The Anti Neo-Democracy Theorist

All that’s needed is a lighter touch and some sensitivity

My latest article in TODAY
(Please feel welcome to add your comments and criticisms)

Wayne Soon

Mainstream media, online citizen journalists need not lock horns; collaborate to show fuller diversity of views

ONE school of thought argues that alternative media — citizen journalism and online commentary — will grow to become an important competitor to traditional mainstream media. Another school, however, argues that alternative media will continue to be perceived as idle Internet chatter.

But why should it be necessary to see the relationship between the two mediums and other stakeholders in society as a zero-sum game?

There is much potential for mutually advantageous growth.

In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong discussed the challenges of the local mainstream and alternative media in this digital age.

The alternative media has seen the growth of blogs and websites dedicated to informed commentary and reportage on Singapore society, philosophy, economics and politics. To name a few, there are Yawning Bread, Singapore Angle, The Intelligent Singaporean, Commentary Singapore and A Singapore Economist.

As our populace becomes more educated, informed and technologically enabled, more citizens will take to the Internet and possibly foster the growth of such sites.

Unlike in countries such as the United States — where, interestingly, studies show that the existence of a plurality of mainstream media actually limits the appeal of alternative media — Singapore’s alternative media by default possesses a certain niche appeal that could fuel its growth. This is because the licensing laws here for newspapers and broadcasters pose high entry barriers for new participants.

In the June 2004 Pew Internet Survey of adult Americans, 78 per cent and 38 per cent respectively considered mainstream television and newspapers as their main source of election campaign news. Only about 15 per cent relied primarily on the Internet — and of these, just 30 per cent visited alternative news websites.

Singaporeans, for now, do not seem all that different. An Institute of Policy Studies survey indicated that 75 per cent of voters felt the mainstream media was important in shaping their decision in the last General Election, while 33 per cent cited the alternative Internet-based media.

As long as the mainstream media remains professional, credible and willing to engage a spectrum of voices in its reports and letters pages, it is likely readership will continue to grow even as Singapore becomes more diverse and open to other forms of media. Its enormous resources — of manpower, news sources and finances — makes it the agenda setter in much discourse.

Even so, both alternative and mainstream media face challenges. Will the mainstream media lose more of its audience to alternative media because it cannot fully reflect the growing diversity of views, some of them beyond traditionally-accepted boundary markers?

Or will the alternative media lose its passionate “rational” voice and cease to be relevant to an increasingly sceptical audience?

To meet these challenges, the mainstream and alternative media should engage each other. Cooperation need not entail compromising each side’s inherent strengths — it can leverage on their distinct appeals.

The mainstream media, for example, could invite more writers from the alternative media to contribute articles and collaborate on reporting opportunities in event-specific projects — such as a National Day Special or a Singapore Theatre Festival Special.

Features on “What it means to be a Singaporean”, for instance, could appear simultaneously in newspapers and on blogs, providing a multi-platform for serious reflection to bring the nation forward.

Members of the alternative media, in turn, could invite mainstream journalists to contribute articles or commentary, in their personal capacities, to their websites. This will give the alternative media and the Internet public other views they may not glean without a professional journalist’s experiences.

For such cooperation to occur, would the different out-of-bounds (OB) markers for the mainstream and alternative media be a hindrance?

The tighter OB markers for the mainstream media are underlined by the licensing laws and the Government’s insistence that it serve a “nation-building” role, first and foremost.

Yes, there are potential pitfalls for any writer — especially the amateur one –trying to straddle the two. Still, is it not better for both forms of media to engage than for each to try to forge its own destiny — leading to a lose-lose situation for the media and society?

Cooperation might even foster much-needed understanding of the other’s strengths and help to reshape the OB markers as our society matures.

The state stands to benefit from such cooperation between mainstream and alternative media. As Singapore society grows even more diverse, it might be difficult for either media to give a wide-enough platform for the reflection of views.

A combined platform will help residents to clarify their thoughts and questions and encourage an active, informed citizenry. It will also give the state more avenues and opportunities to engage with a wider spectrum of Singaporeans.

And with more than 100,000 Singaporeans overseas today — a number set to grow — a stronger online mainstream-cum-alternative media could be a powerful connection to keep them rooted to Singapore.

To facilitate cooperation, is there room for the state to take a “lighter touch” with both forms of media, or even to encourage the collaboration?

It will be challenging for all parties to engage constructively in news reporting and commentaries.

