by BI Yantao (mainland China), 2002
Abstract: Geographically, politically, economically and socio-culturally, Singapore enjoys an unequalled status. Singapore’s government practises tight censorship of media but most of its people are satisfied with the censorship, because the censorship is well justified on a multitude of grounds. It’s a wonder that the Singapore’s government has so successfully manipulated its media to maintain the national security and the PAP’s ruling status.
1. Singapore: Unequalled Status
We [2] have decided to study Singaporean media because we believe that Singapore enjoys an unequalled status in the world, and that penetration into Singaporean media could reveal a sideway to social-political-cultural management.
1.1 Singapore: an intersection of the West and the East
Singapore, well known as “the city state”, is believed by many Asian people to be an interjection of the West and the East, not merely geographically, but politically and socio-culturally as well. Also, Singapore is asserted to “have shared an economic transformation from a developing country, to a newly industrialising economy, to its present status of “advanced industrialising nation” (Perry et al: 5). That is, Singapore is marching beyond a developing country to a developed one.
1.2 Singapore: a nation-state full of paradox
Singapore’s constitution stipulates the freedom of speech, “but permits official restrictions on these rights”[3]. The country is a republic with a parliamentary system of government, but the style of the government is considered authoritative [4]. The state has been practising a tight censorship of media within its territory, but most of its people are satisfied with the level of censorship (Anil: 18). The national government strictly controls all the Singaporean media, but meanwhile the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) offers enough agencies and forums for political debates (Perry et al: 11). The Chinese people account for 77 percent of its resident population, but the Chinese language is not a national language or the language of administration [5].
2. Cornerstones of Censorship in Singapore
2.1 Singaporean media: censorship and monopoly
It is well known that the access of Singaporeans to local media and foreign press is constrained by the government” (Perry et al: 4). In fact, Singapore’s daily reading is now determined primarily by the Singapore Press Holdings Group (SPH), while Media Corp of Singapore, a state-owned company and administrative power, controls television and radio broadcasting of the city-state [6]. Currently, the Singapore’s commercial Internet service is dominated by Singapore Telecom Singnet (Peng and Nadarajian: 2).2.2 Justification of the censorship
2.2.1 Politically
The ruling PAP tactfully used the socialist banner to obtain the maximising support and uniting the whole population in the struggle for independence from Britain. But once in power, the PAP asserted different political vision from its allies. When the latter defected to form a different party, the PAP sensed a serious threat of communist insurrection (Perry et al:8).]
In this context, the PAP took two major measures to consolidate its ruling status. First, it constructed a powerful state apparatus and put it to work through practising tight control of its people. In the workplace, union activity is government-controlled.
Choice of residential location and tenure are controlled by state regulations and for most of the
population there is no possibility of owning free-hold property.
In the public arena, the access to a free press is constrained by the controls on the circulation of
foreign news publications and government’s control of local media. Political debate is expected to
be channelled through government-controlled agencies or officially-registered political parties that are offered the same opportunities as the ruling People’s Action Party.
(Perry et al: 4)
In Singapore, the government publicises its policies and ideologies to the public through traditionally defined media, while the public voice their opinions through certain agencies and forums. These two processes make a two-way communication, which in theory is endless. I strongly believe this strategy contributes a lot to their national unity and national development.
Second, the PAP made every effort to articulate and promote “ideology of survival” to the population, in which economic and political survival were seen as inseparable with all other considerations secondary, but “economic development was given highest priority” (ibid: 9). As a result, it is claimed that “the developmental state is distinguished through absolute prioritising of economic growth and its use as a prime indicator of government performance (ibid: 10). Meanwhile, the PAP has adopted a special but effective political approach, that is, “to cultivate a continual sense of crisis and emergency among the population” (ibid: 4). In the past, the PAP often cited the threat from the Chinese culture, and afterwards “the state has stressed the continued importance of upgrading the economy and the dangers of complacently settling for present levels of prosperity” (Birch, 1993). The creation and promotion of “ideology of survival” in Singapore reminds us that the social powers can create some ideologies, whether true or false, and manipulate them to maintain their own privileged status.
Interestingly, in “Review of Yearbook of Singapore 2001”, Mr. Zulkifli Baharudin, former Nominated Member of parliament and currently Vice President, Logistics, re-stressed the threat from China:
Perhaps the biggest new variable in the region is China.
Lured by low costs, abundant talent, industrious workers and professionals, more and more technology manufactures are shifting their operations to China. This has led to a partial “hollowing out “ of Singapore’s manufacturing base, particularly in the lower end of the consumer electronic sector.
China continues to draw direct investment at the expense of many Asian economies.
(http://www.sg.flavor/profile_review.asp#china, November 15, 2002)
2.2.2 Historically
Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious state. There are three main racial groups, with the Chinese accounting for 77 percent of resident population, Malay 14 percent and Indians 8 percent. In terms of religion, Buddhism and Taoist jointly accounted for 51 percent of the resident population aged 15 years and above in 2000. but the shift toward Christianity continues, mainly because the better-educated Chinese are more inclined toward Christianity. As a result, the proportion of Christianity reached 15 percent in 2000. Some other religion such as Islam, Jewish synagogues, Zoroastrians and Jains, are also practised in Singapore (http://www.sg/flavor/people, November 15, 2002).
