Home Editorial Politics SINGAPORE & THE WESTERN MEDIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN!
SINGAPORE & THE WESTERN MEDIA: HERE WE GO AGAIN!
Written by Michael Rebaczonok-Padulo   
Wednesday, 02 June 2010 09:06
On 3 April 2010, an editorial by Clark Hoyt appeared in The New York Times (Click here to view the article) in which the New York Times Company, which owns the International Herald Tribune, was unfavourably compared with Google. Google, Mr Clark pointed out, had faced a ‘painful dilemma in China’, by ‘standing up to censorship’ there even ‘with potentially billions of dollars at risk’. The New York Times Company, on the other hand, had caved in to the Singapore government by apologising for comments made in the Tribune on 15 February 2010, in which an op-ed contributor, Philip Bowring, included the names of Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong in a ‘list of Asian political dynasties’. Indeed, an apology published in the Times on 24 March 2010, admitted that this reference :

‘may have been understood by readers to infer that the younger Mr Lee did not achieve his position through merit. We wish to state clearly that this reference was not intended. We apologize to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and former Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong for any distress or embarrassment caused by … the article.’ (Click here to view the article).

In fact, this breach on the part of the Tribune was nothing new. As long ago as 1994, Mr Bowring had agreed that

The Government is thus thrusted to a position where it needs to add critical factorial distinctions to differentiate the population make-up; the foreigners, permanent residents and citizens. These factorial distinctions, coupled with incentives, can cover programmes and initiatives such as the school balloting programme, which the government has already started doing, to show that it ultimately value its chief stakeholders, the people.

‘he would not say or imply that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had attained his position through nepotism practiced by his father Lee Kuan Yew.’

He had clearly, however violated this agreement on 15 February of this year, for reasons undoubtedly best known to himself.

Mr Hoyt in his 3 April Times editorial comments that

‘Some readers were astonished that a news organization with a long history of standing up for First Amendment values would appear to bow obsequiously to an authoritarian regime that makes no secret of its determination to cow critics, including Western news organizations, through aggressive libel actions.’

What is really going on here?

An American commentator, operating in the context of a different legal and political system, not to mention social and cultural milieu, has taken it upon himself to judge our government as being an ‘authoritarian regime’ that ‘cows critics’ such as ‘Western news organizations’ who ‘bow obsequiously’’ when they have done something that is not even wrong, in their eyes. Doesn’t that smack of cultural arrogance? Why would he expect the legal, social and cultural norms of his country to apply to Singapore?

Such comments would, at the least, be insulting to some Singaporeans. If nepotism were the order of the day in Singapore, then why wouldn’t Mr Lee Senior have ensured that his son followed him straight into the Prime Ministership the minute he stepped down in November 1990? Isn’t that more or less what would have happened? Indeed, Mr Goh Chok Tong ended up being very far from what some cynically referred to as a ‘bench warmer’, given that he remained Prime Minister from November 1990 to August 2004! ‘Nepotism’ indeed!

It seems reasonable to me that if our political leaders are accused of anything as unscrupulous as nepotism, then they have every right to insist on a public apology. This is intended not to ‘placate’ the leaders themselves but to afford some measure of respect to the people of Singapore who are not simply buffeted about by the whims and fancies of their ‘nepotistic’ rulers. If Singapore’s leaders were to remain silent in the face of such outrageous accusations, that might have the unintended effect of sending the wrong signal to the people, implying that the critics are right in making such allegations.

Such statements simply cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Astonishingly, the very day after the apology was published in the Times on 24 March, an even more outrageous open letter to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was sent out by Jean-Francois Julliard, Secretary-General of Reporters Without Borders in Paris. The letter has to be read to be believed for the extremely rude, accusatory, demanding tone used from start to finish. In it Mr Julliard sees fit to dictate to the Prime Minister of a sovereign nation that, among other measures, he should

‘put a stop to the libel actions which you and your relatives have been bringing against Singaporean and foreign media that cover Singaporean developments in an independent manner’ … ‘amend the criminal code so as to abolish prison sentences for press offences’… ‘amend the press law’… ‘reform the national security law’

and, interestingly,

‘transfer the money that your family has obtained in damages from foreign and Singaporean news media to a support fund for imprisoned journalists that Reporters Without Borders proposes to set up’.

Another Frenchman, Mr Roby Alampay, who is Executive Director of the Southeast Asian Press Alliance, made the following interesting judgement to Agence France-Presse, according to Mr Clark in his 3 April editorial:

‘This continuing line of major media organizations too quick to offer contrition and money is a sad sight and a persisting insult on legitimate journalism, fair commentary, free speech and the rights that Singaporeans deserve.’

‘The rights that Singaporeans deserve’? It would appear that Mr Alampay has the temerity to put himself in the position of knowing what is best for Singaporeans. I’d be very interested to know the basis upon which he feels he is so eminently suitable for that highly responsible role!

Those of us who object to this kind of unwarranted interference, which in many cases appears tantamount to cultural arrogance of the highest order, are not engaging in partisan political causes. I think what’s at stake here is the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign, independent nation, particularly one that is characterised by good governance, and political, social and economic stability. Some of them even have the audacity to sarcastically refer to us as being members of a ‘nanny state’. But who is really attempting to be the ‘nanny’ in such cases?

And in any case, should we really have the need for a ‘nanny’, please at least allow us the right to choose a homegrown one from amongst our own ranks, thank you very much.

Last Updated on Friday, 06 August 2010 10:59
 

Share YP with your friends