It's necessary and healthy for our politics to adapt to changes and to be up-to-date and in sync with the times because if you don't adapt, it's brittle and one day it would break. But we cannot assume that just because you are changing, you are moving forward. You could be going the wrong way, you could get into a dead end. We have to consciously find the right way forward to avoid problems which other countries have run into.

So how do we respond to this new political situation?

First, we have to take a much more open approach to government and to governance, the way we organise ourselves, the way we conduct our affairs. Welcome different views, reach out to diverse groups including critics, share more information with the public whether it's information on population trends, employment figures or foreign workers – even on GIC investments we are publishing more information now than we used to do, whatever we can. Not everything can be disclosed. We don't want to tell the world the overall size of our reserves, we cannot publish our defence plans, but wherever possible, we will disclose more rather than less. As we go forward, we will review the rules on what we are putting out and over time, we will do progressively more.

We need to engage citizens more in decisions affecting them, across a wide range. The Institute of Policy Studies put out a paper showing various projections of how Singapore's population will grow or shrink over the next decade on certain different assumptions. It's not a conclusive last word but it was a very helpful contribution to the public debate, it helped to educate people and make them understand what this is about. Over the next year we'll put out more papers, get people to focus their minds and to understand that we actually face very serious trade-offs.

But a public debate is not a free-for-all and there are risks. The French had a debate on what it meant to be French because they wanted to close over some of the faultlines in their society between the Muslim immigrants and the non-Muslims but it took a nasty turn, it became a xenophobic discussion. While we debate sensitive issues, we have to be very careful not to let sensible, moderate, thoughtful views be drowned out by unthinking xenophobia.

We need to emphasise how our policies impact Singaporeans and are seen by Singaporeans. We are voted by citizens, our responsibility is to them, what we do must be for them. But government is complicated and very often, the link from the measures to the benefits are indirect and not obvious. So the result is anxiety, opposition, sometimes a lot of angst. We try hard to communicate, make speeches, have dialogues. We don't always do it as well as we could. We need to communicate better; to listen, engage, explain, to be close and sense one another better.

If the policies are wrong or circumstances have changed, then say so and change the policies, we are on a new tack. But if the policies are not wrong and we have to persevere – and it's the perceptions which are mistaken – then we have to have the courage of our convictions. We can be flexible on the implementation and details, but preserve the core principles, and work hard to persuade Singaporeans that we are doing the right thing.

Finally, we need to harness the power of the new media, to use it better to engage and connect with citizens, to manage it better to encourage responsible and constructive behaviour. We need to strengthen digital judgment: the good sense to know that what you saw on the website doesn't mean it's real just because it's on the website.

The Internet is pulling us in different directions. The world is pulling us in different directions. So many opportunities in so many countries, so many exciting possibilities for different people to pursue. How do you pull everybody together so that we feel Singaporean together, that we are anchored – this is home truly, as the song says. We have to make maximum use of our schools, national service experience, our HDB communities, our National Day Parades – events, major developments which we share, things we go thorough together whether it's Sars or economic crisis – so that we have shared reference points, shared memories and we feel one together. It's a continuing effort.

The Government at the end of all this, in the new normal, in the new environment, still has a duty to run Singapore. Having heard all views, it has to decide: What we are going to do, this is the way we go. It's what we were elected for, it's what the electorate expects of us: produce results and to present our record to voters at the next election for them to judge whether they are satisfied.

The Government is one of our political institutions, Parliament is another, the Presidency is another. We need strong political institutions to have a good government to work well. So we look forward to joining issue with the opposition.

They declared they will be responsible and constructive. We will hold them to their word. Don't just criticise what the Government does. Put up serious alternatives to be considered, argue your case, be scrutinised as you scrutinise us. Speak up for measures which may be necessary but are unpopular like immigration. Being principled doesn't mean not being afraid to offend the Government, because the Government is not the emperor and doesn't chop heads off. Being principled means not being afraid to tell unpalatable truths to Singaporeans because voters are the sovereign and they can vote against you.

But if you have conviction, if you believe in it and have passion, then persuade, persuade to follow you. Don't lead from the rear. And that applies to PAP MPs too. Speak your minds, speak frankly, vigorously, passionately.

Khor's speech in Parliament also reflected the PAP's alarm at the appeal of less rational websites – an alarm that may result in new legislation.

Citing a REACH survey, she said that it was "worrying" that only 62% agreed that with the statement that the “anonymous and chaotic nature of the internet often lends itself to negative views and ridiculous untruths, which can distort reality”.

She read this to mean that there is a "bias toward online extreme views which are more tantalising than pro government or 'balanced' views".

But, is it quite possible that the reason why many Singaporeans do not agree that even irrational postings "distort reality" is that these Singaporeans are confident about their own ability to discern the wheat from the chaff – and not because they prefer the chaff, as Khor suggests.

It is of course true that a high proportion of online discussion (like offline conversation, let's not forget) is ill-informed and irrational. There also seems to be no shortage of cowards who enjoy slinging mud from behind their shields of anonymity at anyone who doesn't share their violent allergic reaction to every word uttered by the PAP. I've been on the receiving end of such attacks and it is not pleasant.

Yet, as ugly as these anti-social elements can make cyberspace, we've seen little evidence that, all said and done, they have caused actual harm.

The tenor of the GE campaign may have alarmed those who prefer stability and – since politicians are only human – would have certainly hurt the PAP's feelings. But, in the end, the results of the GE (a "win-win-win" result, as Tony Tan called it) reflected the wisdom of the crowd. It showed that we are a sophisticated, astute electorate that can grasp what is in our long-term interests – not the fickle, impressionable horde that the government seems to picture as it contemplates tighter regulation.

AMY KHOR ON ONLINE ENGAGEMENT

Extract from the speech by Amy Khor during the Parliament Debate on the President's Address, 17 October 2011. Amy Khor is the Chairman of REACH, the Singapore Government's feedback unit. The full speech is found in her Facebook Notes.

We are at the threshold of a new era in Singapore’s political scene. We have a younger electorate with higher expectations, and who are more outspoken.  They represent a new generation of voters, who are unencumbered by the past.  For good or for ill, this is likely to be the norm for Singapore.

Sir, the recent two elections, the GE and PE, have shown that politics is becoming more polarising and that an increasing number of Singaporeans want their voices to be heard.

Opposition politicians will in all likelihood challenge many policies.   If so, they are doing what they set out to do, but this could make for a more fractious political scene.

In this context, to keep to the vision which President Tan has articulated, we need to approach differences and debate in a spirit of dialogue and civility.

Criticism must be welcome, because it will sharpen policies.  But criticism must also be responsible and constructive, with the view to improving policies, not merely scoring political points.  Hence, debate, and not just in Parliament, but also in personal dialogues, in any and every platform, but especially online, needs to be rational, sensible, well thought-out and meaningful.

Smoke and noise will only befuddle, and not enlighten.

But for broad based intelligent and responsible debate to occur, the government will need to step up its engagement efforts both online and offline.

Indeed, in the REACH NDR survey, more than 8 in 10 (83%) feel that the government as a whole should be more active and adept at engaging Singaporeans online.  A similar percentage (82%) also desire reliable websites where people can have open debate and express different but balanced views.

But what is worrying is that only slightly more than 6 in 10 (62%) agree that the “anonymous and chaotic nature of the internet often lends itself to “negative views and ridiculous untruths, which can distort reality”. This seems to suggest that there is a bias toward online extreme views which are more tantalising than pro government or “balanced” views.

Online engagement will increasingly become more important with the growing number of digital citizens. It is simply impossible to engage on all sites. The government could engage on sites which allow for reasoned and constructive debate and gain traction. Netizens themselves who desire rational discourse should support such sites or else start them. They should not be afraid of being labelled “pro government.”

Of course, engagement must go beyond mere solicitation of feedback to follow up action and co-creation of programmes, where possible.  The government through REACH and other platforms have attempted to close the feedback loop in this manner, but it must strive to do even better as expectations for engagement rise.

But while policies continue to be refined, there are always fundamental values, and basic principles which we should adhere to.   The same REACH survey on responses to this year’s National Day Rally show that 76% of the respondents agree that Singapore should maintain its basic strategic directions instead of veering towards populist policies.

Despite the sound and fury of both the GE and PE, I find these responses very heartening. Because they indicate that Singaporeans by and large do not expect major policy shifts which may endanger our long term survival.

Note: Emphases (bold text) are in the original.

“But there must be places… where people recognise … are reliable, where you can have a open debate, where different views are expressed, but it’s balanced, and if you go there you know that, well, to start off with you can assume that it will make some sense,” he said.

He did not say how such spaces could form, or whether the government intended to create or facilitate such sites. Until recently, it has been pushing its official feedback portal, REACH, as the best place for citizens to engage the government. Last night, however, Lee made no mention of REACH, perhaps acknowledging that no official site can counteract the anti-government storm in cyberspace.

Mainstream news organisations should have a better chance at creating neutral, moderated forums. They start off with significant advantages, including the largest audience base and the resources to manage such sites professionally. But their success at creating credible online discussion platforms will depend on how much freedom they are granted by the government. Netizens are not likely to forget how Today axed Mr Brown as a columnist after the government voiced its displeasure at one of his pieces.

The most effective solution would be bottom-up projects, created independently by established bloggers with street-cred. Could Singapore’s socio-political bloggers, for so long seen as a thorn in the government’s side, be the answer to the PM’s prayers?

The idea is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Privately, several independent bloggers have voiced unease at the ugly mob behaviour that swamped cyberspace during the general election. The experience has sparked internal discussions about how best to manage readers’ comments, in particular, since that’s where irrationality has run riot.

There are also established bloggers who are no longer content to converse only among the converted. They want to widen the online debate so that it does not attract only anti-government voices. (I've made a similar point in an earlier piece.)

Don’t be surprised, therefore, if you see some of Singapore’s influential independent bloggers creating new platforms for national debate in the coming months, either by developing new websites or by reorienting their existing ones.

But even if they build them, will government sympathisers and spokesmen come? One thing that will have to change is the PAP’s politics of intolerance, which has contributed to the polarisation of debate in Singapore. Its “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy has kept establishment types away from pluralistic spaces. (The classic illustration was the PAP’s refusal to take part in The Online Citizen’s multi-party forum before the general election.)

For example, the typical establishment individual would probably refuse to contribute an article to an independent medium that also carries opposition party voices. In Singapore’s political culture, he would assume that any such medium would be blacklisted by people at the top, and that anyone who participates risks being tainted by association. Or, perhaps it is simply that most establishment spokesmen lack the confidence to engage in debate on a truly level playing field.

So allergic has the establishment been to bloggers that, as recently as 2009, public universities were compelled to distance themselves from a workshop organised to promote responsible blogging, originally planned with their support.

Thus, PM Lee’s wish for open, balanced and reasonable online spaces requires a cultural change on the part of the establishment as well. The government will need to find within itself the capacity to respect the role of independent websites as convenors of Singapore’s online politics.

Unedited transcript from PM's National Day Rally speech:

Engagement online, I think we need to learn to do it better. It’s not easy to do, but it’s important because the digital media is continuing to grow in importance. Five years ago, Youtube was insignificant. Facebook didn’t exist. All you had was Mr Brown. Today, Mr Brown has a lot of competition. We in government have a lot of competition, and we have to be able to operate in that space.

It’s not easy because it’s anonymous, it’s chaotic, it’s unfiltered, unmoderated, and so the medium lends itself to many negative views and ridiculous untruths. Any number of them. I won’t repeat one because otherwise you may misunderstand and think it’s true. But if you just open at random you will see them.

And we have to do our best to counter this, to prevent untruths from circulating and being repeated 5, 10, 20 times, from leading people astray, and after a while, you’ve heard it so often, you can’t remember where you saw it, but it must be true; but it’s not.

So our ministers have to get better at this and you know many ministers are blogging now, Facebook; and they have to communicate in a different medium, and convey nuance poiicy, intentions, explanations, in a more personal way, engaging people. But it’s not just the ministers, the government as a whole has to be more active and adept, engaging Singaporeans online.

We can’t be in every corner of cyberspace because there are a lot of cowboy towns out there. But there must be places which grow where people recognise that these are places which are reliable, where you can have a open debate, where different views are expressed, but it’s balanced, and if you go there you know that, well, to start off with you can assume that it will make some sense. Whether it’s right or wrong, we have to consider but it’s not rubbish.

So we’ve got to get there, be in cyberspace and use it constructively to explain issues, to shape opinions, to rally support, and to make Singapore work better.

The most liberal jurisdictions, such as the United States, use the "clear and present danger" test, which outlaws only the most extreme speech. At the other extreme, judges could apply the "inherent tendency" test, finding someone in contempt even when there is only a remote, fanciful possibility that his words may undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Until recently, the "inherent tendency" test was used in Singapore.

Writing in Inter Se, justice law clerks Justin Yeo and Calvin Liang note that in the Shadrake case, the Court of Appeal avoided either extreme and instead went for the "real risk" test, whereby "the court concerned must make an objective decision as to whether or not that particular statement would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, as assessed by the effect of the impugned statement on the average reasonable person."

Shadrake was judged to have scandalised the court in his book, Once a Jolly Hangman. Although the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, it differed from some of the High Court's findings and clarified the "real risk" test.

Contempt of court is a common law offence, but it is currently being drafted into the statute books. Professor Kevin Tan, interviewed by Inter Se, said that legislation is "a good way to go" and hoped that a "real likelihood" test would be inserted into the Bill: "In other words, the words uttered or written should have a real likelihood of bringing the courts into disrepute or challenging its independence."

Contempt of court, together with defamation, are the laws that most frequently ensnare the media and other commentators in Singapore.

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong continued with this theme in his speech at the anniversary dinner. He noted Today's effort to offer "a variety of opinions and perspectives". He added: "I may not always agree with them but at least they set you thinking, which is TODAY’s motto. I support the newspaper’s aim to get its readers thinking about the issues of the day. For I believe that only a thinking population who cares about the future of Singapore can sustain our growth and prosperity."

The messages do not represent any fundamental shift in the PAP's philosophy on the role of the press. (At its 5th anniversary dinner, Goh said he did not favour a "subservient" or "unthinking" press.) However, this week's remarks could be read as an oblique reference to one of the most notorious episodes in Today's short history: its cancelling of blogger Mr Brown's column in 2006 after the government issued a stinging response to one of his articles. Responding to public disquiet, the government said at the time that axeing Mr Brown was the Today editors' own decision.

The intriguing question now is which Today PM Lee and SM Goh were referring to when they endorsed its diversity of opinion: the Today prior to the Brown-out of 6 July 2006, or today's somewhat more muted Today. Exactly how its editors interpret the government's signal should become evident in the coming months and years.

Full text

Speech by Mr Goh Chok Tong, Senior Minister, at the 10th Anniversary of Today Newspaper, 10 November 2010.

Five years ago, at TODAY newspaper’s 5^th anniversary dinner, I spoke on the need to develop our own model of a responsible, lively and credible media. I also encouraged TODAY to strengthen its position within the product space between The Straits Times and The New Paper.

TODAY has since done well. It is now the second most read newspaper in Singapore with a readership of almost 700,000, a 30 per cent growth since five years ago. It has a good reach, with about 18 per cent of the adult population reading the paper daily. More importantly, TODAY has been profitable since 2005.

I think TODAY’s success owes much to its distinctive editorial approach and presentation style. It is a serious newspaper which offers a variety of opinions and perspectives. I may not always agree with them but at least they set you thinking, which is TODAY’s motto. I support the newspaper’s aim to get its readers thinking about the issues of the day. For I believe that only a thinking population who cares about the future of Singapore can sustain our growth and prosperity.

I also commend TODAY for engaging the community and promoting good causes. Last year, TODAY engaged the community to produce a coffee table book, “My Life: Then and Now” which recounts how Singapore and the lives of Singaporeans have been transformed over the past 50 years since self-rule. Singaporeans sent in some 1000 pictures, several hundred of which were selected for the book. The Singapore Women’s Award, which was hosted last year by TODAY is another example.  The award, honouring a Singaporean woman each year for her exceptional achievements, has inspired many Singaporean women. More can probably be done to advance good community causes.

Changing Times: Old vs. New Media

Despite the advent of new media, newspapers are still doing well. More than 500 million people buy a newspaper every day, up 5.7 per cent from 5 years ago, and 1.7 billion people read newspapers daily. But these figures hide the varied fortunes of newspapers in different countries. In America and Europe, readership is declining. On the other hand, newspapers in Asian countries like China, India and Singapore continue to enjoy strong circulation, probably due to increasing levels of education and affluence.

There are many factors which have contributed to the drop in readership in developed countries. The most important factors are probably the widespread use of digital technology and the rise of new media. These trends have brought about many new challenges for the traditional media, and they have also had an impact on newspapers in Singapore.

Firstly, there are many more sources of news. More than 80 percent of Singapore households have broadband internet, and they can easily access the wide range of international publications available online for free. There are also more than thirty news and infotainment channels which pay-TV subscribers can access.

