4 ms·

I don't really understand the tone of this article. As anybody who has been in Singapore for more than a few months realizes, the regime here strictly controls

I don't really understand the tone of this article. As anybody who has been in Singapore for more than a few months realizes, the regime here strictly controls the social and media environs. Surely the BN didn't think that they would be able to continue without adhering to Government Regulations? Another part of the article I found odd was this sentence, "It was in this world that veteran Singaporean journalist Bertha Henson launched Breakfast Network, less than a year after leaving her high-level editor job at The Straits Times, Singapore’s leading daily newspaper. " The Straits Times is outreach propaganda for the Singapore Government. It's a painfully structured document, that each day typically has one article about someone who broke the law, and how they got punished, another article about how wonderful singapore is in terms of Food/Shelter/Laws/etc... Typically another article about something bad that happened in another country that would never have happened in Singapore, and often an article promoting social harmony between the cultures/religions/races. There are a few traditional "news" stories mixed in, but in general, the Straits Times is strict government propaganda - it would never be allowed to do real reporting that conflicted with the Powers that Be. Why the "high-level editor" thought she could get away with "free press" in singapore, is beyond me. Don't get me wrong - I love this country - it's warm, clean, safe, harmonious (recent Little India riot excepting) - but I am not confused as to where the lines are drawn as to what is allowed.

afterburner 13y ago
I'm guessing this is more about pointing at how those drawn lines are bad. Also, some people might not realize what kind of place Singapore is; this would be an education for them. It doesn't matter that this was predictable to someone who knows about Singapore.
salient 13y ago
Are you saying there should be no outrage over this because "they should've known better"? Let's not forget the website is a victim of an oppressive government, ultimately. You're also implying, people shouldn't try to do "free press" in an oppressive country. By that logic, nobody should've thought freely in communist countries either. They would've just gotten themselves into trouble. And yet, that's exactly how a society evolves - by having more and more people try to think and talk freely, despite knowing the government won't like it.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  Sorry - I did a poor job of communicating my critique here. What I really found surprising was the (apparent) naivety from the perspective of both writers. I've only been in Singapore for six month, but, from talking with my colleagues who have grown up here, there seems to be a universal understanding of what the policies and rules are, both written and unwritten. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to do "free press" in Singapore - but when they do it, realize that these are going to be the obstacles they will face, and go into it with their eyes wide open. With that said, some topics, which could be written about in the united states, are off limits (in fact, illegal) in Singapore, but I don't think there was any difficulty understanding that on the part of the writers (in fact, one of them cited that the issue was not the content, but the process of opening up a new newspaper that had some bureaucracy involved)
  - visakanv 13y ago
    "What I really found surprising was the (apparent) naivety from the perspective of both writers." Singaporean here. I'm guessing that it's mostly a rhetorical device rather than genuine ignorance. Sometimes you want to go into an obstacle head on- like that guy who filmed himself riding his bicycle into things on the bike lane, or that guy who got himself arrested to prove a point.

afterburner 13y ago

I'm guessing this is more about pointing at how those drawn lines are bad. Also, some people might not realize what kind of place Singapore is; this would be an education for them. It doesn't matter that this was predictable to someone who knows about Singapore.

salient 13y ago

Are you saying there should be no outrage over this because "they should've known better"? Let's not forget the website is a victim of an oppressive government, ultimately. You're also implying, people shouldn't try to do "free press" in an oppressive country. By that logic, nobody should've thought freely in communist countries either. They would've just gotten themselves into trouble. And yet, that's exactly how a society evolves - by having more and more people try to think and talk freely, despite knowing the government won't like it.

ghshephard 13y ago
Sorry - I did a poor job of communicating my critique here. What I really found surprising was the (apparent) naivety from the perspective of both writers. I've only been in Singapore for six month, but, from talking with my colleagues who have grown up here, there seems to be a universal understanding of what the policies and rules are, both written and unwritten. I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't try to do "free press" in Singapore - but when they do it, realize that these are going to be the obstacles they will face, and go into it with their eyes wide open. With that said, some topics, which could be written about in the united states, are off limits (in fact, illegal) in Singapore, but I don't think there was any difficulty understanding that on the part of the writers (in fact, one of them cited that the issue was not the content, but the process of opening up a new newspaper that had some bureaucracy involved)
- visakanv 13y ago
  "What I really found surprising was the (apparent) naivety from the perspective of both writers." Singaporean here. I'm guessing that it's mostly a rhetorical device rather than genuine ignorance. Sometimes you want to go into an obstacle head on- like that guy who filmed himself riding his bicycle into things on the bike lane, or that guy who got himself arrested to prove a point.