But will it be so difficult if the underlying aim is to take Singapore forward and foster a mature citizenry that can grapple effectively with the diversity of information in the digital age?

Exclusive Report on Confluence 06 and Sylvia’s Lim Speech at the Harvard Project for Asian and International Relations in Singapore Angle

Very Preliminary Thoughts on National Day Rally-May blog more if time permits

Policies to attract Overseas Singaporeans and Students-It was VERY astute of PM Lee to notice the trend of Singaporeans opting for American universities’ bond free scholarship instead of PSC ones which I believe have occurred only in a significant way in the last two to three years. Perhaps this is a sign for reforms of the PSC system towards a variant of former DPM Dr Tony Tan’s and my brother’s methodology of loans+option to convert it to scholarship to attract more “talents” to take up PSC scholarship?

Heartware for Singapore-Very upbeat assesment on the state of “passion” of our youths. Very heartened at his examples. Let’s hope we can truly maintain an open and inclusive society where such passions can continue.

Towards lower income Singaporeans, I would have like to see more goodies for the lower income Singaporeans who had to face the recent challenges of the price hike in bus and Mrt fares. Perhaps I am should be just grateful that GST did not rise as some predicted.

Two exciting events/forums coming up

1) Public Lecture by Professor Larry Diamond
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Organized by Institute of Policy Studies

“Can the Whole World Become Democratic?”

Date : 12 September 2006 (Tuesday)
Time : 4.30pm to 6.00pm (Registration will begin at 4.00pm)
Venue : Orchard Hotel, Ballroom 3
Dress Code : Office Attire

Any student on democratization will know that Professor Diamond is the guru of democratization and has written several authoritative books on the issue at hand. For him to come to Singapore is simply amazing; too bad I have to missed it!

From the IPS website:
Over the last three decades, the proportion of electoral democracies–which choose and replace their leaders in free, fair, competitive, and meaningful elections–has risen from barely a quarter of all states in the world to more than half. Levels of political freedom and civil liberties have also risen sharply around the world, and the U.S., E.U., U.N., and other international actors are engaged in unprecedented efforts to promote and support democratic development.

In addition, it appears that cultures are changing in the direction of more democratic expectations and values. And a growing body of both expert and mass opinion regards democracy, with transparency and accountability, as necessary to lift the remaining poor countries of the world out of poverty. Yet many of the new democracies and quasi-democracies of the world remain quite illiberal and corrupt, while the Middle East remains particularly resistant to democratic change. Is it possible that the democratic progress of the past three decades could be sustained, to the point where we could one day see a world composed entirely of democracies? What would be necessary to bring about such a global transformation? This lecture will address the prospects and conditions for “universal democracy.”

See Hoover Institution for his bio
Also see IPS website for his impressive CV

A snippet:
Larry Diamond is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and founding coeditor of the Journal of Democracy. He is also codirector of the International Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for Democracy.

At Stanford University, he is professor by courtesy of political science and sociology and coordinates the democracy program of the new Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. During 2002–3, he served as a consultant to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and was a contributing author of its report Foreign Aid in the National Interest. Currently he serves as a member of USAID’s Advisory Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid.

His research and policy analysis are focused on the relationship between democracy, governance, and development in poor countries, particularly in Africa. Diamond is the author of Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq (Times Books, 2005), Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, and Class, Ethnicity, and Democracy in Nigeria. His recent edited books include Islam and Democracy in the Middle East (with Marc F. Plattner and Daniel Brumberg), Political Parties and Democracy (with Richard Gunther), The Global Resurgence of Democracy and The Global Divergence of Democracies (with Marc F. Plattner). Among his other 20 edited books is the series Democracy in Developing Countries, with Juan Linz and Seymour Martin Lipset.

2)
International Youth Day Forum Organized by Think Centre
Planting Seeds: Youth in Politics and Civil Society
Date: Saturday, 26th August 2006
Time: 3.00 pm - 5.30 pm
Venue: SCWO Centre,96 Waterloo Street, Singapore 187967

From TC website:
Is there a voice for the youth in Singapore? What can be done to create a platform for youth to speak on issues? Are there already adequate platforms? Is there room for youth to participate in politics and civil society in Singapore? With new online media gaining popularity among youths, how will such platforms impact youth activism and expression in Singapore?
Come, Participate in the dialogue!

If you are able to come to the forum please submit you name. Email: thinkcentre@hotmail.com

Interesting that the blogsphere is full of posting on the JBJ play. Go ahead, type JBJ in technorati.