Secondly, there is a growing demand and supply of niche and customised content to suit individual needs. On the Internet, there are millions of sites catering to all kinds of interests. The days when Singaporeans had the choice of only two TV channels and a few newspapers are long gone. This new trend of narrowcasting has led to a segmentation of the market. Unlike broadcasting which reaches out to the mass population, narrowcasting reaches out to an audience with more specific interests. Unfortunately, narrowcasting also draws readers away from traditional papers.

Thirdly, reader-generated news is becoming more common. Readers no longer passively receive the news. They engage with it, react to it and share it with fellow readers. Internet users have begun to expand online news stories with their personal comments and links to relevant information and differing points of view. A recent example was the flash floods in Orchard Road this June. Singaporeans took photos and videos of the floods and uploaded them on news sites, blogs and YouTube. In fact, news of the floods spread rapidly on social media platforms with “Orchard Road” becoming the fourth highest trending topic on Twitter on 16 June this year, trumping even the tweets on the World Cup. The traditional top-down approach where the news provider hands down news to the audience has changed.

Fourthly, digital tools have made the delivery of news more immediate and dynamic. In the past, we read the news in the morning papers and watched the same news on evening television channels. Today, breaking news is sent to our e-mail addresses and smartphones in real-time through services such as Google News. If I were to announce tonight, say, the date of the General Elections, I am sure some of you in the audience would immediately receive a news alert, even as I broke the news to you. In addition, readers now receive news content accompanied by video and audio, making the news much more engaging and absorbing. Each news article is supplemented by links to other articles or websites, and of course, advertisements. The boundaries between the different traditional formats such as print and video have become blurred, and this has changed how audiences want to receive their news.

These trends have led some observers to predict the end of newspapers as we know them. Australia-based futurist Ross Dawson, wrote on his blog that newspapers would cease to exist in the US by 2019, and by 2021 in Finland, Greenland and Singapore. He also said that newsprint would be "insignificant" in 52 countries by 2040, where it would be replaced by technologies such as lightweight, interactive digital paper that could show not only video, but could also be rolled and folded.

Meeting the challenges

The challenges posed by the new media to print media are real. But I believe if our newspapers continue to upgrade and adapt to stay relevant, they can retain strong support among Singaporeans. Let me elaborate.

First, all of us value accurate, balanced and credible sources of news. I am glad to note that local dailies continue to be a trusted source of news and information. A worldwide survey conducted by public relations firm Edelman last year revealed that 68 percent of respondents in Singapore found newspapers to be the most trusted source of information. This is in stark contrast with the 34 percent of international respondents who thought that newspapers were trustworthy. In another survey conducted by Nielsen Media between 2008 and 2009 in Singapore, 75 percent of respondents selected local newspapers as their preferred source of news. These surveys testify to the credibility of the Singapore media, and the trust and confidence they enjoy among Singaporeans. This trust was hard-earned by generations of Singapore journalists who provided timely and accurate reports. It is all too easy to lose this trust if our newspapers descend to shoddy journalism and sensational reporting.

Second, our traditional media will do well if they continue to feature strong local content which resonates with the Singapore public. This calls for an intimate feel of the pulse of our society, a good understanding of the aspirations and concerns of the different communities, and a clear sense of what our national interests are.

Third, besides strong local content, a good newspaper needs highly skilled professionals in the newsroom.  The reporters and editors must have the skills to package news stories accurately and in an easy to read manner. Over the years, Singapore newspapers, including TODAY, have built up a good pool of local journalists who understand the constraints, vulnerabilities and fault-lines of our country and the sensitivities present in our multi-racial and multi-religious society. It is good that the newspapers are recruiting young journalists who are better educated, energetic and more in tune with the aspirations of younger readers. However, they do not have as much experience as seasoned reporters. So their insights and analysis tend to be somewhat intellectual at times. Hence, the editors and senior journalists will have to actively guide them and ensure that their idealism is not misplaced, while ensuring that their passion for journalism is sustained. The media companies must also try and retain them so that the better ones will remain to assume senior positions later.

Fourth, traditional newspapers will need to keep up to date with the latest technology, and adapt to how people want to access their news. As we have just heard, TODAY has created an iPad application to cater to news-hungry, tech-savvy readers. This is a timely development.

Role of the Media

The emergence of new media and narrowcasting will give rise to an increasingly individualistic, or what I call an “atomised” society. In such a society, people have access to a vast spectrum of views and programmes online or on the television. They share fewer common experiences and can live in a virtual world of their own. We see this happening in some families. In the past, there was only one television set in the house and everyone watched the same programme. Family members could talk about a popular show or the news as they shared a common reference point. Nowadays, each member of the family can view his or her favourite programme on different televisions, computers or iPads, and there is much less discussion about what they had watched.

This trend will make it more challenging for policy makers to reach out to the citizens and build consensus on important issues.  It will be increasingly more difficult for the government to do so in an “atomised” society where people are tuned to a thousand different websites and channels. The authorities will have to compete for eyeballs with the countless other sources of information, ranging from Facebook updates to tweets to blogs to frivolous on-line chatter. In order to develop a consensus, everyone needs to have a common, accurate set of facts and sound analysis to deliberate and base their decisions on. But in this new digital era, there are so many voices on the Internet, and it is difficult to separate truth from fiction and facts from falsehoods.

Therefore, national newspapers such as TODAY play a critical role in disseminating information, providing feedback and building consensus. They have to convince readers that while the Internet may provide a wide range of views and entertaining chatter, the traditional media remains one of the most dependable sources of news, information and commentaries.

Role of the Readers

We, the consumers of news, whether in the traditional or new media, also have a role to play. It is important that we develop a habit of thinking about and verifying what we read or hear. As a principle, we should always check hearsay and what is purveyed on the Internet. As this is not always possible or practical, we need national newspapers which we can turn to for objective, reliable information, insightful analyses and balanced comments.

At the same time, we should not restrict our reading diet only to news and opinions which confirm our own biases. We should explore different views, consider them carefully and come to our own conclusions.

Conclusion

Over the last 10 years, TODAY has kept Singaporeans informed with up to date news and commentaries. Going forward, I hope TODAY and the other local media organisations will continue to be mindful of Singapore’s uniqueness as a country, and help to build a stable, prosperous and cohesive society.

I wish TODAY a happy 10^th birthday.

The Law and Home Affairs Minister said of the role of the press in Singapore:

"It should report fully and fairly what goes on.  It can probe, ask inconvenient questions, and expose wrong-doing. But it should not join the political fray and become a political actor. It should not campaign for or against a policy position. The media can and should convey the views of opposing political actors – and people can judge for themselves the validity of any particular point of view. If a journalist or a newspaper owner wants to take part in the political process, then he or she should join a political party, and not use the privileged access to the media to push a political perspective."

His speech in New York was the government's most detailed and robust defence in years of its position on the role of the press, recalling Lee Kuan Yew's classic 1971 speech in Helsinki.

Shanmugan said he believed that most people want to live in societies "which promote individual liberty and freedom" and "where the government is accountable to the people". But countries had to choose systems that worked for them, he said, roundly rejecting the assumption that the rest of the world should be judged by reference to Western models. Going on the offensive, he pointed out that even thinkers within the West had serious misgivings about the state of their own politics and media.

For a vigorous critique of the ideological positions contained in Shanmugam's speech, read Pritam Singh's commentary in The Online Citizen.

FULL TEXT

Speech by Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, K Shanmugam at the inaugural forum, "A Free Press for a Global Society" at Columbia University, New York, 4 November 2010.

I would like to thank you, President Bollinger and Columbia University, for inviting me to share and explain our perspective on the role of the media in Singapore. There are, as you said, diverse views on the roles that the media should or can play in a free society, and our views often draw fairly strong reactions.

The question of what role the media can play in a society, has to be considered in the context of how that society has structured its political framework – the media does not operate in a vacuum. And I will emphasise that point quite strongly.

My comments in this respect are obviously restricted to societies which have – in the first instance – been able to freely choose their political framework. I will first deal with the political framework in Singapore; and then set out what we see as the role to be played by the media in Singapore, in that context.

Before I speak about Singapore and its specific context, let me make a few points clear. I believe that most people, regardless of race, religion or culture will want to live in societies:

• Which promote individual liberty and freedom, including the right of free speech;
• Where people are given the opportunity to achieve their maximum potential;
• Where people have the right to elect a Government of their choice; and
• Where the Government is accountable to the people.

Having said that, one question that most societies have to deal with in organising their polity – is to find the right balance between individual freedom and liberty on the one hand, and the interests of society on the other. How that balance is structured will impact on a variety of areas, including the media.

Western commentators usually start with how the balance has been struck in the US and some other countries in the developed world. The rest of the world is then judged by reference to that standard. Often, there is an assumption that political systems can be transposed across countries, without adaptation.  Whatever may be the theory, in practice, attempts at such transposition, without due regard to different levels of development and culture, have usually come to grief.

