SINGAPORE—Walk the streets of Singapore and you may think you’re in the world’s most modern country. But Singaporeans you’re pacing alongside who wish to speak freely about their country might not feel that way.
“In the entire world,” Fareed Zakaria has written, “there is only one country that has reached a Western level of economic development and is still not a fully functioning democracy—Singapore.”
This is especially the case with regard to press freedom. This wealthy island nation ranked twenty-third out of 182 countries in the 2007 UN Human Development Index, and has the seventh-highest GDP per capita (around $50,000 a year) and the thirteenth highest life expectancy in the world (80.2 years). In Freedom House’s 2009 global press rankings, though, Singapore ranked 151 out of 195 nations, performing worse than states like Pakistan, Egypt, and Liberia. Perhaps with the exceptions of the UAE and Qatar, few if any countries have made such astonishing development advances while fiercely refusing many basic human rights.
Singapore’s leaders fit the quintessential description of benevolent dictators, as they support economic policies that clearly benefit their people, but are sternly intolerant of criticism. In March 2010, the International Herald Tribune paid $114,000 for suggesting that Singapore’s longtime rulers, previously Lee Kuan Yew and currently his son Lee Hsien Loong, were a dynasty that had maintained power by means other than merit and the people’s blessing. (The toothless obedience of the New York Times-owned Herald Tribune, which dutifully shelled out a hundred grand before it was even formally sued, deserves a case study all its own).
What Singapore’s overseers don’t seem to grasp is that without a press free to monitor power and challenge wrongdoing, even otherwise “developed” countries suffer greatly. One need look no farther east than Dubai for an example of a locale which, in the absence of an unencumbered press able to expose profligacy and corruption, is now bearing a debt crisis for which its rulers and citizens were pitifully unprepared.
But the relationship between an unshackled press and societal development goes beyond the benefits of financial preparedness. There is some evidence that improvements in press freedom lead to improvements in overall human development. In a recent study I conducted, the release of which is forthcoming, I examined UN Human Development scores and Reporters Without Borders press ratings for 130 countries from the years 2002 and 2007, and found evidence that changes in press freedom predate changes in overall development, even in many so-called developed nations. Changes in press freedom from 2002-2007 were more predictive of human development scores in 2007 than 2002-2007 changes in human development scores were predictive of 2007 press freedom ratings.
An understanding of this analysis, called cross-lagged correlations, isn’t necessary here. The results simply suggest that, for many countries, improvements in press freedom lead to improvements in overall development, not the other way around. Many autocratic states, both “developed” or on their way, deflect calls to expand press freedoms with the assumption, sometimes inexplicit, that free speech guarantees can be postponed as long as the regime is addressing other issues like unemployment, inflation or deflation, currency destabilization, housing shortages, and so on. Jordan, China, and Singapore are among such nations. All three have made striking economic advances in the last few decades, while their governments declined to expand press freedoms.
Press freedoms, though, speed nations’ general upward mobility. An empowered press educates and informs the public on matters of prenatal health, maternal mortality, nutrition, corruption, infectious disease, macro- finance, and personal debt.
“If we have a tremendous journalism that informs and engages people,” wrote Robert McChesney and John Nichols in their 2010 book The Death and Life of American Journalism, “it will lead to more efficient and effective governance, a healthier economy and a vibrant culture. All our lives will be fuller and richer…Likewise, if the market downgrades and corrupts the production of journalism, it will lead to an ignorant citizenry with resultant corruption and misery.” Without a rousing press, future development is slowed and progress made is unguarded.

Good summary, and nice to keep the pressure on this less-than-free city state. I've always loved Singapore and its people but the government policies are chilling.
What is sad is seeing the major news agencies capitulate so easily to such a small market. Of course given the state of the industry it probably doesn't pay to pick fights with opponents who control the courts and have billions at their disposal.
#1 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 06:22 AM
I agree. This is from Clark Hoyt's commentary on the matter in The New York Times:
"Singapore’s leaders use a local court system in which, according to Stuart Karle, a former general counsel of The Wall Street Journal, they have never lost a libel suit....For The Herald Tribune and all the other news organizations that have paid damages to Singapore’s rulers (The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, Bloomberg) or had their circulation limited there (Time, The Asian Wall Street Journal, The Economist), the choice has been to stay [rather than refuse to pay and be forced to leave the country]."
#2 Posted by Justin, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 09:28 AM
Singapore always gets the limelight for the wrong reasons, perhaps because it's an almost-perfect Asian state with an Anglo-Saxon face and for the Lee family's use of libel as a weapon against dissent and against the western press whose reach they fear.
