the government is using: We do not need press freedom because we already have a quality press. 

Somehow, I don't see people taking issue with this point. We seem too ready to concede that we have a quality press. Yes, our press can be quite informative, and yes, they are freer than they once were, but let's not pretend that we have arrived.

Who judges what is quality? There are constituencies who do not think we are getting a quality press. There is still systemic editorial suppression of gay and lesbian news. In my article Hong Kong leads the way, I noted that while major newspapers around the world carried news about the successful constitutional challenge that overturned Hong Kong's gay age of consent law, our local media kept virtually mum.

Supporters of our opposition parties most certainly do not think we have a quality press for similar reasons.

Has anyone seen any critical commentary about the totally opaque way we change electoral boundaries just days before a general election? In any other country, this would be a huge issue on front pages for days and days. In Singapore, we get a report hewing closely to the government's press release and nothing else.

Of course, the question can be asked, why must a newspaper carry all the news, and all the views? Surely there must be room for editorial discretion?

Indeed, but freedom also means the freedom of other people to set up newspapers, TV stations, or broadcast by satellite, and so on. Let all these other editors exercise their discretion in their own way. News will then find a way to come through. Why are we channelling all news through government-approved newspapers and broadcasters?

In short, this "quality" argument is really little more than disinformation, and the implied trade-off that press freedom means trashy media is utter nonsense.

* * * * *

Every now and then, the government warns the press not to "set the agenda". Sometimes, it comes through in a different formulation, as in saying the press should not engage in "crusading journalism". For example, Goh Chok Tong said on 31 October 2005,

editors should take a balanced approach so as not to allow the commentary and opinion pages of their newspapers to reflect only biased or partisan views. More importantly, news should not be slanted to serve a hidden agenda.

Is all advocacy out of bounds? The above words sure sound as if no opinions that are strongly against the government's policies should be aired, for these must perforce be "biased" or "partisan"!

Is arguing for a moratorium on capital punishment "biased"?

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.

This is another way of saying that the media should not raise issues that the government does not want raised. And that as the holder of the popular mandate (electoral farce notwithstanding), it's for the government to set the agenda.

The spin makes it sound so lofty, but let's examine what the agenda has been.

1. Control the media;

2. Squeeze the opposition parties well beyond every conscionable person's idea of fair play;

3. Use government-linked companies to destroy political upstarts like presidential election hopeful Andrew Kuan.

And more, and more, and more.

If that's the kind of agenda we get from the government, wouldn't we all rather have a rambunctious media set the agenda?

Now, let me touch on letter no. 6, by Paul Wee. The main argument in his letter, Press freedom a non-issue in the Internet age, is that of the internet as a bypass even when the mainstream media is controlled.

China has shown that if a government is prepared to pay the price, it can control what gets through. Certainly, the Singapore government has armed itself with the powers to do a lot of damage. If tomorrow they require every blog that touches on politics, no matter how slightly, to register with the Media Development Authority under the Internet Code of Practice, and put up a $50,000 bond each, they have the legal powers to do so.

I don't think people can even be confident of anonymity. If the IP addresses of people uploading music to file-sharing sites can be traced –- the Straits Times reported that 33 persons are under investigation for theft of intellectual property right now -– I don't see how anyone can be sure his uploads to his webblog can't be traced either.

In any case, as Charles Tan said in his letter Citizens haven't the advantages that journalists have (see box on the right), reporters have special access to newsmakers. There are certain kinds of news that amateur citizens may not be able to ferret out.

So journalists have an important role to play not easily duplicated by others. And it is reckless of us not to be alert to governments and powerful interests chipping away the space and freedom necessary for them to do their jobs.

© Yawning Bread