Press Freedom In Singapore example essay topic

What we are now going to do, is that we are going to touch on 4 countries and the press theories that they have adopted. Why we do this, is so that we can show the difference on press systems in relation to Singapore. So you can compare and contrast and see which category Singapore falls under, and, from there, you can compare and contrast, how their press systems differ from Singapore's press system. The four countries being, America, Britain, Cuba, , Saudi Arabia, which After going through all these countries press systems, you can then, see somewhat of a level, and then from there, a rough idea can be made, on which level of restriction, does Singapore fall under, whether it is based on a very restricted press, or a fairly restricted press or a system with freedom of the press. In our perspective, somewhat of, in the middle. It is not so restrictive as Saudi Arabia and Cube but then again, it does not allow totalitarian freedom of the press and self censorship is made, unlike the press in America and Britain.

America's press theory and the freedom of the press in america What we have decided on America's press theory at present would have to be that it has adapted a system of SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. But they used to adopt the LIBETARIAN theory. From our own perspective after researching n analysing, we believe that in a way, these two theories exist in the US, both play a part in the press system. DEFINITION OF BOTH THEORIES Libetarian (locke, milton, thomas jefferson, james madison) First adopted in England after 1688 and then us adopted it thereafter.

Chief purpose of this theory is to INFORM, EDUCATE & ENTERTAIN. (promote exchange of views, fully comprehensive, truthful / accurate ) Help discover truth and an instrument to check on government. Media is privately owned. Newspaper free to write whatever they want. Give public the full info through the channel of papers and that these papers penetrate to whole mass of people.

Press should be free from control of state So in this way, the libertarian theory clearly shows in America. Because they have this perception, that man should b controlled by reason. Citizens have the right to hear all sides of the issue so he / she can differentiate between truth n falsehood, without interference by government. They believe to accept nothing till they see its truth clearly. The Government exist to preserve natural rights of its citizens and if he fails to do that, people have the rite to withdraw their support, such as when American citizens started withdrawing their support from Clinton, in relation to the "Monica Lewinsky" case! This is how their press system or print media totally differs from Singapore... and that is how you can see a whole differentiation in regards to the press in Singapore and America.

Take for instance our president did such a thing, the press would not even be allowed to print anything about it, instead, everything would be behind close doors and nothing would even be reported or allowed to be reported. In a way, the America society is the censors and not the government. They believe that the basis of their government is the opinion of the people. Anyone who has something to say, ought to be heard, and though some may be false, its up to them to accept or reject, and the government should have no interference in all these whatsoever. Their free press also does not have government endorsement. Kind of like having, newspapers without the government. (this we quote, words from Thomas Jefferson) Social Responsibility America now has adopted this theory, basically it's the same as libertarian.

Part of the libertarian approach but has introduced sum new elements. Emerged in the 20th century. Started with lawyers / businessmen who were concerned that media was in fewer and fewer hands. They were concerned, why media was owned only by those who could afford it so they formed a group and named it, The Commission on Freedom. This theory just shifts from press freedom to press responsibility. Government to step in.

Press no freedom to do as it pleases. Freedom of press allowed / preserved only if the mass media is to accept this responsibility as a whole. Ex: such as when we were libertarian in 1979, the government allowed the right to publish an article in a Wisconsin magazine on how to build a hydrogen bomb as the government had no right to interfere, but now with Social Responsibility, such an article would probably not be allowed to publish. Why? Because under this theory, mass media operates under sanction of society, if it doesn't serve interests of people or threaten security of society, this is where the government can step in.

Where Social Responsibility is seen? In their broadcast media, radio stations and TV stations are all privately owned but are licensed by the government. Such as how Fox Broadcasting Company is owned by Rupert Murdoch but it is still licensed by the government. So to sum it all up, if the broadcaster does not serve the publics interest, the government will then step in. Now we shall give a few of the laws of the First Amendment of America, from here, you can see and compare, how it totally differs from Singapore, first of all, no such laws even exist here, because in the first place we do not have freedom of the press or freedom of speech to begin with, Some may argue that it is not right for us citizens, but a country should not be given too much freedom too. FIRST AMENDMENT to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law against the freedom of the press " Protects the press from all government, whether local, state or federal.

For ex: political candidate has breathing space to reply to criticisms from papers and attacks of his records (Bill Clinton's reply and own account of what happened) It prevents government from telling press what it must report. If a newspaper doesn't want to print it, it doesn't have to. America also have laws that strike down state laws which threatened to punish the press for reporting Have passed freedom of information and open meetings laws which provide the press with a statutory right to obtain certain information and to observe many of the operations of government. Prevents the government from enforcing laws, which discriminate against the press. For example, the court has struck down a law which imposed a special tax on large newspapers, Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. vs. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue And a law, which imposed a tax on some magazines but not others, based on their subject matter, Arkansas Writers' Project They uphold the right of the press to pursue its mission, So to sum it all up, America just believes that ' without an informed and free press there cannot be an enlightened people".