The post-WW II period saw a large number of countries become independent, free from colonialism. Most of them started out with extremely well written Constitutions, noble ideals on separation of powers, Parliaments, Courts, political parties and so on.

But these processes and institutions were in most cases debased and corrupted, fairly quickly. The underlying society was not hospitable for a real democratic tradition to grow: the people were poor and illiterate, often divided along ethnic, tribal, religious lines; crooks, charlatans and gangsters found it easy to get into power, using money and muscle. The people’s lives never improved.

As I say this, let me make another one point clear. I am not for a moment suggesting that dictatorships deliver a superior record. In the developing world, generally both dictatorships and democracies have delivered equally sorry outcomes.

Turning to Singapore, specifically, we were a British colony following our modern founding in 1819. We obtained self government in 1959. We became part of the Malaysian Federation in 1963. We had independence thrust upon us in 1965 when we had to exit the Federation in acrimonious circumstances.

Singapore is a city state. In 1965, its land area was about 225 square miles, smaller than New York City. Its population was 1.9 million people. It does not fit the traditional description of a country. It is one of the 20 smallest states in the world – a micro state.

In the 1950s and 1960s, there were many fashionable trends among newly independent countries. Practicality and common sense required us to, ignore most of these trends. We had to adapt our political and economic system to our internal and external circumstances. I ask you to bear with me as I spend some time on this point – these experiences in our short history were important in shaping our views on many aspects, including the role of the media.

What were these circumstances? I’ve spoken about size. Natural resources – none whatsoever except a deepwater port. People – our literacy rate in 1965 was low; a very small number had higher education. Economy – per capita GDP was about US$500. There was very little local industry, and the economy was dependent on the British bases, which provided 20% of the GDP, and on entrepot trade, which depended on goods coming from other countries. It was not an international financial centre. Unemployment was in the double-digits.

Institutions were not well developed, and there was no substantive middle class. Standards of healthcare, infrastructure, housing – these were all at very low levels, as was the case with many developing countries then. We had no capability to defend ourselves, and very limited internal security capabilities.

There was also no notion of nationhood or national identity. People had come to Singapore as immigrant workers to make money, and then return to their homelands. Society was deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines, which had been exploited to provoke riots and bloodshed. The very idea of Singapore as an independent state was laughable. Many did not think Singapore would survive for long, when it became independent, in 1965.

Our regional situation was not any more promising. The region was ravaged by continuous warfare after WW II. There was the Korean War, followed by the Vietnam War. And there was the communist threat – an actual conflict in which thousands of lives were lost in Malaya (including in Singapore), in a vicious and bitter fight with the communists from the 1950s through the 1960s. Victory against the communists was far from certain – as you would know from your experiences in the region.

Malaysia, our neighbour to the north – the split resulting in our exit from the Federation was based on differences on how racial issues should be approached. To the south, Indonesia – was in low level conflict with us, threatening our very existence at the time of our independence. Saboteurs were sent over to plant bombs in Singapore.

You can see that there were serious external and internal risks. One other factor: Singapore is probably the only country in the world that depends on another country for a daily necessity – water, which we get from Malaysia.

It might help you understand our perspective if I were to suggest some geographical changes to the North American continent (I have used this analogy before):

Assume the US is shrunk to the size of Connecticut, and with a population of about 20 million; to the North, replace benign Canada with Russia; and to the South, replace Mexico with China. Both with their current populations.

And assume you have to get water every day from Russia. If you want some additional factors to consider: Assume that the majority population both in the north and the south are the same, and are Muslim, which is different from the religion of the majority in the US. That will give you a perspective.

As I give you this analogy, I would add that we now have good relationships with our neighbours.

In the face of this internal and external situation, we adopted the British Parliamentary System. We made changes along the way. We wanted to ensure that:

• There were regular elections with secret ballot; and
• Once elected, the Government should be able to function effectively and efficiently, and there should be political stability. There are thus less institutional checks and balances on Executive action in Singapore compared with the US – and that is deliberately so. In a small city state, the Government has to move quickly to react to internal and external situations. Voters can judge the Government during the elections. Gridlock would be disastrous for us. Political confrontation through extra constitutional means, street protests and so on was minimised, through law.

There were a number of other steps taken, but time does not permit me to go into them.

We were successful in our objectives. As a result, today, our situation is a little different from when we started out in 1965. (The reason I go through this, is not to tell you that we have done well – that you can see from yourself. The point is to show how we have progressed; and, perhaps, uniquely among developing countries who gained independence in the 1960s, we were able to achieve this. It is to explain how the political system, including the media, plays an important role in that transformation.)

In military terms, we have a strong citizen army, and no one doubts our ability to protect ourselves.

Our economy – the per capita GDP is about US$41,000 (up from US$512 in 1965). We are one of the leading financial centres in the world, with an open, free economy. The Heritage Foundation ranks us as the second most open economy in the world.

We are stable. We have social peace. We are safe and secure internally. We have a relatively small police force. For example, we have 247 officers per 100,000 population, compared to 426 per 100,000 in New York City. But we also have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. There were 661 crimes per 100,000 people in 2009, a quarter of New York City’s. We also have much lower rates of violent crimes compared with New York.

Anyone can walk along most streets in Singapore, day or night. Any child can take public transport, and many do – parents will not have to worry too much.

Healthcare – in 2008, Singapore spent about 4% of its GDP on healthcare. But our health outcomes are comparable to countries that spend much more, including the US.

Education system – recognised as first rate. Shortly after taking office, President Obama said that in 8^th grade math, Singapore’s middle-schoolers outperformed their American counterparts three to one. Today, 70% of each cohort now gets some form of post-secondary education. Our top students go to the top universities in the world and do well.

Housing – More than 90% of our population now own their homes.

If you look up international rankings on living environment, our judiciary, how corruption free the society is, you will find us ranked at or near the top.

Not bad for a small city state that started out in the most unpromising of circumstances.

Where does the media fit in, in this picture? The traditional liberal theory of media is that:

• It will represent different points of view. That will encourage open discussion. As a result, there will be better outcomes for society.
• The media will also play the role of the Fourth Estate, checking the Government, and keeping it honest – that will strengthen democracy.  The assumption was that the media would be judicious, fair and independent.

In these ways, the media is seen as essential for proper functioning of the democratic process. That is the theory. The reality is a little different. Let me set out some of the differences as we see them:

• Journalists, like the rest of us, are human, and subject to the same influences and vices. They can be biased, unfair and prejudiced, as much as any of us can be.
• Media companies are often profit-driven, like other commercial entities. It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in pursuit of profit.
• Media companies and journalists, like other entities and people, can be bought, suborned and corrupted – particularly in developing countries.
• Competition and the need for the advertising dollar can compromise ethics.
• There has also been a trend towards tabloidization to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
• The media can have tremendous influence in the political process. It can set the agenda for discussion, it can shape public opinion about Government and government policies, and it can make or break politicians. As the Fourth Estate, it is an active participant in the political process. Yet it is the only institution in the political process that is often not subject to any checks or balances. The answer that the public provides the check and balance is really a non answer.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it in these terms, when describing the consequences of the modern realities and pressures on the media:

“The result is a media that increasingly and to a dangerous degree is driven by “impact”. Impact is what matters. It is all that can distinguish, can rise above the clamour, can get noticed. The audience needs to be arrested, held and their emotions engaged. Something that is interesting is less powerful than something that makes you angry or shocked. The consequences of this are acute: First, scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down. News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light. Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgment. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial. Third, the fear of missing out means today’s media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits. But no-one dares miss out. Fourth, rather than just report news, even if sensational or controversial, the new technique is commentary on the news being as, if not more important than the news itself. This leads to the fifth point: the confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate. Opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. The truth is that a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course. The final consequence of all of this is that it is rare today to find balance in the media.” [The full speech is available on journalism.sg here.]

I am not saying that this reality is good or bad. My point is that these are facts and they should be acknowledged frankly, before there can be a sensible discussion on the role that the media can play in any particular society – rather than having a discussion based on an idealised notion of the media, which is divorced from reality.

The media in America has a wider and freer role than in almost any other country in the world. That this approach can cause some harm to American society has long been recognised. The view that has prevailed, however, is that the risk is nevertheless a price worth paying. The other risk, that the media may be shut out from dealing with legitimate issues –thereby weakening American democracy, is seen as the greater harm.

There is a fundamental assumption underlying this reasoning – that American society is strong enough to withstand the possible harmful consequences arising from such an approach. If however that fundamental assumption changes, then there has to be a different calculus. That, precisely, is Singapore’s position.