However, I am rather sad that many people I spoke to or read in blogs do not understand the second Act of the play. I thought that the second act was great, and perhaps, only a political observer will catch a lot of its satire.

People need to read the newspapers more; And read it critically. Pick up a book on Singapore politics written by an academia today. Surf political websites. Read Singapore Angle. Or else if the next generation of political plays are going to be written or appreciated by a apolitical populace, it would be such a waste. ALAS!

Watched the campaign to confer the public service star on JBJ.

I thought it was a great play, with the satire fully developed, marvellous acting from Pam and Rodney and great one liners.

Although the first half had tedious discourse, the second half more than made up for the initial tediousness, giving way to realistic protrayal of the struggles of individuals in Brave New Singapore. From civil servants to policeman to civil activists, ultimately we get caught up with our own hopes, dreams and fears. At the end of it all, do we end up dancing like everyone else in Mambo Night at Zouk or do we vote with our feet to the nearest green paradise, or so we percieve? Or do we just keep our heads down, telling ourselves that “lanlanness” is simply a way of Singapore life?

I asked a question at the forum held earlier to the panelists of the JBJ forum, which saw Researcher Tan Tarn How, NCMP Sylvia Lim, Filmaker Martyn See, Blogger Gayle Goh and of course Eleanor Wong, the playwright of JBJ. The question was, “How can the theatre, civil society, political parties and individual students reach out to the ordinary youths in raising political awarness?” Even though no one really answered the question headon, I am still continously surprised at the lack of outreach to ordinary youths in school about political awarness? Is it that impossible? Is that so undesirable? Is basic education about the constitution, our rights as citizens or maybe just reading the news cleverly more not possible?

Why would a campaign to confer the public service star on JBJ never occur? Is it because of political restrictions or fear? Maybe. But perhaps is because there is simply no ground support from where it matters; the young Singaporeans. Do you want to confer the public service star on JBJ? Or do we simply not care?

If you still haven’t catch the play, what are you waiting for? Is at drama centre at the National Library, near Bugis MRT.

We all need to think. Or else how to be an open and inclusive society?

My top ten wishes for our nation

1) That it will continue to be prosperous

2) To truly embrace, in rhetoric and action, a more open and inclusive Singapore society where everyone matters

3) To cultivate a thinking society from young; to question, debate and reaffirm the fundemental rationale and logic of the way we think, speak and feel

4) To refine policies to help the lower income people; to improve the distribution of funds by the CDC

5) To be able to laugh at ourselves now and then; not to be overly senstive or anal on all issues

6) To abolish the scholarship system and replace it with a loan system that is convertible to a scholarship if the recipent so wishes to

7) To lower Broadband and cable network prices to allow every Singaporean to access the internet

To have more Singapore theatre festivals by Ivan Heng and Wildrice

9) To open up the media and allow independent media broadcasters and newspapers in Singapore

10) Lastly, for all Singaporeans to be enabled to pursue their happiness to the fullest

Happy National Day!

From the movie Click:

“At the end of the rainbow, it is just a bowl of cornflakes”

Although I support the for profit structure of public transport to make it cost efficient, is there really a need to have fare hikes now. How about postponing it to December where everyone, whether rich or poor, will have their bonuses? Also should there be a limit to fare hikes to once a year or something like that?

Facts:
55.3 million profit for ComfortDelgro, SBS Transit Parents, for the quarter ending March 31, 1.3% higher than a year ago

27.4 million profit for SMRT for quarter ending June 30, 6.3% higher than year ago

Bus and train fares to go up by one to three cents for ezline holders and by 10 cents for cash users

Taxi Fares also went up by 10 cents starting, shorter distance before fares jump, increase in peak hours charges

Worker’s Party claim that such fares will rise after elections.

ST (May 2 2006)-WP puts spotlight on cost of living

“WORKERS’ Party (WP) candidates for East Coast GRC raised cost-of-living issues at a rally last night and gave suggestions on how to reduce transport and medical costs.

Mr Chia Ti Lik elaborated on several ideas from the WP manifesto. First, the Public Transport Council should be abolished because public transport companies should be nationalised and fares subsidised.

‘Public transport should be a service to the community, rather than a profit-oriented business,’ he said. He pointed out that the Public Transport Council had put off a review of fares till later in the year so that voters would not feel the pinch before the election and vote against the PAP Government.”

Claims by Bus/Train companies:

Energy/Fuel cost has risen by as much as 40% from last year
3 percent salaries increase (increase in manpower costs)