Connect with us

Current Affairs

Yahoo journalist highlights the problem with Singapore journalism – unequal access and self-censorship

Published

5 years ago

on

On 14 June, renowned veteran journalist PN Balji launched his book Reluctant Editor in which he shares stories from his time as editor of The New Paper and Today with a look behind the scenes on the relationship between the government and mainstream media.

Nicholas Yong of Yahoo! News Singapore says the 70-year old “paints a portrait of a thin-skinned government that often reacted defensively to negative coverage and was unafraid to resort to strong arm-tactics”. One example of a story recounted in the book was in 1981 when senior editors at Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) were called to a press conference with then-Transport Minister Ong Teng Cheong who demanded that the editors reveal their sources for a story that Straits Times ran about impending bus fare hikes.

Stories like these don’t often see the light of day as many members of the media are reluctant to get on the government’s bad side. In fact, at the launch of the book, Mr Balji noted that “Singapore journalists hardly write stories about journalism. Many take these stories to the grave.”

Spurred on by Mr Balji’s words, Mr Yong decided to share some of his experience from his 12 years as a journalist in Singapore, shining a light on the state of journalistic affairs on the island.

Mr Yong said that even decades with the proliferation of social media and alternative news sites, the Singapore government hasn’t altered its approach to the media – “it has simply gotten smarter and much more sophisticated about it”.

Unequal access

The first story Mr Yong shared was about press access in Singapore which he describes as a ‘caste system’. Specifically, Mr Yong notes that SPH and Mediacorp outlets – Channel NewsAsia, Today, Straits Times – are given priority for important press releases, speeches and event invites.

“It is not unusual for accredited outlets like Yahoo News Singapore to be sent press releases hours after the MSM outlets have broken a story, or to be told that certain high-profile events are reserved for “local media only”,” says Mr Yong.

He tells of one occasion when Yahoo was given the run-around by senior government officials on their request for an advanced copy of the National Day Rally speech. The excuse given was that they don’t have it while at the same time, other mainstream media reporters had already obtained the speech the day before.

“In this day and age, why is the MSM [mainstream media] still accorded first-mover advantage over other media outlets, thus enabling it to shape the narrative first?”

Avoiding requests is a recurring theme by the Singapore government, according to Mr Yong. Another story highlights this rather well. Earlier this year when Yahoo was working on a story about maid abuse in Singapore, they had reached out to the Ministry of Manpower to request for facts and figures on the issue. However, they merely received a one-liner reply that said, “we’re unable to facilitate your queries”.

The lack of an equivalent to the US Freedom of Information Act means that the government is often less than forthcoming, particularly on topic that are ‘sensitive’ such as maid abuse. And there’s no way for members of the media or public to official demand for those information.

No freedom of information

Then there’s the fact that the government seems to have a strong distrust of the media, apparently fearing some sort of hidden agenda. So a media outlet can go from having limited access to being cut off entirely from receiving information from the government.

Mr Yong recounted how he had reached out to the police for a quote when he was working on a follow-up story on the incident where PM Lee’s oldest son was filmed by a stranger who gave him a lift. The police have revealed the man’s prior brushes with the law.

Mr Yong reached out to the police with quotes from lawyers who has questioned the police’s revelation of the driver’s record which could potentially prejudice any case against him. The police spokesperson, however, asked Mr Yong’s editor, “what is your agenda?”

“After giving the assurance that our “agenda” was only to practise good journalism, we were promised an official response, and therefore held back our story. Two days went by without word from the police,” explained Mr Yong.

He added, “When Yahoo informed the police that we were going ahead with the story, we received a bizarre request: could we not mention that we had asked the police for a response?”

Shortly after publishing the story, Yahoo stopped receiving police press releases about impending court cases. When asked, the police merely said that Yahoo had been taken out of the mailing list following an ‘internal annual review’ of access for media outlets.

Self-censorship

These few stories Mr Yong shared clearly paints a picture of the contentious relationship between the Singapore government and the press. But the mainstream media doesn’t always have to be strong-armed, says Mr Yong, as it sometimes practices self-censorship.

None of the mainstream media outlets reported on the news that Li Huanwu, on of Lee Kuan Yew’s grandson, married his male partner in South Africa. The mainstream media also barely covered PM Lee’s recent comments that Vietnam had invaded Cambodia, on how it triggered a rush of criticisms from the two ASEAN countries.

Mr Yong posits that the self-censorship is a result of an ever present fear of reprisal thanks to the government’s use of various laws to silence the press. The Official Secrets Act – used against a Straits Times over a leak of a confidential HDB project – and now the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act that grants ministers broad powers to determine what constitutes a falsehood means that journalists have to tread more carefully than before.

“If the journalists themselves are afraid of doing their jobs, how is the public being served?” asks Mr Yong.

“If the journalists do not speak up, then who will? In a country whose institutions are so thoroughly dominated by the ruling party, where will the checks and balances come from?”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

6 hours ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending