6 ms·

How do you define "independent media"? My impression is that the media industry in Singapore is near-centralized because of the size of the market. There's real

• nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I define it as a media that is financially independent from the government and with little influence from them. I wasn't aware that the media reports as much as it does based on what Singaporeans told me in past. There could be a bias there. I appreciate the links. Ill look into them. One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. Journalist that ask thd big questioms with alternatives provided with references showing they'd likely work. We get that in American media, including HN, all thd time. That's critical for reform. Do you have examples of that in Singaporean media?
  • visakanv 11y ago
    > I appreciate the links. Happy to share! :-) > One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. [...] That's critical for reform. I think this is one of those things where we run into one of those massive fundamental differences in perspective– about the value of contradiction and its role in reform. I don't personally believe that "contradictory reporting -> reform". I surprise myself a little by saying that – in my teenage days I spent a lot of time writing blogposts that were deliberately critical of the media and the State. I got a lot of traffic to my blog, but I don't feel like I made much of a difference. I don't feel like I contributed towards reform. All I did was give people links that they could share on Facebook to argue with their friends about. I'm starting to share Obama's perspective on this– if you want real change, you have to get involved in the political process. And that doesn't actually require the sound-and-fury way of doing things. I think INDEPENDENT THINKING is necessary for reform, and diverse, independent thought doesn't necessarily always emerge from A vs B. In fact, I've come to believe (from personal experience, mostly) that contrarian thinking tends to lead to very entrenched opposing camps, which leads to deadlock. As another comment pointed out– Singapore is always constantly reforming, and a healthy, steady pace [1]. Our population sees no need for massive adjustments. I personally think in areas like legalizing gay marriage, removing the mandatory death penalty for drugs, etc we really ought to take some big leaps, but people are already making those arguments and progress is slow. But there is progress. And it's not the state that's holding the progress back– large portions of the population legitimately are indifferent or conservative or "if it ain't broke...". So anyway– to answer your question– the media rarely contradicts the Govt or the system directly. But that doesn't necessarily mean what it seems. Criticisms exist, they're just subtly put. Here's a very interesting article [2], from someone who's known to be a high-ranking journalist from a pro-establishment background: > There is also the argument that a stronger opposition is good for Singapore's political development, not just as leverage against the PAP. Even some PAP ministers have said this. > According to this view, a strong opposition provides checks and balances on the ruling party. It sets Singapore further along the path towards a two-party system, the dream of political liberals who do not buy the PAP's argument that Singapore is so tiny and so exceptional, it can only be governed by the PAP's pre-selected A-team of political leaders, and that it lacks the talent base for other parties to build up a credible alternative. Each election that sees capable individuals joining the opposition dents that argument. > All that is needed next is for those capable individuals to coalesce around one or two serious political parties and their leaders, learn to compromise and work together, and win voters' support. Singapore can then become a "normal" country with a political system that remains stable even when parties alternate in power. > It may undergo a period of turbulence in the transition, but settle into a stable equilibrium. Then, the biggest risk for Singapore - of having a system untested by alternation of political power - will be neutralised. That might not seem like a big deal, but it was published by a "high-ranking" journalist in the national newspapers, legitimizing a non-PAP future for Singapore. It would've been unthinkable 10 years ago. And that's the kind of progress and reform we're proud of. A response to that might be "that's so tame, that's so mild!" – but we like it that way. Less blood and death. Nobody gets pepper-sprayed or tazed. It's more elegant. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11572889 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11572889 [2] http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapolitics/is-a-stronger-pap-or-stronger-opposition-better-for-spore http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapolitics/is-a-stro...
• ghshephard 11y ago
  I've only lived in Singapore for three years, but I do read the Straits times every day (I'm a paper and digital subscriber), get the daily update in email, and subscribe to their notifications. The straitstimes is fascinating in that it so different from any newspaper that I'm familiar with in the United States (I subscribe to the NYT, and have the SJ Mercury news, and WSJ in the past). In many ways, it feels like a government newsletter, with clearly government approved messaging on things like the budgets, healthcare, elections, etc.. The "Structure" of the newspaper stories, particular on the front page, is also remarkably consistent over the last few years - usually with a story from one of the following collection - Story about a maid, story about something good in Singapore, Story about something bad in the rest of the world that wouldn't happen in singapore, story about someone who did something bad, and got caught, and what their punishment was, story about issues regarding racial/religious harmony. The complete lack of LGBT stories is also fascinating. And you will almost never, ever see a story regarding the liberalization of drugs. For better or worse, the media is clearly not independent - whether that's a good or bad thing is unclear to me. Singapore is certainly a very safe and clean place to live in, with little visible signs of poverty and/or urban blight that is so common in American Cities. I know it's the only city I've ever felt comfortable about my mother roaming around anywhere at night. Maybe there's something to be said about a bit of totalitarian rule?
  • StanislavPetrov 11y ago
    Nazi Germany had the lowest crime rates in modern recorded history (if you don't count "government crimes"). When a government is able to act unilaterally with impunity your safety is still at risk, only the risks come from the government rather then street criminals. The real risk in Singapore is, what comes down the road? What happens if they implement laws that restrict free speech, or criticizing the government? What sort of position will people be in to oppose future government oppression when they live in a Totalitarian state that is completely controlled and monitored? At the end of the day, ceding your rights and freedoms to government officials with the idea that you can trust them to do the right thing is dangerously naive, and has never ended well.
    • 11y ago