Our view is that our small society, with a short common shared history, enclosed within a small island, cannot withstand the harm that can be caused by giving our media the role that the US media has. By the time we have some light, after all the heat, irreparable harm may have been caused – or at least a level of harm that we as a society are not prepared to accept.  For example, the fault lines in our society, along racial and religious lines can easily be exploited.

To use an analogy, the US is an aircraft carrier. We are a little skiff. A lot of things that can happen in an aircraft carrier will not be possible in a skiff. Our view on the role of the media therefore is as follows:

• It should be a neutral medium for conveying news – with commentary clearly separate from news;
• It should report fully and fairly what goes on.  It can probe, ask inconvenient questions, and expose wrong-doing;
• But it should not join the political fray and become a political actor. It should not campaign for or against a policy position. The media can and should convey the views of opposing political actors – and people can judge for themselves the validity of any particular point of view. If a journalist or a newspaper owner wants to take part in the political process, then he or she should join a political party, and not use the privileged access to the media to push a political perspective.

The basic point is a simple one. Your society has in-built stability. There can be fringe lunatic behaviour, but mainstream Americans are sensible, rational, and extremist sentiment will not threaten the very fabric of society. In many developing societies, these assumptions don’t hold. The glue holding the society together is not as strong. These societies can easily rupture along tribal, ethnic, and religious lines. And you see that happening regularly.

What are the reactions to our views? Obviously, our views are not very popular – particularly with the media. And unsurprisingly, Singapore gets some negative attention from the international media.

When I look at some of the criticism, I wonder at the objectivity. Let me refer to an example to explain what I mean. An international organisation called Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres) comes out with an annual ranking of countries on press freedom. (I have made this point elsewhere.) This year they ranked us 136^th, below Iraq (130^th), Zimbabwe (123^rd) – where the BBC was banned from entering until recently, and Guinea (113^th). That might at first glance be surprising.

Guinea in particular is interesting. Last year, the International Herald Tribune ran a story headlined, “Ousting Guinea’s brutal junta.” The first paragraph read: “Over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.”

We are apparently below Guinea in press freedom, and have been since 2003. What is RSF’s methodology? As I understand it, they go to each country and choose some people to ask questions on what they think about press freedom in that country. The scores thus seem to depend entirely on who is chosen to be asked, and how subjective that person is. So it is not the same group of people who assess each country by a defined set of criteria. It is also not clear what weights RSF gives to different criteria. [See Journalism.SG's anlaysis of RSF's rankings here.]

Contrast all of this with a Gallup poll. In 2005 and 2006, Gallup asked residents in 128 countries whether they had confidence in the quality and integrity of their media. 69% of Singaporeans polled answered in the affirmative. That result is consistent with other polls conducted by others internationally as well as in Singapore. Singaporeans trust our media. The figure for the US in the Gallup poll was 32%. People are more cynical about the media in the US.

Freedom House also comes out with press freedom rankings. They think we are below Colombia, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya (where there were riots following a disputed election), Pakistan, and so on.

I suspect that our rankings are at least partly due to the fact that we take an uncompromising attitude we take on libel – and the fact that we have taken on the almost every major newspaper company. Such audacity that tiny Singapore has.

Our approach has been to ignore criticisms that make no sense – and we continue to do better. The people of Singapore also know better. 66% voted for the Government at the last general elections on our policy platform. Mind you – Singaporeans are now well-educated, sophisticated, and know their rights. And as stated earlier, they also trust their media.

Could Singapore have done equally well, if our media played the role that the American media plays? Alternatively, given our current level of development, should we change? I will give a couple of reasons why I believe that we should stick to what has worked for us.

First, we can look at developing countries that adopted the US model. By reference to these countries we compare more favourably in terms of human development index and stability. And the media behaviour and impact it has in these countries is really not a model we want for Singapore.

Second, we can look at the US itself, as the source of ideals in relation to the media. For an outside observer like me (and I am an admirer of many aspects of the US system), it is not so clear any more, that every aspect of the US system will work well, particularly for us. The questions that arise for an observer [about] the media here:

• Does it always pursue the truth and seek to enlighten the readers?
• Do parts of the media act as campaign arms of politicians, peddle half-truths and present very biased perspectives?
• Do viewers really get to the truth or do they rely on their preferred media, which may often seek to confirm their existing prejudices?
• Is it financially more lucrative for the media to serve up red meat to a secure base of viewers, rather than seek the middle ground?
• To what extent does money affect the traditional theory of a marketplace of ideas? If a particular group can buy more campaign ads, will that group have a clear advantage?
• How does it help democracy and informed choice, if pursuant to the principles of free speech, large groups can play a big financial role in elections – would that not advantage vested interests?
• And, if you add another factor – that campaign contributions can be effectively non-transparent? The Financial Times ran an article a few days ago with a sub-heading saying: “Campaigning for the mid-term elections is being influenced as never before by wealthy but shadowy groups that fund advertising on candidates they dislike.”
• Can people make informed choices when campaign ads have little relation to the facts or the serious issues? Would not truth be swift boated, as it were and distinguished records tarnished through unfair means?

Friedman had a commentary on US politics a few days ago and ended with this sentence: “A dysfunctional political system is one that knows the right answers but can’t even discuss them rationally, let alone act on them, and one that devotes far more attention to cable TV preachers than to recommendations by its best scientists and engineers.”

If the marketplace of ideas is working well, then why this lament? Other commentators have made similar points. I refer to these not so much to say they are right, or to intervene, interfere, or criticise the American system. The only point I make is that serious people say this, they are knowledgeable, and these do not appear to be extreme or fringe views – and, we outside of America must consider them, when considering if the system will can be transposed in total for us. I don’t seek to prescribe for the US, and I cannot do so. But if you look at a cross-section of views, from people like Carl Bernstein, George Stephanapoulos, they say:

• News has been reduced to gossip;
• Sensationalism has been used to turn attention from the real conditions of society;
• An idiot culture has been created in the news by providing nonsense to the readers.
• The American press has become adversarial to the point that it does not contribute to the understanding of national issues, while complex issues are made into personality clashes;
• The press has lost its credibility because journalists have become cynical about everything, in search of the dramatic.

I am not saying I agree with these comments. I am just saying we have to think carefully, before we consider adopting the American system. Even from a larger perspective, moving beyond the media, there can be serious questions whether American style democracy can work for everyone outside America. From an observer’s perspective, we see:

• The legislative process, the earmarks and bargaining;
• The role of lobbies and vested interests;
• The amount of money needed for elections, and the need for congressmen to spend a large part of their time networking and raising money;
• The deep political divides, and the time it takes for policy issues to be resolved;
• The general aversion of candidates to deal with serious issues in their campaigns.

These give food for thought. The system works for America. This is a great country and will remain so. But can the rest of us adopt its system? My own view is that the system that the US has will impose costs which a large, rich country like the US can afford – the cost will be too high for some of us.

We believe that our system works for us, and we don’t shut out the world. In terms of openness to ideas:

• We have more than 5,500 foreign newspapers and publications in circulation in Singapore. There are close to 100 TV channels carried on our cable networks. Nearly 200 correspondents from 72 foreign media organisations are based in Singapore.
• Household broadband penetration is more than 100%;
• Our population is English-educated and Internet-savvy;
• Singaporeans rank among the world’s most travelled population – in 2008, we had nearly 7 million passenger trips – more than the number of Singapore residents.

Let me now address the issue of our libel laws – which often excites much interest internationally. Our libel laws are based on English common law. Our principle is very simple. If you make a personal attack of fact against a person’s reputation, for example by alleging that he is corrupt, or that he is a liar, or that he embezzled State funds, then you should be prepared to prove it in court. We do not believe that public discourse should degenerate to a base level, by allowing untrue personal attacks.

We would like to keep political debate focused on issues. You can attack government policies fiercely. That will not be defamatory. And let the people choose the candidates based on alternative policies.

You in America take a different view. We respect that, but deeply disagree that that approach leads to a better debate – and in saying this I am aware of the ‘chilling effect’ argument.

It is also sometimes suggested that our libel laws are used to perpetuate a one-party system in Singapore. As proof, commentators will refer to the fact that the governing party has been in power since independence in 1965 (and actually before that).

There are several responses. I will just give one. Remember that Singapore is a city state. There are no great geographical variations, no serious economic differences between regions, no great demographic variations. It is one relatively small city – the comparison should be with similar-sized city politics in the US.

If you consider cities in the US, for example San Francisco or Chicago, you also see uninterrupted hold on power by one party for decades. (Although having said that, I wouldn’t like Singapore politics to be compared with Chicago politics of some decades ago – I think we are a little different.) So in city politics, it is possible for a party to retain power for a long time – if it delivers results.

Let me now conclude with a couple of remarks.

