Thoughts on the PAP-SPH r/s
I have been analysing the Singapore media for a particular assignment. And i can't help but comment at how monotonous the Singapore media is, especially the Straits Times. Anyway, I was just reading the book "Singapore Politics Under the PAP" and it got me thinking about Singapore and the way it's run.
Though uncharacteristic of me, I must say, perhaps there is little need for a strong Opposition or large opposition participation in a political system, if we have a competent governing party. Perhaps Singapore has a government that works, negating the need for an Opposition. Well, this just proves the political elite is successful in socialising me, a Singaporean into their political ideology.
But what has worked in the past does not necessarily mean it will still be appropriate in today's contexts. Given too much power and if left unchecked (by the media, citizens, Opposition or international bodies), this can have dire consequences on the future of Singapore. ok I am being very careful with my choice of words lest i get sued or made bankrupt. The latter with less consequences since i have no assets, not even well-endowed physical assets.
I've come to really respect Singaporean writer Catherine Lim, for her sharp critiques of the Government. Very bold and very intelligent.
Perhaps there is a growing need for greater Opposition and a more democratic government. Yes, we have a functioning political system but could things be better? Economically, we are doing well but what about say, the interests of certain groups within society? Singaporeans are known to be politically apathetic and generally accept the views or intiatives of the government. Could this be a lack of courage to take-risks? To risk political stability, economic growth or social peace for the sake of democracy and possibly a better country? Or perhaps because singaporeans are too materialistic to bother about anything other than personal wealth.
Most political messages are mediated. And where the media is so heavily controlled, it has merely become the loudspeaker of the government. I've regarded Singapore's journalistic practices to be lap-dog journalism, where the news media is pro-government and media and government fall into a comfortable mutually-benefical relationship. While in many other countries such as Aust, the media works as an adversarial watch-dog, checking on and criticising the government. I just realised that Singapore bans watch-dog journalism. How is that a characteristic of democracy?
This is one of the key reasons why I chose to study media and comms in Melb even though NTU has a great media course. Besides the zillion things that can be learnt from studying overseas and immersing oneself in a different culture, it provides me with an alternative (and very critical) view of the media in Singapore, and for that matter, the entire SEA. In certain ways, I can appreciate the Singapore media for the sense of assurance it gives a Singaporean. When i open The Age (Melb newspaper) for instance, I read about "Dire consequences" regarding the drought in Aust, heavy criticisms of John Howard and campaigns to end the reign of the Howard government. Decreases my faith in the Aust government and perception of their competence.
Yes, controlling the media in Singapore has been critical for our rapid development and social stability. Yet as a country develops, it almost inevitably progresses towards greater liberty. While I admit this is very much a Western liberal/capitalist ideology, we live in a world where Western powers still rule and pave the way for developing countries. Until this phenomenon changes, people will probably demand greater freedom of speech and freedom in the media. I believe Singaporeans are slowly growing up into a stage where we can make rational decisions and democracy is not a threat to national stability or may not compromise economic growth.
A paternalistic government may have been the key to our development but its place in present society has to be questioned. People are literate, education levels are higher, basic survival is almost a non-issue for most Singaporeans. Yes, we may be vulnerable in many ways but it is not an excuse for authoritarianism.
I say, free up the media, inject greater diversity in the Singapore politics. The Singapore gov not only controls Singapore media, but also foreign media allowed in Singapore, and barrs foreign media from "interferring" with Singapore politics. Not very open, are we?
Only when Singaporeans have confidence that they can affect political change, and only when fear is not used to keep people out of the political arena, then will Singaporeans be more active and interested politics. Till then, we'll just sit and watch the PAP-SPH/MediaCorp performance.
Though uncharacteristic of me, I must say, perhaps there is little need for a strong Opposition or large opposition participation in a political system, if we have a competent governing party. Perhaps Singapore has a government that works, negating the need for an Opposition. Well, this just proves the political elite is successful in socialising me, a Singaporean into their political ideology.
But what has worked in the past does not necessarily mean it will still be appropriate in today's contexts. Given too much power and if left unchecked (by the media, citizens, Opposition or international bodies), this can have dire consequences on the future of Singapore. ok I am being very careful with my choice of words lest i get sued or made bankrupt. The latter with less consequences since i have no assets, not even well-endowed physical assets.
I've come to really respect Singaporean writer Catherine Lim, for her sharp critiques of the Government. Very bold and very intelligent.
Perhaps there is a growing need for greater Opposition and a more democratic government. Yes, we have a functioning political system but could things be better? Economically, we are doing well but what about say, the interests of certain groups within society? Singaporeans are known to be politically apathetic and generally accept the views or intiatives of the government. Could this be a lack of courage to take-risks? To risk political stability, economic growth or social peace for the sake of democracy and possibly a better country? Or perhaps because singaporeans are too materialistic to bother about anything other than personal wealth.
Most political messages are mediated. And where the media is so heavily controlled, it has merely become the loudspeaker of the government. I've regarded Singapore's journalistic practices to be lap-dog journalism, where the news media is pro-government and media and government fall into a comfortable mutually-benefical relationship. While in many other countries such as Aust, the media works as an adversarial watch-dog, checking on and criticising the government. I just realised that Singapore bans watch-dog journalism. How is that a characteristic of democracy?
This is one of the key reasons why I chose to study media and comms in Melb even though NTU has a great media course. Besides the zillion things that can be learnt from studying overseas and immersing oneself in a different culture, it provides me with an alternative (and very critical) view of the media in Singapore, and for that matter, the entire SEA. In certain ways, I can appreciate the Singapore media for the sense of assurance it gives a Singaporean. When i open The Age (Melb newspaper) for instance, I read about "Dire consequences" regarding the drought in Aust, heavy criticisms of John Howard and campaigns to end the reign of the Howard government. Decreases my faith in the Aust government and perception of their competence.
Yes, controlling the media in Singapore has been critical for our rapid development and social stability. Yet as a country develops, it almost inevitably progresses towards greater liberty. While I admit this is very much a Western liberal/capitalist ideology, we live in a world where Western powers still rule and pave the way for developing countries. Until this phenomenon changes, people will probably demand greater freedom of speech and freedom in the media. I believe Singaporeans are slowly growing up into a stage where we can make rational decisions and democracy is not a threat to national stability or may not compromise economic growth.
A paternalistic government may have been the key to our development but its place in present society has to be questioned. People are literate, education levels are higher, basic survival is almost a non-issue for most Singaporeans. Yes, we may be vulnerable in many ways but it is not an excuse for authoritarianism.
I say, free up the media, inject greater diversity in the Singapore politics. The Singapore gov not only controls Singapore media, but also foreign media allowed in Singapore, and barrs foreign media from "interferring" with Singapore politics. Not very open, are we?
Only when Singaporeans have confidence that they can affect political change, and only when fear is not used to keep people out of the political arena, then will Singaporeans be more active and interested politics. Till then, we'll just sit and watch the PAP-SPH/MediaCorp performance.
posted by aine at 9:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home