PROPERTY
CARS
JOBS
They came up with a proposal to set up a specialist NGO on media monitoring. After some delay at the authorities, the group finally registered as a company limited by guarantee that was to engage in research, dissemination and organisation of events singly or in collaboration on media-related issues. The primary avenue of engagement was to be via a website and an annual report.
The immediate reaction came from some senior media practitioners who questioned the need for a media watch group. They claimed that Singapore media was professional and, therefore, did not require any monitoring.
The government's response was to expand the scope of the Publications Advisory Committee and provide support for this committee to also advise on the media. When the government moved in this direction, it scared off some would-be sponsors.
Increasing awareness
After a few months, the members behind the media watch initiative called for a press conference and announced that they were de-registering their company and calling the project off. They cited the lack of funding and the resignation of key members as reasons last month.
Although the social political climate did not allow the media watch project to take off, the interesting question to ask is why did the idea and desire surface in the first place?
The advent of the Internet and the use of it by individuals and groups to monitor the media have been the principal contributors towards increasing awareness of discrepancies, inconsistencies and media accountability in Singapore. Many observers consider the need for a media watch initiative as important, especially since last year when the government 'liberalised' the media by issuing two new licences - one each for print and broadcast.
In the media context of the past, what existed was "media complaints and moans" by affected groups. Strict governmental regulation and a culture of restriction practised by self-appointed media gatekeepers kept alternative reportage out of the mainstream media. These complaints involved cases of under-reporting, slanting of stories or avoidance of certain topics and opinion leaders.
However, these 'complaints' hardly made it out in the public domain, as there was no channel through which to make them public. Not in Singapore, due to the tight media control. This was coupled by a genuine fear that the government will retaliate against those who speak up. As a result, observation in media lapses circulated only within the arena of these affected interest groups and not very far beyond.
Some tolerance
Some media discrepancies, however, did get mentioned in writings in academia-related fields such as political science and sociology. This was possible because there was some tolerance of diverging views if it remained at the level of academia. More discussion on media-related topics ensued when media and communication studies developed in Singapore in the 1990s.
Starting with courses in the polytechnics, the field got a greater expansion locally when the School of Mass Communications was set up at the Nanyang Technological University. But on the whole, observations of the media remained at the level of academia and within the academic circuit.
Those involved in the promotion of an independent press in the regional and international circuit would have come across these Singapore-based academics, but hardly any local journalists. The few who took part would be either apologists of the status quo or would speak up only on the condition if no reference was made to their speech!
Local media academics complain when they return home that at international conferences they have to answer difficult questions as to why the media and Internet regime is so strict in Singapore.
There is also a media group at the feedback unit at the ministry of community development. Under the stewardship of a government-appointed chairperson, interested members of the public can discuss issues related to the media and provide feedback to government agencies and the media groups. However, it has never been recognised as a robust conduit for serious and effective media monitoring work.
Direct access via Internet
The Internet, however, has changed this situation drastically in the 1990s and has sown the seeds of media monitoring in Singapore. The Internet offers direct access to the public domain, via websites and large mail lists, which until recently, have been absent. Thus a new space, where media discrepancies, lapses, complaints and alternative viewpoints can be made public, is now available.
Presently, the Internet is used to highlight several kinds of media issues and four websites on Singapore-related matters are instructive on this point.
One such website is called the [#1]Singapore Window[/#] which carries reports from different types of news agencies worldwide. Its aim is to provide balanced reports that come through from Singapore's mainstream media. In presenting different views of Singapore from different media agencies and sources, it shows up the differences in the angles of reporting and the issues that are taken up. Occasionally, it puts up re-written press releases from opposition parties and political NGOs.
Another website is [#2]Singaporeans for Democracy[/#]. Opposition politicians, especially those from the Singapore Democratic Party and its associated Open Singapore Centre have their press releases and reports highlighted frequently there. It is also a more racy website in that it allows issues, ranging from minority rights to politics, to be raised by individuals in anonymous terms.
Both websites, Singapore Window and Singaporeans for Democracy, are based outside of Singapore and run by volunteer editors who are secretive about their identity and prefer to remain anonymous.
[#3]Sintercom[/#], which is an abbreviation for Singapore Internet Community, goes a bit further in developing what it calls "not the Straits Times Forum". The forum is the leading English broadsheet's letters page and is known not to run letters that are politically sensitive or even to edit paragraphs.
Until recently, this has not been proven and highlighted in any public way. So what the Sintercom website does is to put up letters that are sent by readers who can demonstrate that their letters have been edited. Essentially this involves putting the original letter sent by a reader to the Straits Times and the published edited version. The website readers are then encouraged to draw their own conclusions. Occasionally letters that are not published are also uploaded. This website is run by volunteers and has its own server based in Singapore. However, it announced its closure when the government passed further restriction of the Internet last month.
Censorship
A little amount of media monitoring still goes on at the [#4]Think Centre[/#]'s website under a section called Media Watch. This section displays reports on media watch issues from around Southeast Asia and Singapore in particular. Among the several reports, the website carried the censorship of a radio programme by a local radio station. It also highlighted how bookshops and libraries also practise censorship when it comes to publications dealing with political content. Occasionally, it carries media watch reports on its own activities which the local media may report differently.
Collectively, these websites circulate press statements, announcements by various interest groups and amateur reports on events not carried by the main media, through their large e-mail lists and load them up onto their websites.
Such rudimentary media monitoring does put pressure on the existing media regime, in particular the senior editors, who have been used to the practices of information management and control but not held accountable in any public way. Such activities are a momentum towards an independent media watchdog initiative. These developments managed to bring the issue of media monitoring one notch higher in Singapore. However, it did not go far enough.
Disappointing as it might be, it does not mean that no media monitoring takes place. In Singapore (and at other venues that report on Singapore) there is always someone watching the media!
JAMES GOMEZ was one of the advisers to the now defunct Singapore Media Watch Community project.