My basic point is that each of us has to choose what works for us. Over a time, it is possible that a set of core values can evolve across countries – but this has to be agreed rather than imposed.

I had told President Bollinger that I might make some comments about China. In real terms, the influence that Singapore has, or the impact that Singapore has, is commensurate with its size (maybe a little bit more). But we are not the greatest influence in the world.

The US has had over 200 years to refine its system. Universal franchise was only obtained in the US in the ‘60s. Most of the rest of us have had far less time, though as a bragging point, I will add that our people had universal franchise before the US.

Second, I see acres of print space in Western media devoted to China’s human rights record. My own perspective is that the coverage is often biased and lacks perspective.

This is a country that 30 years ago was among the poorest in the world. Within 30 years, several hundred million people have been lifted out of poverty – more than the entire US population. It has made seriously impressive strides in developing the potential of its massive population, and has developed its economy in a way quite unimaginable 30 years ago, to become the 2^nd largest economy – and the largest external creditor to the US.

All of this has been achieved with a broad measure of stability. The governance that has been delivered is quite frankly, exceptional.

The media as well as commentators could do more to recognise the true extent of China’s astonishing achievements, and ask themselves: is it really clear that the prescriptions being offered, would help China in its continued development? Do we not think that the Chinese leaders know what is good for their country?

I will refer to another Friedman quote published in September:

“Studying China’s ability to invest for the future doesn’t make me feel we have the kind of focus, legitimacy, unity and stick-to-it-iveness to do big things – democratically – that China does autocratically. We’ve done it before. But we’re not doing it now because too many of our poll-driven, toxically partisan, cable-TV-addicted, money-corrupted political class are more interested in what keeps them in power than what would again make America powerful, more interested in defeating each other than saving the country. [...] For democracy to be effective and deliver the policies and infrastructure our societies need requires the political centre to be focused, united and energised. That means electing candidates who will do what is right for the country not just for their ideological wing or whoever comes with the biggest bag of money. For democracies to address big problems – and that’s all we have these days – requires a lot of people pulling in the same direction, and that is precisely what we’re lacking.”

Chinese leaders know that they need the country to pull together. It’s quite clear that you have a highly talented group of leaders in China who will not let anything stand in their way of their goal of making China a great power. China and its leadership: focuses on its short, medium and long term interests; has in place an effective leadership succession system which ensures that the best people reach the top, to govern the country, and that they leave after a specified period; has a steely determination to improve the well-being of their people.

China is both extremely proud of its past and confident about its future. The Chinese people are among the most productive and hardworking, with a natural aptitude for science and math. China’s leaders have also stated that Western-style liberal democracy or media would hinder the path of growth China is on. They look at what happened in Russia, when glasnost preceded perestroika.

The rest of the world would do well to understand the issues China faces, the results it has achieved and its perspectives, before offering criticisms and prescriptions. And it would be quite unfair to give prominence to one facet, the human rights record, as defined by the liberal democracies, without considering the whole picture – the real human rights record – which is the continued uplifting of millions of people.

Thank you.

Source: http://app2.mlaw.gov.sg/News/tabid/204/Default.aspx?ItemId=515

Q&A SESSION

MODERATOR PROF FREDERICK SCHAUER, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LAW SCHOOL:

Thank you, Minister, so let me, my role here is partly to ask questions, partly to give commentary. I have been instructed by the time conscious organizers to perhaps compress the questions into the commentary. So let me ask you a two part question that will be a little longer than the questions that I normally like to ask. In addition, in asking this question I think I will take advantage of my, as he would describe it, dear friendship with President Bollinger, by slightly challenging the way in which he has framed the issue, by talking about American law and by talking about American policies. It is tempting to think of the issues about freedom of the press, the issues of libel ,the issues about contempt law and the like, as largely issues involving how Singapore and the US are different. It may be a slight misframing of the issue.

As it well known, the US is an international outlier on a number of free speech, free press issues. The US is more press protective on issues as defamation than anywhere else in the world. It is more speaker protective on issues as hate speech than anywhere else in the world. It is more publication protective than anywhere else in the world on the publication of illegally obtained information. Is more protective of commercial speech and commercial advertising than anywhere else in the world. The US to the annoyance of Canadians who think we are under appreciative of equality. To the annoyance of Germans who are under appreciative of dignity. To the annoyance of the French who think we are under appreciative of a number of values including order and community. The US is an international outlier. So let?s put the US aside.

If we look at the issues of defamation. If we look at Australia, with its Lange decision. New Zealand with its Lange decision. Mr Lange is a repeat player is a libel plaintiff. If we look at the Lange decisions in Australia and New Zealand, if we look at the Reynolds decision in the United Kingdom, the Scientology decision in Canada, one thing that emerges from these is that, putting aside the US, Singapore seems to be substantially more restrictive of the press, substantially more restrictive of the media in general than almost any other common law country. The comparison is not US-Singapore, the question is why it might be that Singapore is so divergent from other common law countries in the world and even from other civil law countries in the world.

Now one explanation for this that you offered quite eloquently relates to the peculiar situation in Singapore. But compared to the US, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Ireland, Spain and much of Eastern Europe, the notion that there are substantial racial and ethnic divisions is hardly unique to Singapore. And although much about Singaporean libel law, contempt law and press law in general might be understandable of a developing country with $512 a year per capita income, much that you?ve said describes Singapore as a thriving, developed economy with a $41,000 a year per capita income. Is it possible that many of the justifications that were understandable for Singapore as a developing country, are less understandable for a developed, thriving, prosperous economically successful country that you?ve described.

MINISTER:

Thanks, that almost was a speech, Professor Schauer but I'll try to pick up the points as I understand them. I think the points you made, first, leave the US out, the US is an outlier. Second, why are Singapore's defamation laws so different from say Australia, Canada, the UK and New Zealand. And third, given that Singapore has now become more developed, should there not be a change in approach? Fourth, I think, should not press privilege that was recognised as the norm in various countries be recognised in Singapore? Let me try and answer the questions.

Now, as for the US being an outlier. The reason why I structured my speech in the way I did is, I was coming to the US, speaking at Columbia University, on press freedom and I assumed that the take- off was the United States and not as to the rest of the common law world. And if you read what The Wall Street Journal says about us, about our press freedom, you wouldn?t think that the Wall Street Journal considers the US to be an outlier. They take it to be the mainstream and compare us and that's why my speech was structured the way it was. But I'm happy to deal with the other common law world.

Yes, Australia and more specifically the UK, with the Reynold's privilege, have accepted the fact that the press should have some additional privilege compared with the strict common law doctrine. We don't accept it. As an individual, I don't accept it; as a government we don't accept it and the reasons are very simple. Most of them are in my speech. The point is this, if you actually sit down and look at what is it that is needed for a healthy, robust debate in public life. You want to talk about issues, you want to talk about what the government is doing right or wrong. How people can offer a different perspective, what are the different viewpoints there are, all of that is fair game. The point about the classic common law defamation theory is that when you descend into a personal attack against someone and it's not comment. You can call someone an idiot, he can't sue you for that. You can make a whole lot of comments about a person, you can call him incompetent, he can't sue you for that, but if you make a personal factual allegation, “he stole”, or “he is corrupt” then the real issue is, should the press be given any greater privilege to make those allegations compared with an individual? Now I accept quite freely that that's a matter of political philosophy.

I don't accept that there should be such a privilege and I will explain to you why. The reasons which are pushed usually for the press to have a greater privilege is that it helps in the democratic debate. But I ask you, how does it help the democratic debate? Ok, the “chilling effect” argument. As the result of having these defamation laws, you know, people may be tempted not to enter into the debate and may not be saying certain things about some politician or private persons. What about the opposite effect? That first of all you dumb down the debate. Second, you then descend into a series of personal attacks. Third, that serious people may well ask themselves “Do I really want to get involved in this political process?” Now, these are serious points. I'm not saying one is right or the other is right. But both are reasonable perspectives. And we take the perspective that we want men and women of integrity and character to come into public service and they must be prepared to go into the stand and be cross examined on their past, when allegations are made against them, and defend themselves, and let the public see them defending themselves. And if they are guilty, i.e. they were corrupt, or they are wrong, they shouldn't be in public life. Public life shouldn't come down to only people who are prepared, because either don't have a reputation to defend or are prepared not to defend their reputation. There is no reason why personal reputation should be protected any less than private property which you protect very vigorously. The only rationale for that is that it encourages a greater democratic debate. I have explained in my speech why I don't accept that.

