Media - trend
Not a dull moment
Years ago when government was reluctant to see a second national daily, one reason given was there wasn't enough news to make it viable. Today's news is a trifle too exciting. By Seah Chiang Nee.
June 17, 2003

Singapore, being such a small city, simply did not have enough news breaks that would justify having two morning dailies, said one official.

"Singapore is a small city. How much different can the second daily make itself from The Straits Times in order to be viable?" was his rationale, meaning it could not be financially viable.

That was around 1982-83. In those days, the government under Mr. Lee Kuan Yew considered market competition for newspapers as bad for Singapore's economic growth and stability.

They would tend to fight for circulation by sensationalising and playing up populist issues that might divide the nation.

Much as I hated to, I had to agree with him that under the existing circumstances at the time, there were not enough happenings to make one newspaper very different from the other.

It had more to do with politics, a strictly planned life and non-articulating Singaporean readers. As a result, life was unexciting, even boring.

I found that out as editor of an afternoon tabloid. Singapore was indeed a very small news-breaking city.

Many of the news events were "scheduled", like a seminar attended by the prime minister, a Ministry of Health press release, registration of Primary 1 classes, stock market, daily police press conferences and, of course, the courts.

Some subjects were considered sensitive to play up for one reason or another, some of them justified, others not.

In the morning editorial conferences, we would look at the schedule of events and almost know exactly what tomorrow's paper would be like without waiting for the day to unfold.

The only surprises would, if at all, come from foreign news.

Unlike in Hong Kong or Bangkok, rarely would there be "unscheduled" stories like an bank robbery, a lightning garbage strike, a scandal involving a public figure or a big triad leader busted.

Nobody, of course, would wish these things on Singapore just for an exciting newspaper. But realistically speaking, Singapore was known as a little rich, controlled city where blaring headlines were not possible.

Actually, this was a worldwide trend. Affluent, orderly societies (like Austria or Switzerland) are generally boring. Poverty and suffering are much more exciting.

That did not explain everything, of course. Twenty years ago, there was a lot more tighter government planning or control. That meant a thin news flow even for one newspaper.

Two newspapers meant boredom multiplied by two. Contributing to the trend was a more compliant or less demanding Singaporean citizenry.

Some people feared speaking out. Often, editors would prefer to err on the side of caution, by leaving out when in doubt.

Besides, Singapore was only one "news centre," whereas a larger country like Malaysia has several "news centres" extending from Penang to Sabah, Kelantan to Sarawak, vastly different from one another.

So are countries like Thailand or Britain, each with its contrasting cities and stories. Singapore is only one city.

Singapore began changing substantially since 1990 due to several reasons.

Firstly, the government began to loosen up on its authoritarian style; and secondly, there had been a strong demand from a better-educated generation of voters for freer expression.

But just as important was the arrival of the Internet, which provides an alternative platform the government finds hard to control. It has a big impact on politics - and the main stream media.

Two years ago, the government liberalised the media industry by allowing a rival newspaper to be launched to compete with The Straits Times, but it didn't turn out that way.

Singaporeans have, however, gained not a second national daily but two free tabloid newspapers: Streats and Today. Both have improved through competition.

The world that Singaporeans live in today is no longer the "boring" place of 20 years ago. The government can no longer "plan" or "control" as much of society as it did then.

The world has changed dramatically; so has Singapore.

With the threat of terrorism from al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah, threatened by Sars and pummelled by rapid technological and market changes, Singaporeans often can't tell what tomorrow will bring.

Unemployment is rising, and trade and investment are falling and Singapore is forced to completely overhaul itself to meet the challenge.

Marriage is down, divorce and teenage delinquency are up; parents are worried about Internet pornography, all of them are making their way to media headlines.

In other words, "unscheduled" news breaks are more frequent and events and people make news as powerfully as the government did two decades ago.

Last week, a Straits Times columnist talked of some of the changes with a little anxiety.

She started by saying: "If you landed in Singapore this week from Mars and scanned the papers, you would be forgiven for thinking this was a land of fractious, contentious people."

Talks between Singapore Airlines and its pilots had broken down and were heading for arbitration; angry residents, annoyed by their apartments' stalled upgrading, were seeking redress from Housing Development Board.

These were just two in a growing list of recent disputes hot enough to prompt her to ask: "Where are the Asian values of consensus and not rocking the boat?"

Like it or not, these are actually normal happenings in a non-controlled society.

Take the intensity of the victims' anger against the HDB. It would have been diluted or controlled before in the media.

A resident complained in The Straits Times: "For two-and-a-half years, my wife and I have had to put up with dust, filth, debris, diversions, noise, stench, crippled lifts, mosquitoes and rats."

Wow!

Public criticism was even stronger in Internet chat-sites, two of which are operated by official figures and the ruling People's Action Party youth wing, where some people called on victims to sue the government.

These forums - whose participants are more outspoken - have created a major impact on the mainstream media and on Singapore's politics.

To some, the light has been turned on and they want more of it. Others bemoan all this excitement reflects greater threats, fewer jobs to Singapore.

But one thing every one agrees, there's no going back.

By Seah Chiang Nee