Choo Zheng Xi / Editor-in-Chief

If you have been following TOC regularly, you would have noticed some changes and improvements to our coverage.

As a form of participatory media, we think it’s important for us to share with you, our readers and stakeholders, how we will continue to evolve and improve in the years to come. We’d also like to share with you our core set of values and ideals, as well as our organizational direction, so you have a sense of what keeps our website going and so that you can be a part of that process.

Our website is premised on a core set of foundational objectives. They are:

1) To be a platform for civic participation

2) To make our government accountable, transparent and representative

3) To create a culture of media freedom in Singapore

Civic participation

TOC believes that a functioning democracy requires contributions from all members of society. We believe that it is in the country’s best interest to involve each and every Singaporean, especially vocal critics of this Party centric narrative, a chance to shape the future of our country.

For too long, the national dialogue has been stunted by its over-reliance on a unitary national narrative: that Singapore is synonymous with the PAP government.

This has not been helped by a timid media, which has branded itself a “nation building press”. In reality, the “nation building press” has failed to provide Singaporeans with alternative perspectives, which genuine nation building requires.

By thinking of, and writing about issues of national importance, Singaporeans can begin to take ownership of issues which will affect all of our lives. Participation is the true key to a sense of belonging, not a conditioned monolithic national education.

Hence, it is our policy to provide strong coverage to activist events and initiatives which might not otherwise get a national airing. Activism needs to stop being a dirty word in our country, it needs to be encouraged. This activist spirit of courage in the face of opposition and creativity in execution is what our country needs to move ahead.

This principle of civic participation also underlines the creation of our newest feature, TOC International, which reaches out to overseas Singaporeans and keeps them involved in discussing national politics.

We also believe that the much touted “youth apathy” is a self-fulfilling myth: young people need to be involved as they are the policymakers of tomorrow. Hence TOC’s focus on recruiting youth writers and reporters.

The second characterization of our national narrative that TOC rejects is the notion that our country is a company: Singapore Inc. This mercenary culture is bad for nation building. In the late David Marshall’s words, we have become “worshippers of the Golden Calf”.

If Singaporeans share no idealism except the logic of the free market, we will sell our citizenships to the highest bidder, the country that can accord us the better standard of life. We believe that Singapore’s success should be judged on how well we take care of our poorest and most vulnerable, and not how well we remunerate our elites.

This consideration informs our commitment to cover cost of living issues, the growing income gap, the lack of empathy of highly paid civil servants, as well as coverage of the stories of the poor and underprivileged in society.

Open, accountable and representative government

Civic participation will lead to frustration if our enquiries are met with bureaucratic stonewalling, and our feedback goes down administrative black holes. The efforts of citizens to participate in the national discourse need to bear fruit.

TOC believes in the dictum that a government should fear its people and not the other way round. Members of Parliament (MPs) that are voted for in batches of six are not individually accountable to their constituents, and the deterrent effect it has on opposition challenges leaves government MPs untested on the electoral field of battle.

In between elections, citizens need to have the right to hold their MPs to account. This is where civil liberties such as the right to free speech and assembly are critical to public expressions of dissatisfaction.

This informs our consistent advocacy for a fairer electoral playing field and stronger protections for civil liberties.

Also in line with this objective, TOC will continue to focus on articles asking probing questions of our elected leaders and municipal functionaries.

We are also working to develop a team of specialist commentators to write on questions of accountability relating to public finances and government policies.

Media freedom

A free media culture is crucial for the development of critical thought. The mainstream media has shortchanged Singaporeans by choosing to tell only One Singapore story, but the dominant and domineering political culture is largely to blame for the timidity of our press.

This desire to see more balance informs our coverage criticizing the mainstream press.

TOC understands that we have a positive role to play in creating this culture of media freedom. We will not be blindly critical of the established press, if the real reason for their timidity is political interference. Instead, we will support and encourage all individuals who believe that the purpose of journalism is to speak truth to power, regardless of their institutional affiliations.

TOC recognizes that in playing the media critic, we need to impart all our writers with an awareness of the ethical standards and tools of journalism. We too will be held to account if we fall short, and rightly so.

We believe that credibility and quality are key to TOC’s future. In light of this, we are embarking on a process of honing our writers’ skills through intra-institutional experience sharing and regular meet-ups.

At the same time, we maintain an open-door policy for articles and contributions, and our team will work with you to see that your thoughts are shared with our readers.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

More help needed for those with high-functioning mental illness

Today, 10 October, is World Mental Health Day. We thank the writer…

Expat from India discharged from hospital as recovered COVID case, who later goes on to infect 2 others

Yesterday (20 Apr), the Health Ministry (MOH) issued a press release with…

政府对非主流媒体处处提防,是天生的恐惧?

两周前,《雅虎新闻》记者Nicholas Yong上载了一篇文章,揭露非主流媒体在采访工作上和政府打交道时,往往会面对各种困难,例如无法第一时间获得重要官方通知、未获通知和邀请出席政府部门的记者会或重要活动。 他诉苦道,主流媒体新闻出街几小时后后,他们才收到官方文告;重要的官方活动亦会以“仅限本地媒体”为由,限制非主流媒体出席。 Nicholas 写道,“还有一次,我们向政府要求预先提供国庆日当天的演说稿–这可是一整年里面最重要的政治演说,但我们却被各个资深官员以“我手头上没有”而拒绝提供。相反地,主流媒体一天前就拿到讲稿了。” 主流与非主流媒体的差别待遇已不是新鲜事,Nicholas也曾提及,前两年的国会新闻采访上,非主流媒体被迫挤在狭窄的国会新闻发布室上,室内禁止携带手机,而且无法第一时间获得演讲稿。反观新加坡报业控股与新传媒记者,却可以获得国会实况。 “今时今日,为什么仍给予主流媒体抢占先机,难道是为了主导论述吗?”他质问。 同样地,本社对于这种厚此薄彼的偏驳,也感同身受。有准证的非主流媒体不会收到政府文告,而且有时这些完整文告也不会上载到政府部门官网,但主流媒体却可以率先报导出街。 举个例子:学术界联署反对《防假消息法》,但是教育部的回应声明,并没有第一时间上载到官方网站上,反而独家给了《海峡时报》。即便到今天,这则教育部声明也没办法在该部官网找到。 然而,有别于《雅虎新闻》获得媒体认证,本社则是注册在新闻与艺术部下的其中一家受监督媒体机构。 本社也曾在去年申请媒体认证,然而却被告知本社不需要取得认证即可报导本地新闻,而要不要发出认证,也取决于政府的斟酌: 如同Nicholas所提,政府真的对主流与非主流媒体有差别待遇,不论对已注册在新闻及艺术部下的媒体如《雅虎新闻》或本社,都有限制?…

Singaporean human rights lawyer seeks UN intervention against contempt charges levied upon Malaysian lawyer Arun Kasi

By M Ravi United Nations intervention sought on contempt charges against Arun…