CHUA LEE HOONG- Walking the tight rope. Chua Lee Hoong, the Straits Times's most prominent political columnist. She is a classic example of the system working for Singaporeans, and Singaporeans paying it back. The Government sent her to Oxford University for a degree in politics, philosophy and economics. Her pro-government columns are perceived by analysts as insights into official thinking.

"Is the Straits Times a government mouthpiece?" she asks, then answers herself: "Yes... and no". The Straits Times, she describes as, "one of the most respected newspapers in the world" - is the flagship, circulating 392,000 copies daily. It even gives its name to Singapore's stock exchange index. Last year, the company made $485 million, some 40 per cent of revenues, a profit margin. She was the author of the book", Walking the Tight Rope" and what she wrote about was mainly, discussions about Singapore's press freedom and the professional standards in Asia. Upon reading the whole book, we have decided that Singapore now has adopted for themselves the more recent formulation of all the 4 press theories, that being the, developmental theory.

This theory falls more towards the authoritarian side of the continuum but it is not so restricted as the authoritarian theory. Why we say this or have come to such a perspective, is because we feel that, the government in Singapore, mobilizes the media to serve national goals in economic and social development and this is what the developmental theory is all about. Information is considered a scarce natural resource and must be carefully managed by the government to achieve national goals. So in a way, the government does not fully take control like the authoritarian theory, the press is not as restricted, but then again, the government may involve itself if the public interest is not served. We would now like to give a brief analysis from Chua Lee Hoong's perspective on how the press works in Singapore and why the government works the press in such a way, that most of society feels that the Straits Times was started by the government just to be its official mouth piece. First of all, she started her book by stating and clearing that there is no official censor to direct stories that should or should not be written.

What she states is that", yes self censorship does exist but there is no official one" She admits Singaporean journalists self-censor - "they do everywhere", she says - but "editorial interference" is too strong a term to describe the input of authorities. "It's much more subtle than that. I would say we are sometimes, but not often these days, reminded to be mindful of the boundaries". See appendix (a): (web) We do agree with her, in the sense that self censorship is alright, because obviously self censorship here refers to the exorbitant degree self imposed by our would-be journalists.

The test is simply this: picture yourself as a journalist, before you put pen to paper, how often have you thought: "is this going to affect my career? will this displease any powers-that-be?" There is censorship in every press... Why don't the Yank papers and broadcasters give people such as Noam Chomsky more exposure. Think about it! We must have the creativity to see a balanced approach.

Journalists everywhere have to ask "how will this affect my career, after they write something,' ' Its part of the job. In any country, the actions and words of the ruling party also gets aired more frequently than the opposition. If the opposition has a large following, journalists will also pay them more attention. But this is not the case here. Journalists have to balance between what is newsworthy, the credibility of the news source, and relevance to readers. For example, do u think any journalist would publish the PM's economic plan to deal with the recession, or that of the workers party?

The actions of the THINK CENTRE, workers party and SDP are also reported on. But let say they were operating in the west. Based on the level of official electoral support they get and clout they hold in the public or parliament, it " ll be a big surprise if they have a slot in the papers. It's double-standards when Singaporeans say the press practises self-censorship when it tries to give balanced reporting based on relevance, while in the west's "free press" anything goes as long as it sells approach would mean facts and stories are written to support a political agenda.

Look at Gore / Bush election saga or the floating of anti Clinton stories, and the way the news was reported over there. There is no self-censorship, but the news is no different from the gossip columns. All done to sway the electorate to their view. News in the west is all about who has the best spin-doctors. We guess, like all media organisations, the Straits Times control a lot around the editors If you want to talk about self censorship, then we guess its individual centric in this case.

Instructions from editors to rewrite the article from a different angle can be constructed to be self-censorship, if it means a certain line of attack becomes moderated. What's wrong with that? So if care is taken not to provoke emotional reactions from the public, what is wrong with that. We live in a multi racial society, we cannot afford to handle freedom of the press, having it may only result in insult and discrimination of other races, thus upsetting fellow citizens.

Chua Lee Hoong also stated that press freedom in Singapore remains distinct from freedom of speech. The Singapore Constitution provides for freedom of speech, as one of the fundamental liberties but press freedom does not feature among them. What we feel this means is journalists may exercise their freedom of speech as individuals but they may not use the press as platforms to reach society. Singapore also is starting to show citizens she is fairly liberal in a sense that now this tightly controlled city-state will get a venue similar to London's Speakers' Corner at London's Hyde Park. The Prime Minister, Mr Goh Cook Tong, said the Government planned to designate a public place for people to spout their opinions.

Though the original Speakers' Corner may now be little more than a historical curio for tourists, the matter is taken more seriously in Singapore, which is known for its strict controls on political speech. The media is carefully regulated, and leaders have won a number of defamation suits against critics. People can say whatever they like to say, except for things that will offend the law, or offend religious or racial sensibilities, or anything that is libellous - then of course they will be subject to lawsuits by the people whom they libel. If Singapore is going to be opening up - and we think there is an opening-up - you need signals and indicators. We think, this could be a starting point.

In The Straits Times, Chua Lee Hoong wrote that a local version of Speakers' Corner could benefit Singapore, if established "with the right guidelines and in the right place". (See appendix (b): web).