Sammyboy RSS Feed
06-05-2014, 12:20 AM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
To answer this, we can be guided by the past. And Singapore’s recent past suggests that governance has suffered as a result of the media regulatory regime. Problems were not tackled in time, not because they emerged suddenly and out of the blue, but because censorship allowed the government to remain in denial for too long.
I recall that back in the 1990s, when I was a journalist in the national media, there were already signs of unease about the government’s immigration policies. I had colleagues who felt it was in the public interest to investigate the generous Singapore Inc scholarships for foreign nationals, for example.
Certainly, there were also many journalists knew they should report and comment on the great public unhappiness about the new policy on market-pegged ministerial salaries. And newsrooms were fully aware of the mounting anxiety about healthcare and other costs, as a result of the PAP’s neoliberal turn towards market fundamentalism.
These public grievances and expert doubts did appear in the media; they were not completely blacked out. But, they were always toned down and set in a context that ensured that the government’s voice remained dominant. When there was undeniable distance between public opinion and the government’s position, leaders required the press to work towards a consensus by shifting the ground rather than nudging the government.
By dampening doubts and dissent, by allowing government to operate in an echo chamber, the media gave yesterday’s policy makers an easier ride. But, today’s policy makers are paying the price. There is now more for them to undo as they move their frame of reference back to the centre-left. Furthermore, a lack of responsiveness resulted in lower levels of trust, which now make it harder for the government to persuade the public when it needs to.
The flawed media policy is behind the current government’s biggest failure – its inability to sell its Population White Paper, which by its own reckoning was a vitally important strategic blueprint for the future. Because it had been unwilling to subject its immigration policies to even the gentle probing of friendly national media in the past, it lost touch with public sentiment and lost precious political capital. Today, it is unable to carry the ground on immigration issues.
Even when it speaks sense – like when the Prime Minister chided Singaporeans for their irrational, tribal response to the upcoming Philippine Independence Day celebration – it meets a wall of cynicism and hostility.
By the same logic, today’s media policy – which is fundamentally unchanged from the 1990s – will probably turn out to be a liability for the future. A freer press may be inconvenient for individual PAP leaders in the short term, but it is hard to see why the larger interests of Singapore – and even the larger interests of the PAP – would suffer if our media system embraced the principles honoured by World Press Freedom Day.
http://www.mediaasia.info/how-singap...-even-the-pap/ (http://www.mediaasia.info/how-singapores-media-restrictions-have-hurt-even-the-pap/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?180990-How-Singapore’s-media-restrictions-hurt-even-the-PAP&goto=newpost).
To answer this, we can be guided by the past. And Singapore’s recent past suggests that governance has suffered as a result of the media regulatory regime. Problems were not tackled in time, not because they emerged suddenly and out of the blue, but because censorship allowed the government to remain in denial for too long.
I recall that back in the 1990s, when I was a journalist in the national media, there were already signs of unease about the government’s immigration policies. I had colleagues who felt it was in the public interest to investigate the generous Singapore Inc scholarships for foreign nationals, for example.
Certainly, there were also many journalists knew they should report and comment on the great public unhappiness about the new policy on market-pegged ministerial salaries. And newsrooms were fully aware of the mounting anxiety about healthcare and other costs, as a result of the PAP’s neoliberal turn towards market fundamentalism.
These public grievances and expert doubts did appear in the media; they were not completely blacked out. But, they were always toned down and set in a context that ensured that the government’s voice remained dominant. When there was undeniable distance between public opinion and the government’s position, leaders required the press to work towards a consensus by shifting the ground rather than nudging the government.
By dampening doubts and dissent, by allowing government to operate in an echo chamber, the media gave yesterday’s policy makers an easier ride. But, today’s policy makers are paying the price. There is now more for them to undo as they move their frame of reference back to the centre-left. Furthermore, a lack of responsiveness resulted in lower levels of trust, which now make it harder for the government to persuade the public when it needs to.
The flawed media policy is behind the current government’s biggest failure – its inability to sell its Population White Paper, which by its own reckoning was a vitally important strategic blueprint for the future. Because it had been unwilling to subject its immigration policies to even the gentle probing of friendly national media in the past, it lost touch with public sentiment and lost precious political capital. Today, it is unable to carry the ground on immigration issues.
Even when it speaks sense – like when the Prime Minister chided Singaporeans for their irrational, tribal response to the upcoming Philippine Independence Day celebration – it meets a wall of cynicism and hostility.
By the same logic, today’s media policy – which is fundamentally unchanged from the 1990s – will probably turn out to be a liability for the future. A freer press may be inconvenient for individual PAP leaders in the short term, but it is hard to see why the larger interests of Singapore – and even the larger interests of the PAP – would suffer if our media system embraced the principles honoured by World Press Freedom Day.
http://www.mediaasia.info/how-singap...-even-the-pap/ (http://www.mediaasia.info/how-singapores-media-restrictions-have-hurt-even-the-pap/)
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?180990-How-Singapore’s-media-restrictions-hurt-even-the-PAP&goto=newpost).