http://www.littlespeck.com/new/CTrendsLifestyle-120923.htm
SPECIAL - Media:
Improving credibility
To lure the cynics back to the mainstream, NatCon should review press controls born of the chaotic past. By Seah Chiang Nee
Sept 23, 2012
(Synopsis: A plausible solution - start allowing a truly independent press run by trained professionals, objective and staunchly loyal to Singapore.)
Many years ago I had an opportunity to talk to a senior figure about government control of newspapers clouding their credibility among citizens, especially youths.
Unlike in other developed countries for example, editorials of journals here were rarely sought after by Singaporeans wanting to know how an independent media viewed national problems, I said.
No one I knew of had read these opinions on a regular basis in order to get an informed objective insight into Singapore’s current affairs, especially what Singaporeans want.
His response was: “In Singapore we have our way of doing things. We need not heed what outsiders tell us!” I thought it futile to push it.
It was obviously his way of dismissing a tiresome subject by another journalist talking of ‘press freedom’. I was actually doing nothing like that; I was talking of press credibility.
He could not possibly have missed my reference to Singaporeans, not foreigners.
This weak media trust we suffered from, I felt, stemmed from excessive controls rather than journalistic inadequacies and wasn’t contributing to nation-building.
Without a national newspaper being regarded as a voice of society, how could it help rally people to face any threat, internal or external?
As a consequence, the current generation of young Singaporeans is increasingly turning to the New Media for information, reducing print circulations. Trouble is, we all know, not all of it was misleading, believable.
The Internet, too, has its dark corners.
In a recent update, writer Aaron Koh wrote of a continued decline or stagnation of English-language newspapers in the past six years.
The circulation of flagship Straits Times, with it near monopoly, fell from 388,500 to 367,200 copies a day – or five per cent - since 2006. The Sunday edition dropped seven percent.
This was despite one of the sharpest population increases in post-independence history – by 18 percent from 4.4 to 5.2 million.
(Another report by Les Tan, quoting figures from the Department of Statistics, showed an even sharper drop of English-press circulations - by a huge 24.5 percent from 2002 to 2007.)
The afternoon tabloid, New Paper, suffered biggest daily circulation drops of all, falling 12 percent from 111,400 to 98,100 copies, said Aaron.
Business Times, however, went up 26 percent from 30,400 to 38,400, an apparent reflection of a strong economy and stock market.
In perspective, however, the increase was made up of many low-income foreign workers or people who did not read English.
On the contrary, the influx of mainland Indians and Chinese pushed up the sales of Tamil Murasu (by 16 percent) and Shin Min (13 percent).
During my stint covering the Singapore Story for much of half a century, I was often told by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) that an unfettered press could turn this orderly place upside down.
For its founding leader, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, whose leadership shaped Singapore, the idea of independent newspapers being the voice of Singaporeans or the conscience of society was a rippling danger.
To him, it was like sharing power. For the sake of national interest, Singapore could only have one voice, the PAP’s.
He had believed that to stay in charge, the PAP must control three things – finance (the reserves), security forces (army and police) and the media. To this day, they remain so.
In the early chaotic days, this media control was actually necessary.
The first newspaper that I worked with, The Singapore Herald, faced his wrath and was closed in the 70s because Lee considered it a threat.
It was a time, he felt, when Chinese- and Malay-speaking chauvinists were pulling the country towards different directions.
And the Herald (I was News Editor) was tugging English-educated Singaporeans yet towards a third direction - a liberal cause and freedom of the press.
These were dangerous forces that were, he believed, tearing up Singapore. What Lee felt he needed was partners, not opponents in nation-building.
Today as Singapore takes the shape of a sophisticated global city, such worries still lurk inside the PAP mind. It still believes the press must be controlled so that Singapore, especially the economy, can march forward.
And paying the price for all this is the reading public - and the city’s nine newspapers belonging to the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH).
In recent years, newspaper revenues had already been falling as a result of competition from the Net and TV – now smart-phones - although much less than those in the West for two reasons.
The first is that our papers enjoyed virtual monopoly, especially The Straits Times, and secondly, SPH had long moved into investments and profitable properties. It was quite good at it and shareholders benefited.
There will be no doomsday scenario for the print media, however. Besides, the government has a special interest in keeping the three newspapers alive, if not roaring – Straits Times (English), Lianhe Zaobao (Chinese) and Berita Harian (Malay).
For most of history, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had refused to issue any more licences because “Singapore is too small to have more than one newspaper.”
Many of the lost readers today are young people whom we need to work with to form whatever country we want to see for the next 20 years.
As the Lee Kuan Yew era draws to a close and his successors move cautiously towards public consultation, Lee’s old media strategy that was born of a chaotic past is bound to come under increasing scrutiny.
It is not too early for change.
Already many cynical Singaporean youths - wary of a controlled press – have been turning away from mainstream society and forming themselves unhealthily into their own sub-community – even a sub-culture.
They ignore or belittle official pronouncements – at times unfairly - and talk only among themselves or with each other.
I asked a young man about this and he agreed this was happening, but he added: “Soon we’ll no longer be a sub-community, but become mainstream people.”