Now, let me move to the other points. Should Singapore change now that it's a developed country? I was telling Professor Bollinger in the ante room that we were sitting in. Yes, if you step into Singapore. From the time you step into the airport, in fact from the time you step into Singapore Airlines, you think you are in a developed country. It's first-rate, everything works, everything is efficient, people speak English. The hotels are good, the economy is strong. US 41,000 per capita, yes, but we never forget, in fact we're paranoid about whether or not we will continue to survive. And the reason is very simple. You just look at the map, and you look at history. How many city states have survived for any length of time? There were great city states that were very wealthy – Venice and others. If we were Monaco in the middle of Europe, maybe we will have a different perspective. But we are Singapore, in South East Asia. So we never take our survival for granted. And we know that when we do take it for granted, we gamble with the lives of our people. No responsible government will do that.

And without going back to the reasons, I explained what I thought was the reality of the media today. And are we prepared in Singapore to have that kind of media? Does the fact that we are developed mean that our society is mature enough to accept some of the risks that will come with such media? Let me give you an example. You know, if I were a lawyer I can be much more frank. Now, as a person holding a Cabinet position, I need to worry about diplomatic consequences.

Our racial structure is 75% Chinese, 15% Malays, 8% Indian. It is a mirror image of Malaysia?s racial structure, except for them the Malays are the dominant majority. But culturally and in terms of geography and in other ways, these two areas are very similar. In fact they were part of the same entity for a very long period, even under the British. If you look at Malaysia, it is urban, it is developed, it also has got excellent infrastructure, if you read the newspapers and if you've been following events closely, you will find that racial and religious tension has been rising. The Government is in control, thankfully, and is in absolute charge. But, it doesn't prevent politicians, fringe groups, from trying to fish in troubled waters. And one of the easiest ways that you can get votes and get publicity and move up the political ladder, is to appeal to these sorts of sentiments. The appeal to race and religion is a gut instinct. Just because you've become developed or you make a lot of money doesn't mean those things go away. And those fault lines can easily flare up. There were mosques which were sought to be debased last year in Malaysia. Churches were torched. The Government had to move in and take control. Do we believe we are any different? If you look at Indonesia they have a similar situation. So we don't take our survival for granted. We are paranoid about it. We look around us. We don't believe that we are in some way a superior set of human beings. Thank you.

PROF SCHAUER:

We have been given signals that we must come to a close. One thing I might leave the audience just to think about, it is clear that one of the differences, and it might be a very reasonable difference, I think it is, might be about the question to which whether words like "corrupt", "blackmail", "murder" and some number of other invectives common in political debate in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the US and other places are to be understood as factual allegations or just the invective of political debate. That's for all of us to think about. I've been instructed to tell the audience after Lee finishes that the break that you were promised will be somewhere between very brief and non-existent.

MINISTER:

Sorry, can I just interject there and say this. You can only be liable under common law if it's a factual allegation. If you go back to the cases in Singapore, look at the judgments, they're all published.

PRESIDENT LEE BOLLINGER:

Mr Minister, we wanted to have a very rich and robust debate about the questions of global free press, and you have certainly done that for us. I suspect that a very large percentage of people in this room would love to be able to talk with you more for a long time about the issues that you've raised and articulated very well, and I have to say that I raise also in my classes when I teach about New York Times v Sullivan etc. But for enriching our debate, we are very appreciative you've come into a place where people have a lot of different views about this. And you've expressed yourself eloquently. We appreciate that very much and we hope the debate can continue.

Source: http://app2.mlaw.gov.sg/News/tabid/204/Default.aspx?ItemId=516

With more people having access to the Internet, it has become a convenient and popular platform for individuals to vent their religious hatred and abuse recklessly.

In particular, there is a dangerous tendency among some people to shrug off their social responsibilities when emboldened by the cloak of anonymity of the Internet. They make insensitive, and at times inflammatory and incendiary, postings that denigrate other races and religions. The speed and global reach of the new media technologies mean that such postings are rapidly and repeatedly propagated through multiple websites and social media networks like Facebook and YouTube. These days, public complaints against religiously offensive websites and net discussions are commonplace.

Sometimes, such cyber conflicts can spiral out of control, and spill over into the physical world. As we have seen earlier this year in the incidents of the offensive Facebook postings and Youtube clips, it can easily become another source of inter-religious friction and tension. This increasing potential for friction is compounded by growing religiosity amongst Singaporeans, and accompanying it, growing religious assertiveness.

What is of particular security concern is when religiosity manifests itself in a highly public and assertive manner in a multireligious setting like Singapore, with all our attendant sensitivities. One example is the increase in proselytisation activities. Although the right to propagate one’s faith is enshrined in our Constitution, it becomes problematic when followers become over-zealous and selfrighteous in their missionary activities, and carry them out in an aggressive and insensitive manner, disregarding the feelings of other religions. Unlike previously, devotees of the different faiths today appear to be less tolerant over perceived slights to their religion, and are more ready to retaliate.

The rise in religious assertiveness is also seen in religious groups becoming more vocal and articulate in making their views in public. Some public policies and issues will pose dilemmas for some faiths, and we can expect them to speak up. This development is not a security problem per se. However, there could be flash-points when groups go too far in advocating their cause and make unfounded allegations, whip up the emotions of their followers, or mobilise them. In doing so, they could heighten tensions between the religious community and the State.

Religious groups are also becoming more visible in the public sphere. Religious worship is no longer confined to traditional places of worship such as churches, mosques and temples. The success charismatic churches have had in organising mega-sermons outside purpose-built church buildings have inspired other religious groups to organise similar large-scale worship events at commercial venues such as shopping centres and exhibition halls. Recently, there has also been discussion about the involvement of religions in business. These trends are of concern to Singaporeans as they are seen to be a further encroachment of religion into the common space.

The solution is not to roll-back religion in our society. Singaporeans must be free to practise their faith. However, the Government must continue to ensure that we maintain a big enough neutral, common space in which our different communities can engage in public life and with one another free from religious considerations and sensitivities. We have to find the right balance; we cannot have unbridled freedom of religion, at the expense of nation building and social cohesion; to the extent that it foments divisiveness amongst our people. We will continue to refine our policies to ensure this.

Now and then, this delicate balance will be upset by ill-considered remarks and actions by some groups or individuals. ISD has the responsibility of helping the Government manage the resultant tensions and conflicts in a firm, fair and flexible way. There is no onesize solution. Different responses and measures will have to be deployed according to the circumstances. The bottom line we want to achieve is that we preserve for Singaporeans, for the long term, the social stability and harmony among races and religions that we have enjoyed in the last four decades.

• Full speech available at the Home Affairs Ministry website.

In a democracy with a form of representative government (based on the doctrine of separation of powers), the Judiciary is one of three arms of government, co-equal in status, and vested with the power, among others, to check the Legislature and the Executive in their exercise of powers vested in them by law and the constitution of the State. Its other primary function is to adjudicate disputes between people and disputes between the people and the State or agencies of the State. The Judiciary acts as an impartial referee to decide what conduct is permissible or not permissible under applicable rules of conduct, whether the rules have been infringed or not infringed, and to provide the remedies for such infringements. To fulfil these functions, the Judiciary has to be independent of the other two arms of government.

A Judiciary that is not independent would not be able to fulfil such a role, and would provide a weak foundation for democracy and its associated attribute (ie, the rule of law) to flourish. Conversely, the Judiciary requires the existence of the rule of law for continuous independence. There cannot be the rule of law without an independent Judiciary, and vice versa, but with both, there will be security, law and order, and stability, which are requisites for progress and the protection of political and civil rights.

The respect and support of the public is crucial for the independence of the Judiciary as an institution. In a democratic society, the respect and support of the public is, in fact, one of the best safeguards for the independence of the Judiciary as an institution. Conversely, a lack of respect and support from the public for the Judiciary and its functions can be detrimental to its independence. In this regard, any perception of a lack of respect from the Judiciary’s co-equal institutions, viz, the Executive and the Legislature, could be expected to trickle down to all state bodies and the public, leading to a loss of public confidence in the Judiciary, and, ultimately, a call for the limiting of the independence of the Judiciary. Thus, Art 99 of the Singapore Constitution provides that the conduct of a Supreme Court judge cannot be discussed in Parliament “except on a substantive motion of which notice has been given by not less than one-quarter of the total number of the Members of Parliament”. For acts or words amounting to contempt of the court, the law provides that every person can be punished, from the President, the Prime Minister, down to the man in the street.

However, mechanisms such as the doctrine of contempt should not be used to stifle fair and reasonable criticism of the work of the Judiciary and also judicial decisions. The right to criticise is only part of the freedom of speech and expression the citizen enjoys in a democracy and its exercise will encourage or ensure that judges are independent in their decision-making. It is a form of public review similar to judicial review of executive acts, where judges look over the shoulders of the Executive to correct its mistakes. Hence, the doctrine of judicial independence calls for the judicious use of the contempt power, and the final appellate court has a responsibility to ensure a judicial restraint in the use of this power. Fair and objective criticism of judicial decisions will instil accountability and greater discipline in decision-making. If no one is allowed to judge judges, there could be lawless courts and irresponsible judging. But criticism of judgments should not lead to the denigration of judges.