Here in Malaysia, just next door, a whole stream of squandered billion-dollar deals over 30 years has gone relatively unreported, except by tacit political consent, in a politically-controlled press. It is relatively freer (only by comparison to Singapore) with a thriving Internet community struggling to make up the slack. Here, too, libel is an additional weapon to the raft of stringent press laws and other restrictions on free speech, with "national security" an often-used excuse. Malaysia would be a prime exemplar of Dr Martin's study.
--from a former newspaper editor
#3 Posted by Gobind Rudra, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 11:26 AM
"What Singapore’s overseers don’t seem to grasp is that without a press free to monitor power and challenge wrongdoing, even otherwise “developed” countries suffer greatly."
They grasp it, they just think it comes a distant second to keeping themselves in power and the gravy train going. Besides, if something goes wrong, they can always up stakes and get on the first plane out with the millions they've sequestered (legally) by making themselves the best paid politicians on the planet.
#4 Posted by MY, CJR on Tue 29 Jun 2010 at 10:36 PM
I honestly don't think Singapore's governors are bad people, they just have a bunker mentality given their history of being a small, rich state. They equate dissent with weakness, and like the manager of a successful corporation, they feel they should prosper as their country does.
But this can have negative effects. For example, a while ago Singapore rezoned much of its land, making it much more valuable,. It turned out that many civil servants bought land before this was made public. When confronted, they replied that there was nothing wrong with trading in this information, it was all part of a market economy. In any other country this would be a major scandal. But in Singapore it's business as usual.
Despite that, Singapore still ranks high on the list of least corrupt countries. I guess it depends on how you define corruption. Or whether it ever comes to light...
#5 Posted by JLD, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 12:10 AM
Someone recently introduced me to the term "Leegalised Corruption", note the double "ee". Its a specially coined term which is unique to the country in the spotlight. I believe eventually it will make its way into the political vocabulary of the world, just like words like gerrymandering and pork belly politics.
#6 Posted by New word for politics, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 12:32 AM
The people from Singapore value stability over individuality. Because the society trusts the social compact, there is little corruption because people believe in the roles they serve and thus pursue the interests of the state over their own.
This only works because the state does so well at taking care of them on an island of limited space and resources. If the society was more spread out and the people less Confucian conditioned, there would be more corruption and more instability.
Japan has a similar dynamic, but it's still far below Singapore's rigid stability and not as incorruptible.
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 12:38 AM
Last year I spent a semester studying journalism (a crazy thought, I know) at a university in Singapore. I wrote for the area/campus newspaper, was a producer for the campus TV network and hosted my own radio show on the school radio band. All of the teaching staff in the communications department were foreigners. My newspaper teacher was a print man from England, TV head was Taiwanese and the radio adviser was an American who worked for Clear Channel as a Top 40 DJ.
While it took a long time for me to wrap my head around the way things worked, I finally understood the nuance of it all by the time I left. In the end, it was fascinating semester learning how journalism worked in a society so shielded from the media. The big story that helped this epiphany was the apparent attempted murder-suicide by an international student from Indonesia on campus.
When news broke that a disgruntled student stabbed his professor, and then “jumped” nine floors to his death, things got understandably crazy. The government and administration stepped in and tried to stop our reporting. However, they new the story was just too big to ignore. We had reports from students that the deceased student stabbed his professor, and in the altercation, the professor threw him over the balcony. It was never officially reported because we had people breathing down our neck. In the end, the story was simply a memorial for the student and a simple account of the official story. It was disappointing. The school went into saving face mode and set up ludicrous help lines, and counseling services to make it look like they cared.
I was one of two Americans in the class and the only one who ever argued at meeting for how journalism was "supposed" to work, I guess. I can't count the number of times I fought my editors tooth-and-nail about how to approach a story. Asking a tough question was something the students were never taught. Questioning the system, especially as journalists, was something they just didn’t do. When someone said “no” to an interview, they gave up. The only way my professor kept from going crazy was to use his famously-dry wit.
After spending several long hours discussing journalism in Asia with my professor, he let me into some ideas that I never even considered, coming into the United States. The role of the media, as stated in the above article, is to make the government look good. If you make the government look bad, you are making the *people* look bad too. You are making the nation look bad as well. Given that most people perceive their city-state as fragile (they are in a weird delusional fear of Malaysia “retaking” the island), making the country look bad will be bad for everyone. And why would you want to make everyone look bad?
Another story I always remembered was a report students did on the rise of interracial marriages. Some students went around town interviewing interracial couples asking them how hard it was given the societal implications of their love. That part was good. Then, when it came to talking to students, the usual canned response was, “I would like to [date outside my race] but my parents won’t let me.” To me, they left out the most important question: “Yes, but would encourage your children to only date in their race?” Without that question, the report fell flat and looks like a PSA. It could challenge the way people thought about interracial marriage as something beyond, “it’s good for those people, and the city, but not for me!” Discussing the social issues is out of the realm of thought for the students. It took me a long time to accept it, but it helped me get through my time there.