SPECIAL - Media:
Improving credibility
To lure the cynics back to the mainstream, NatCon should review press controls born of the chaotic past. By Seah Chiang Nee
Sept 23, 2012
(Synopsis: A plausible solution - start allowing a truly independent press run by trained professionals, objective and staunchly loyal to Singapore.)
Many years ago I had an opportunity to talk to a senior figure about government control of newspapers clouding their credibility among citizens, especially youths.
Unlike in other developed countries for example, editorials of journals here were rarely sought after by Singaporeans wanting to know how an independent media viewed national problems, I said.
No one I knew of had read these opinions on a regular basis in order to get an informed objective insight into Singapore’s current affairs, especially what Singaporeans want.
His response was: “In Singapore we have our way of doing things. We need not heed what outsiders tell us!” I thought it futile to push it.
It was obviously his way of dismissing a tiresome subject by another journalist talking of ‘press freedom’. I was actually doing nothing like that; I was talking of press credibility.
He could not possibly have missed my reference to Singaporeans, not foreigners.
This weak media trust we suffered from, I felt, stemmed from excessive controls rather than journalistic inadequacies and wasn’t contributing to nation-building.
Without a national newspaper being regarded as a voice of society, how could it help rally people to face any threat, internal or external?
As a consequence, the current generation of young Singaporeans is increasingly turning to the New Media for information, reducing print circulations. Trouble is, we all know, not all of it was misleading, believable.
The Internet, too, has its dark corners.
In a recent update, writer Aaron Koh wrote of a continued decline or stagnation of English-language newspapers in the past six years.
The circulation of flagship Straits Times, with it near monopoly, fell from 388,500 to 367,200 copies a day – or five per cent - since 2006. The Sunday edition dropped seven percent.
This was despite one of the sharpest population increases in post-independence history – by 18 percent from 4.4 to 5.2 million.
(Another report by Les Tan, quoting figures from the Department of Statistics, showed an even sharper drop of English-press circulations - by a huge 24.5 percent from 2002 to 2007.)
The afternoon tabloid, New Paper, suffered biggest daily circulation drops of all, falling 12 percent from 111,400 to 98,100 copies, said Aaron.
Business Times, however, went up 26 percent from 30,400 to 38,400, an apparent reflection of a strong economy and stock market.
In perspective, however, the increase was made up of many low-income foreign workers or people who did not read English.
On the contrary, the influx of mainland Indians and Chinese pushed up the sales of Tamil Murasu (by 16 percent) and Shin Min (13 percent).
During my stint covering the Singapore Story for much of half a century, I was often told by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) that an unfettered press could turn this orderly place upside down.
For its founding leader, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, whose leadership shaped Singapore, the idea of independent newspapers being the voice of Singaporeans or the conscience of society was a rippling danger.
To him, it was like sharing power. For the sake of national interest, Singapore could only have one voice, the PAP’s.
He had believed that to stay in charge, the PAP must control three things – finance (the reserves), security forces (army and police) and the media. To this day, they remain so.
In the early chaotic days, this media control was actually necessary.
The first newspaper that I worked with, The Singapore Herald, faced his wrath and was closed in the 70s because Lee considered it a threat.
It was a time, he felt, when Chinese- and Malay-speaking chauvinists were pulling the country towards different directions.
And the Herald (I was News Editor) was tugging English-educated Singaporeans yet towards a third direction - a liberal cause and freedom of the press.
These were dangerous forces that were, he believed, tearing up Singapore. What Lee felt he needed was partners, not opponents in nation-building.
Today as Singapore takes the shape of a sophisticated global city, such worries still lurk inside the PAP mind. It still believes the press must be controlled so that Singapore, especially the economy, can march forward.
And paying the price for all this is the reading public - and the city’s nine newspapers belonging to the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH).
In recent years, newspaper revenues had already been falling as a result of competition from the Net and TV – now smart-phones - although much less than those in the West for two reasons.
The first is that our papers enjoyed virtual monopoly, especially The Straits Times, and secondly, SPH had long moved into investments and profitable properties. It was quite good at it and shareholders benefited.
There will be no doomsday scenario for the print media, however. Besides, the government has a special interest in keeping the three newspapers alive, if not roaring – Straits Times (English), Lianhe Zaobao (Chinese) and Berita Harian (Malay).
For most of history, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew had refused to issue any more licences because “Singapore is too small to have more than one newspaper.”
Many of the lost readers today are young people whom we need to work with to form whatever country we want to see for the next 20 years.
As the Lee Kuan Yew era draws to a close and his successors move cautiously towards public consultation, Lee’s old media strategy that was born of a chaotic past is bound to come under increasing scrutiny.
It is not too early for change.
Already many cynical Singaporean youths - wary of a controlled press – have been turning away from mainstream society and forming themselves unhealthily into their own sub-community – even a sub-culture.
They ignore or belittle official pronouncements – at times unfairly - and talk only among themselves or with each other.
I asked a young man about this and he agreed this was happening, but he added: “Soon we’ll no longer be a sub-community, but become mainstream people.”