… I would like to say something about the law of defamation versus free speech because it is a much misunderstood subject. Here we are not talking about the right of free speech per se, or responsible criticisms or speech. We are talking about irresponsible speech that damages the reputation of other people. At common law, any person is free to do anything or say anything he or she likes, unless prohibited by law. The law of defamation penalizes defamatory speech because it damages a person’s reputation.

Both the right of free speech and the right to reputation are valuable rights. The law of defamation seeks to balance the right of free speech with the right to reputation, and it does so by providing the defendant with four defences to defamation, viz, justification, fair comment, qualified privilege and absolute privilege. Free speech is restricted to the extent that it is held to be defamatory.

Our law of defamation is based on the common law of England which was developed over a period of more than 100 years. The law has been expressly continued in the Constitution for the purpose of restricting the right of free speech. Many lawyers do not seem to know the significance of this – that the drafters of the Constitution decided, in their wisdom, to place a higher social value on reputation than on free speech, where they conflict.

The law of defamation is really about balancing the value of free speech and the value of reputation in a democratic society. How this balance is to be struck depends on the political, social and cultural values of each society as reflected in its laws. These values differ from society to society and at different times of their development.

For these reasons, the “public figure test” of qualified privilege, laid down in New York Times v Sullivan,25 does not apply in Singapore, or for that matter in any Commonwealth jurisdiction. That test is confined to the United States by virtue of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In England, the law applies what is called the Reynolds privilege (a form of qualified privilege created from the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom) from the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd (“Reynolds”), and confers qualified privilege on discussions on matters of public interest. The Australian courts apply a different test. So do the New Zealand courts. Each jurisdiction applies its own test as informed by its own political, social and cultural values. In the case of Reynolds, one of the more eminent law lords said:

“There are at stake powerful competing arguments of policy. They pull in different directions. It is a hard case in which it is unrealistic to say that there is only one right answer. And in considering the decisions in other jurisdictions it is right to take into account that cultural differences have played an important role.”

Based on this, it is may be the case that the critics have missed the point, and that criticising the Singapore courts is really criticising them for recognising the political, social and cultural values of Singapore society as expressed in its laws.

• For the full text in PDF, visit the Supreme Court website and click "News" and "Speeches".

If you look at Singapore in 1959 when we became a (self-governing) state and in 1965 when we were kicked out of the Federation and became independent, you will see a city that was poor, in the third-world, with no natural resources, surrounded by Malaysia in the north, which had just kicked us out, and Indonesia in the south. What can you do to survive as a city, many people warned us.

911 is a tragedy but it was never an existential threat for the US. For us, when World War II ended, the communists declared war on us. That involved thousands of highly-trained armed young men and women who were ideologically motivated, financed by communist countries. As many of you would recall, in the 1950s and 60s, there was a time when people thought that a large part of the world could be swept through with Communism. We were at the frontlines. And the British had to deal with that. They put in the predecessor to the Internal Security Act. We inherited it and added to it. There was paranoia, as you can understand, because of the existential threats. The communist threat, the threat of being kicked out of the Federation and the fact that our unemployment was high.

A large part of our economy was dependent on the British bases here. You can imagine the economic challenges. We needed to move the population from a third-world mindset, with most of the population being people who came here as immigrants with no idea of nationalism, and bringing them forward into the 20th century and developing economically while ensuring security and stability. Those were huge challenges. I invite the audience to think about this point. Name a country that became independent in the 1950s, post-colonial, post-Second World War, name me one country that has done better, better than Singapore, despite the challenges.

And when you talk about human rights, if you take stability for granted, if you take education, healthcare for granted, if you take economic progress for granted, as the US had taken all these for granted in the 20th century because all the bases for development had been set.

If you take your own security for granted, then you start thinking forward about the finer aspects of human rights. But first you must secure the base and make sure that the country is safe to move along. That was the part that most countries were involved in, in the third world, post-Second World War, and unfortunately, most of them did not succeed well in that.

Our success is that we took the institutions that the British gave us and we built upon them. We have a judiciary that is stronger today and more respected. It is a truly great institution that is ranked highly internationally. If you look at the institutions, whether it is civil service or the judiciary, or any other in Singapore, all these are free of corruption and they are efficient. None of this happens by an accident. None of this can take place with an absent rule of law. None of this can take place by controlling people’s minds. We have 115 per cent connectivity and you walk out there and you can get 5,500 international journals, it’s hard to talk about controlling people’s minds. But that is the perception that you might get of Singapore if you have only read certain American newspapers, without having being here.

If you read about Singapore in some American newspapers, you may not get the picture of prosperous modern city state, with strong adherence to the Rule of Law. Instead if you didn’t know Singapore and only read these journals, you may believe that we are a repressive, state that controls the people’s thoughts (as if that is possible in a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore), and that we unfairly target the press.

Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticise us, our policies. We do not seek to proscribe that. But we demand the right of response, to be published in the journal that published the original article. We do not accept that they can decide whether to publish our response. That irks the press no end. If the press cross the line from attacking our policies and make allegations of fact against someone – that that person is corrupt or if they make some other personal factual attack is made, then there will be a libel suit – and the factual accusation must be proven. If allegation is proven, the Plaintiff will lose the case and pay legal costs. Otherwise the accuser pays damages and legal costs.

Likewise in the political arena. We have no problems with tough debate, criticism of policies. But we believe that such debate should avoid untrue and scurrilous personal attacks. Personal reputation is no less valuable than personal property. Public discourse does not have to descend into the gutter.

If untrue statements are made that a person is corrupt or that he lied, or that he tried to help my family or friends, there will be a suit. Let the accuser prove it. But if it is said that someone is stupid or that policies make no sense and the policies are attacked vigorously, then you can’t sue. There is public prerogative, to comment on policies. In response it will be sensible to defend the policies and ignore the attacks on intellect.

Over the years this has resulted in the Government and Ministers having several tussles with newspapers – the Wall Street Journal, Far Eastern Economic Review and so on. The press are not used to this anywhere else in the world. And of course it will be no surprise – they don’t like it one bit. So every Law suit is met with the same reaction – we are out to silence the press. That feeling has been pervasive and has, in my view, coloured the general reporting on Singapore. When I was in private practice, I have dealt with some libel cases. I have looked at some of the articles, which were the subject of a law suit: it would have been perfectly possible to have been deeply critical of government policies (often the central thrust of the articles) without the addition of totally unnecessary remarks on some form of corruption.

How objective is the criticism of Singapore in relation to press freedom? I took some trouble to go through with you how we rank on various economic, governance and quality of life indices. Is it possible to have a modern, successful, open economy if the people are not empowered and educated? I will share with you something that struck me as quite absurd and divorced from reality: there is an organization called Reporters Without Borders. It comes out with a ranking of countries on press freedom. In 2008 they ranked us 144 out of 173 countries, somewhere below Ethiopia, Sudan, Kazahkstan, Venezuela, Guinea, Haiti, and so on.

Today’s International Herald Tribune had a story on Guinea. The Headlines were “Ousting Guinea’s brutal junta”. The first paragraph read as follows:-

“One month ago over 150 people were gunned down by soldiers in the West Africa country of Guinea. Women were raped on the streets, and opposition leaders were locked up. This was the response of a brutal military junta to a group of brave citizens who dared to hold a peaceful pro-democracy rally.”

We are apparently below Guinea on Press Freedom.

This year, we have behaved better – so we moved up to Rank 133. Below Kenya (which saw riots following a disputed election), and Congo (which continues to struggle with the aftermath of an armed conflict that has claimed more than 5m lives), Venezuela, and so on. But we are ranked above North Korea and Eritrea.

If you look at a different ranking, the Freedom House rankings for 2009, we are ranked below Haiti, Colombia, Kenya, Moldova, Guinea, Pakistan and so on. We are 151 out of 195. We are ranked together with Iraq.

These are all countries which are trying to progress. My point is not that we are in any way inherently superior to them – the question is whether a truly objective assessment will give us such a ranking. Our approach has therefore to been to ignore the criticisms which make no sense – and we continue to do better. The people of Singapore also know better. Sixty-five per cent voted for the Government at the last General Elections. And the investors who put in billions every year know better as well. They do not have to come here. We do not have any natural resources. Our main selling point is that there will be good value added when they invest here, their investments will be protected, and that we are a stable democracy.

• For RSF's Press Freedom Index, click here.