Race and religion are a huge point of contention in Singapore, which is why you can’t discuss them at the Speaker’s Corner. The author left out that you can’t discuss language there either. Dialectical debates never end for the Chinese majority. Even though Singapore has four
#8 Posted by John Gamboa, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 01:53 AM
I'm surprised people can still get mileage debating this topic. It is a worthy one no doubt, but it's become tiring to follow. Can't we all see it's a case of whether you're one who sees the glass half full, or half empty. Or, if you talk about freedom, well there's freedom to, and freedom from, and they can clash. Which freedom then is more or less important? How do you reconcile that?
For every argument against the Singaporean way of doing things, there will be a counter-argument, and these opposing views will be in perpetual tension.
What I don't like is the assumption that a free press is beyond doubt a good thing. Or democracy for that matter. I can think of instances where having too much freedom in either has caused more instability and societal regression.
Anyway, Singapore's not a North Korea or Burma. There is still much freedom of choice in every day life, and the average citizen certainly does not live in fear. Everyone has access to basic necessities. Those human rights are met, and I'm at peace with any country which can provide them adequately. If Singaporeans are forced to live unexamined lives because of press restrictions, then that's their plight. Count that as a cost of a materially comfortable life. We shouldn't project our expectations upon their society. I mean that's basic cultural sensitivity, right?
Besides, there's always the Internet which Singaporeans can freely access, unlike in many other countries.
#9 Posted by Your perspective/My perspective, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 10:58 AM
Thanks for the article but I fear it is an oversimplification of the role of the mass media, particularly in a society like Singapore. I can recommend the following:
Trocki, C Singapore: Wealth, power and the culture of control as a historical, economic and political history
King, R Singapore Miracle, myth and reality which queries many utterances of the propaganda machine in Singapore
The final chapter in Trocki, C and Barr, M Paths no taken: Political pluralism in post-war Singapore on how the mass media was co-opted by the ruling class
and
McMurtry, J The cancer stage of capitalism - just a very good read about self-referring circles of discourse and mental traps.
#10 Posted by Davidson Lloyd, CJR on Wed 30 Jun 2010 at 11:56 AM
@John Gamboa:
"One reason LKY came into power was after the race riots in the 1950s. The riots were very bad and left a huge stain on the image of the island for a while. People looked to Lee to keep things together during what Singaporeans called, “a dark time."
Adding to what you said, that period certainly leaves a mark on many people who lived during that time. My mom has had always warned me to watch what I say in *public* as there are overtly sensitive *individuals*. Regardless of race [ie: ethnicity] or religion. That is perhaps one reason why there is no press "freedom" --> according to whose definition by the way?
And I cannot agree more with you about the lack of critical intellectual thinking which is typical of the average Singaporean. It can be very frustrating but then I always remind myself to look at the bigger picture. If they are generally a good bunch, why the nitpicking?
Thank you very much everyone for your kind and objective comments.
#11 Posted by Amy de Souza, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 01:18 PM
Perhaps the Lees' sensitivity reflects fear they may not have build a lasting edifice. If the Lees are as loved as they claim and have done as good a job as they claim, they could trust the Singaporean public to dismiss relatively mild criticism.
Singapore wants to become a global scientific research center. Can suppressing dissent square with this goal? Scientists focus on the truth and are relentless in discrediting falsehoods. They can be outspoken, including on political matters. A single libel action could discredit Singapore in the eyes of the scientific community.
Suppressing dissent also antagonizes what some call the "creative class." Richard Florida has written on this. The creative class is famously disrespectful of authority. Does Singaopore intend to attract the creative class? Or rely on conformists to succeed in the 21st century?
#12 Posted by Gaius Baltar, CJR on Thu 1 Jul 2010 at 05:21 PM
Hi All,
I'm Kojakbt from Singapore. I'm also the moderator of the 3in1kopitiam forum hosted on Delphi site:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/3in1kopitiam/messages
I agree with what the article is saying. Singapore may be among the 1st world when comes to per capita GDP measurement but we are completely 3rd world as far as press freedom is concerned.
The good thing that is gradually ripping press control from the Govt is the Internet. On the Net, especially those blog, forum, alternative news sites covering Singapore, one can usually find alternative news or view points not found on the official Singapore press. In this front, we are gradually winning though the number of Singaporeans going online are still the minority.
I look forward to the day when Singapore can be like Hong Kong with numerous newspapers from the different publishers with different perspectives of events to offer to the readers. Given time, I'm sure we will get there one day.
Kojakbt
Moderator
kojakbt@gmail.com
www.3in1kopitiam.com
#13 Posted by Kojabt, CJR on Sun 11 Jul 2010 at 12:09 PM