Wednesday, November 02, 2005

International rankings: what's the problem?

On the third page of ST today is the report on SM's take on media freedom in Singapore:

Singapore needs a media which practises its freedom responsibly, yet is not subservient to the Government.
The media here should aim to unite, not divide; and should report the news in a balanced manner without sensationalising coverage to boost circulation, (said) Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong last night.
Outlining the Government's view of a responsible media, he said that while times have changed, the context in which the Singapore media operates has not changed much.
The multi-ethnic structure and social fabric remain the same, and so do the country's permanent vulnerabilities.


On Singapore's international ranking in press freedom:

How should Singapore react when it takes a beating in an international ranking on press freedom?
There's no need to be embarrassed or worry that investors might be put off, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said last night.
Because while Singapore ranks near the bottom in a media freedom index by the Paris-based group, Reporters Without Borders, it does very well on other ratings.
Singapore was ranked 140th out of 167 in media freedom, behind ASEAN neighbours Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines.
Even struggling, war-torn Sudan came out seven spots above Singapore at No. 133, which Mr Goh found amazing.


Well, there is no doubt that critics of the PAP are not going to be persuaded by SM's take on press freedom in Singapore. I suspect for people who are rather tired of hearing justifications for the Singapore model on the media, this sort of news has long ceased to provoke them into counter-argument. As for me, i just respond with a mix of indifference and cynicism.

If indeed Singapore shouldn't worry about such rankings from Reporters without Borders, then is it not rather unwise to quickly bring forth international rankings in other areas to serve as a basis for comparison? To discredit or mitigate the abysmal showing in one ranking using top ranking scores in other areas does highlight important points, but this seems to smack of double standard. SM Goh is right in suggesting that Singapore's 140th ranking in media freedom does not give a true picture of the Singapore state. Very astutely, he points out Sudan's better ranking to allow the implication to speak for itself: for anyone with even bare awareness of international affairs would agree that, to speak of Singapore and Sudan in the same breath is to undermine the vast differences between an economically first-world prosperous state and a third-world war-afflicted nation.

SM used Singapore's favourable, if not fantastic, scores in other areas like corruption and economic freedom to prove that Singapore's perceived poor record in media freedom is really unimportant or even irrelevant. The critics of Singapore's press freedom have neglected to point out that despite or because of our (supposed lack of) press freedom, we are now a nation which has achieved prosperity in a clean and uncorrupted environment, surely a record that allows us to stand tall in the international community. The poor showing of our media freedom is thus a travesty, for it really gives a wrong impression of Singapore. It follows that even if it were true that Singapore is so repressed in this area, at the very least our success in other areas would somewhat mitigate or excuse our poor performance in press freedom.

The thing about the myriad of international rankings of countries in different areas is this: that the performance of the country in the aspect which is being ranked - be it on economic freedom, transparency, education or media freeom - depicts the part of reality that it chooses to. To that extent, one cannot really dismiss the poor showing of Singapore in the aspect of media freedom, for it cannot be that there is no justfication for Singapore's being ranked at the bottom. As any well-informed person of local politics would tell you, there are both underlying overt and covert mechanisms that restrict media freedom here in Singapore. The glaring lack of news on or marginalisation of local political opposition in the media is one case in point.

On the other hand, these rankings alone cannot be taken at face value. Media freedom is but one aspect of a country's performance, albeit an important one; it is, however, not the be-all and the end-all. To merely focus on this alone gives an incomplete picture of Singapore. Surely a nation which has been able to provide for a decent standard of living and prosperity for its people, and law and order, cannot be what the 140th ranking in press freedom would suggest. There must be a well-balanced consideration of all factors.

Our political leaders would have to speak up whenever certain aspects of the country invite scrutiny in whatever form from the world over. However, the discerning citizen would have to decide for himself what to agree or accept when the government explain its perspective.

1 comments:

transit inn said...

Hi code22x, you are right in that Singapore, as a small nation with a multiracial population in the midst of a Malay sea, faces many constraints.
The unfettered press in the West have a lot of problems themselves and are far from a perfect picture, but not all are in the category of what you termed irresponsible press.

There is always great concern about press freedom because it represents the fourth estate. To that extent, it is supposed to maintain a critical distance from the political establishment and be impartial. I guess nobody is going to disagree that the government should stand one side and not rein in on irresponsible writing that threatens the multiracial fabric. Rather, the frustration stems from the implicit as well as explicit control over the freedom of the press to write and report on political issues. Your concern here seems more to do with the implications of racially motivated writing that has the potential to wreak damage on society. However, a freer press does not necessarily entail all that implications. Where the press voluntarily or involuntarily choose to exercise censorship and be bipartisan (even if only in terms of their coverage), it is also indicative of the extent of press freedom.