The complicated components of Singaporean culture entail the cultural and racial harmony and national unity. But in history, some racial riots are believed to be incited by media reports. Such disastrous incidents as the 1950 Maria Hertogh riot, which left 18 dead and 173 wounded, the 1964 Prophet Mahammad Birthday procession and the 1969 riot spill over Malaysia have taught the Singaporeans a very good lesson (Peng and Nadarajan: 2).
2.2.3 Socio-culturally
The Singaporeans are proud of their five shared values:
· Nation before community and society before self
· Family as the basic unit of society
· Community support and respect for the individual
· Consensus, not conflict
· Racial and religious harmony
(http://www/sg/flavor/value_five.asp, November 15, 2002)
In this cultural situation, the Singaporean “journalists believe they have a social responsibility to report the truth but most especially to promote the good of the community and the harmonious growth and development of a strong nation”[7].
Accordingly, the media practitioners are endeavouring to practise self-censorship, as is encouraged by the government. This, in turn, satisfies the government. Take Internet for example. Since the Singapore Internet Code of Practice was put in effect in 1996, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) has not taken action against anyone for objectionable content on the Internet. According to SBA, this is because “service and content providers have generally abided by the guidelines” (Anil: 15).
3. Implementation of Censorship
3.1 Legislation and laws
Censorship in Singapore is undertaken by the Censorship Section of Ministry of Information and the Arts, by various laws including the Official Secrets Act and Internal Security Act. In the meantime, the Film and Publication Department administers the following acts: ¨Film Act ¨Undesirable publications ¨ Newspaper and Printing Act ¨ The Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Chapter 25) relating to arts and entertainmentMeanwhile, SBA is responsible for regulating the Singapore radio and TV broadcasting, as well as Internet service.
3.2 Implementing strategies
The government has adopted strategic measures to practise censorship, mainly because of the limited technology, insufficient workforce and different degrees of emergency. It’s noticed that:
The government has defined certain topics as out of bounds, and publications that are deemed to incite violence, counsel disobedience to the law, and arouse tensions among the various classes, or threaten national interests, national security or public order are prohibited or restricted [8].
At the same time, different degrees of censorship are applied to different contents. As a rule, products of home/children/public consumption are more heavily censored than those for business/adults/private consumption (Peng and Nadarajan: 3).
3. Public Attitude to Censorship
Take the most controversial Internet censorship for instance. In 1999, a Gallup poll was conducted by Channel News Asia, and it was reported:
Most Singaporeans are satisfied with the level of censorship in Singapore, although many felt the community should pay a bigger role in making censorship decisions. The poll revealed that 85% of the respondents felt that censorship was necessary. The need to protect children and maintain moral standards were given as important and justifiable reasons for the level of censorship in Singapore. 82% of the respondents stated that they were satisfied with the level of censorship in Singapore (Anil: 18).
It has been observed that the continued economic growth, attendant social transformation and successful campaigns and programmes designed to change behaviour in respect of issues “added substantially to the prestige of the PAP and ensured popular acceptance of its political programmes” (Perry et al: 15).
4.Conclusion
It’s the writer’s view that the censorship in Singapore will remain tight in the predictable future. The main reasons are, for political, historical and socio-cultural considerations, both the government and the people want it, favouring caution and preventing over liberalism (Peng and Nadarajan: 1). What’s more, the media industry, readily taking their social responsibilities, generally supports the government in censorship. Even in the context of globalisation of media, no foreign or local entrants to date are likely to challenge the government’s tight media grip [9]. Anyway, it is illuminating that the younger Singaporeans are claiming more relaxed stance on censorship (Anil: 18).
Footnotes
[1] This essay is based on my manuscript of a presentation assigned by my module tutor Dr.Katharine Sarikakis at Coventry University, England.
[2] With thanks to my Malaysian module mates Miss Kik Fei Jiu and Miss Jan Kew for their help and cooperation.
[3] [4][7][8] Anon. (2000) Understanding Singaporean media”. http://www.prpassport.com/mediasingapore.htm. November 11.p1
[5] Anon. (2002) http://www.sg/flavor/people_4.asp. November 11
[6][9] Reuters. (2000) “Singapore’s media giants await new kid on block”. South China Morning Post. January 13.p1
Bibliography
1. Anil, Samtani (2002) “Re-Visiting the Singapore Internet Code of Practice”. http://www.elj.warwick.ac.uk/jilt/01-2/anil.html. November 112.
2.Birch, D. (1993) “Staging Crisis: Media and Citizenship”. In Rodan, G. (ed) pp72-83, Singapore Change Guard, Melbourne: Longman Cheshire3.
3.Jainschigg, Monica et al (eds) (1999) Doing Business and Investing in Singapore. Singapore: PricewaterhouseCoopers
4. Peng, Hwa Ang and Nadarajan, Berlinda. (1995) “Censorship and Internet: A Singapore Perspective”. http://www.isoc.org/HMP/PAPER/132/txt/paper.txt. May 4
5. Perry, Martin et al. (1997) “Singapore: A Developmental City State. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
6. Reuters. (2000) “Singapore’s media giants awaits new kid on block”. South China Morning Post. January 137.
7.Anon. (2000) “Understanding Singaporean Media”. http://www.prpassport.com/mediasingapore.htm. November 11,2002
8. http://www.sg/, November 11,2002
9. http://www.fpd.gov.sg/, November 11,2002
Copyright@2008 BI Yantao. All Rights Reserved.
