Mr Brown fracas; Singapore press freedom
I read, in the local newspaper today, that another local paper, 'Today', had decided to stop publishing a popular column written by Lee Kin Mun, who calls himself 'Mr Brown', after he had incurred that wrath of the Singaporean government. Apparently, he had made some satirical comments about the recent rise in electricity prices and transport fares (in both cases sanctioned by the government).
The Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (Mica for short) published a press statement attacking Mr Brown on Monday in 'Today'. I include the letter in its entirety. It is a worthwhile read, since it provides background on the developments that led to this whole episode:
Letter from K BHAVANI
Press Secretary to the Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts
Your mr brown column, "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" (June 30) poured sarcasm on many issues, including the recent General Household Survey, price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares, our IT plans, the Progress Package and means testing for special school fees.
The results of the General Household Survey were only available after the General Election. But similar data from the Household Expenditure Survey had been published last year before the election.
There was no reason to suppress the information. It confirmed what we had told Singaporeans all along, that globalisation would stretch out incomes.
mr brown must also know that price increases in electricity tariffs and taxi fares are the inevitable result of higher oil prices.
These were precisely the reasons for the Progress Package — to help lower income Singaporeans cope with higher costs of living.
Our IT plans are critical to Singapore's competitive position and will improve the job chances of individual Singaporeans. It is wrong of mr brown to make light of them.
As for means testing for special school fees, we understand mr brown's disappointment as the father of an autistic child. However, with means testing, we can devote more resources to families who need more help.
mr brown's views on all these issues distort the truth. They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions. His piece is calculated to encourage cynicism and despondency, which can only make things worse, not better, for those he professes to sympathise with.
mr brown is entitled to his views. But opinions which are widely circulated in a regular column in a serious newspaper should meet higher standards. Instead of a diatribe mr brown should offer constructive criticism and alternatives. And he should come out from behind his pseudonym to defend his views openly.
It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics.
Most alarming to me was the line, 'It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues'. Wow. It reminded me of an article I read some time ago about another government - Qaddafi's, in Libya.
It was hard for me to take all this in. I feel very betrayed by the Singaporean government. To be fair, this isn't the first time that the government has taken a stand against journalist who have criticised it. Vivian Balakrishnan, a young star of the ruling party, some years ago lashed out at a journalist who had published some very critical remarks about his party. He had argued that it is not the place of journalists to criticise the government. If they wanted to do so, they should get themselves elected. Not even Qaddafi would say something this stupid, I think.
I was very angry, so I did two things. First, I wrote an e-mail to K. Bhavani, the press secretary that had written the letter. The next thing I did was to edit it a little and send it in to The Straits Times' (the country's largest-circulating English daily) forum. Here is the letter to Bhavani, which is my take on the whole thing:
Dear Ms. Bhavani,
I read for the first time this evening comments that you had made regarding Lee Kin Mun's column in Today. They were extracted and published in The Straits Times.
I have to disagree with you: I think that the press, and individual journalists, can certainly play a role in raising issues of concern to the electorate. If not for the work of journalists like Mr Lee, such concerns would be unvoiced.
Citizens who think enough about these issues may choose to raise them at the occasional meet-your-MP session. Others may write in a letter or two to The Straits Times mailbag. Still others may write about them online, on a blog read by dozens, hundreds, even thousands.
This is what Mr Lee does. He has a large readership, one that faithfully visits his blog to acquire alternative perspectives on the range of domestic concerns that Singaporeans ponder each day. They log on to see if their own viewpoints would be challenged; they log on to see if other Singaporeans, too, share their opinions.
The popularity and influence of Mr Lee's work are testament to his ability to unearth the worries and frustrations of living in Singapore. I think that you would agree with me on this point. In articulating the recent responses of many Singaporeans to the changes in electricity tariffs and transport fares, Mr Lee is a "constructive critic".
I disagree with your ministry's response to his actions.
First of all, criticizing an institution such as the state is not the same as undermining it. In the 'marketplace' of ideas, the opinions of citizens like Mr Lee are not the only ones heard: we also get official pronouncements, articles publised in the mainstream media, ideas espoused by less critical thinkers, and so on.
Pluralism must not be confused with partisanship. The former emphasises diversity, tolerance and mutual coexistence. If I might add, plurality in political commentary can lead to reform in the system of governance in a country. Partisanship, on the other hand, encourages discord and conflict.
As someone who has written for The Straits Times and worked in the American media, I have to say that the fierce criticism of Mr Lee by your ministry - the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts - is a huge letdown for the many young people who aspire to effect change in Singapore through their writing. Such a response invariably discourages those who dare to confront the issues of Singaporean concern.
Why is it "not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government" when such actions should be the norm in a country that enjoys press freedom? Why should Singapore be subject to any less of a standard than those enjoyed by countries in the first world?
As Press Secretary, your opinions may not be fully your own. I understand that. You have presented them eloquently and convincingly, however. I hope that you and your ministry recognize the potential that words have for revealing truths about our convictions, our beliefs and the way we live our lives. Art, in an abstract sense, is a quest for truth. Mr Lee and many other journalists, through their work, have elevated journalism to an art.
If your statement accurately represents the opinions of some of our leaders, it is little wonder that there are so few local politicians who are also artists, and so few artists who dare to be politicians.
Chatboard (0)