NKF saga - Participatory Citizenship?

While the international headlines have been dominated yet again by terrorism due to the repeated London bombings, locally, it is the NKF saga that has gripped Singaporeans' attention. There is not a day since then-CEO of NKF T.T.Durai made some startling relevations in court that the Straits Times (ST) has failed to report on something related to NKF. This is, however, to be expected after all since the NKF issue has taken on national proportions - and the ST, being the national daily, inevitably would be reporting on the unfolding events.

In its editorial, A Firestorm named NKF, on 23rd July, the ST editorialises:

We should think the political leadership is acutely watchful of an
us-against-them divide forming. Is it an exaggeration to say a generational leap
has taken place in Singapore society and in the nature of a quiscent citizenry?
Maybe it is too soon to say. But what the nation has seen exhibited in the
past fornight is empowerment, participatory citizenship - something the new
breed of government leaders has been urging on the people. The NKF firestorm
unleashed was discomfiting to some, but the popular demand for corrective action
has been a compensating act of morality. It has to be positive for the country's
future.

Undeniably, there has certainly been more active participation from the citizenry in bringing about changes to NKF over the past few weeks. Public wrath has been swift and audible not least because the ST has been generous with its reporting on the matter and publishing many a Forum letter that censures NKF's wrongdoing. Also, there's no doubt the government saw it necessary to intervene, by finding an interim chairman, a new board and CEO to replace the outgoing group - something which the public had clamoured for when they learnt of the glaring misinformation that has been fed them by the nation's most successful charity organisation. We have thus witnessed, most certainly, through the media's reporting and coverage of the issue how the NKF saga unfolded and the magnitude and extent of the public's anger.

With that in mind, there should be pause to think about what the editorial piece said of Singaporeans' involvement in the past few weeks in regard to the NKF saga. The editorial observes that 'what the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight is empowerment, participatory citizenship'. At first glance, it is all too easy to accept that assertion in its entirety. After all, public participation has indeed been visible and pervasive. Most Singaporeans have donated regularly to the NKF over the years, and almost everyone has something to comment about the issue. They each have their own opinion what kind of actions ought to be carried out when they realised the NKF has not been forthcoming and transparent with how public donation is managed.

Yet one should not forget that however active citizenry participation has been, the ST has been an interested and paramount party in how events played out in the aftermath of its court victory. One appluads the ST for bringing to light the lack of transparency of NKF. Despite it being one of the parties in the lawsuit, it has to fulfill its duty as the national daily by reporting the episode and the ensuing actions taken by NKF. At the same time, because it is one of the involved parties, and the victorious one at that, one should be aware that the ST has every power to influence, however subtly, the public's reactions towards the whole affair. This is not to suggest that there's foul play here but rather, the extent of the reporting, the opinions expressed by its employees (journalists and editors) and even right down to the forum letters chosen to be published - all this have a definite and deliberate impact on the views of the public. When the ST is the only newspaper that is read by most Singaporeans, it becomes that public perception is shaped strongly by the direction of the paper's reporting and stance on various issues.

(Take for instance today's (29 July) ST publication of Dr. Balakrishnan's clarification on the headline of an article ('Shape up, charities told') published yesterday. The minister took issue with the headline because it inacurrately suggested the substance of his comments. For ST readers who read mainly headlines and articles selectively, or even those who had read the said article, they would hardly have disputed the appropriateness of the headline. The impression formed would have been one which reinforces a negative perception of local charities. Had Dr. Balakrishnan not made any clarifications, it is likely that a negative impression of charities would become further entrenched. This case serves to illustrate the important role of the ST and the powers at its disposal to shape and influence the direction of readers' opinions on a public issue.)

The bone of contention here is however not the credibility of ST or any likely wrongdoing on its part. Having laid out the implications of the role of ST in the NKF saga, it is possible now to ask whether it is true if indeed 'empowerment' and 'participatory citizenship' were exhibited in the past few weeks. Such qualities are difficult to determine and measure, and generally speaking, the only way to get a feel of 'participatory citizenship' is through the media's coverage of public reactions. Participatory citizenship suggests a vibrant and active political culture where citizens' participation in public issues is high. This is perhaps evident judging by the amount of letters the ST has received as well as the unanimous public aversion to NKF's misconduct. In the case of empowerment, one can think of how the public voluntarily collected signatures through the internet to push for T.T Durai's resignation. Public disapproval has also been prominent as reported in the papers, and it is precisely the widespread wrath incurred that has had the government sit up and intervene.

So yes, empowerment and participatory citizenship do seem to be the order of the day. Singaporeans have probably not seen such unanimous and widespread public response - met by swift government action - in a very long time. Yet there is a big caveat that is the cause of the discordant note registered in the editorial's comment that 'the nation has seen exhibited in the past fortnight, empowerment (and) particpatory citizenship'. Because the ST is an interested party in the affair, and because it is the nation's only daily (save for Today), it is empowered to influence or manipulate the ebb and flow of public opinions. While it cannot directly determine how many people would respond to and participate in a public issue, by the nature of the media, and especially SPH monopolistic hold on local news reporting here in Singapore, the truth is that the ST can contribute to the scope as well as substance of public debate and citizenry participation. Thus, while the editorial comments that empowerment and participatory citizenship were manifested in the NKF saga, could it be that the ST has a major role to affect that precise outcome; that the ST is the nurturer of a more mature and vibrant political culture in Singapore, in part because it has vested interests and stands on a moral high ground with regard to the NKF debacle? If so, it is perhaps disingenuous for ST to make such an observation.