Roses and Rockets - Eight
This "Roses and Rockets" idea comes from my old mentor, Reuters, which used it to distribute compliments (Roses) or criticisms (Rockets) to its large force of correspondents and sub-editors worldwide during the 60s and 70s.
It was all in good spirit done for a vital feedback purpose. Even the best got a rocket once a while; and the newest recruit would sometimes earn a bouquet of roses.
Readers' contributions that are concise, informed and reasoned are very welcomed - but please, no personal complaints or rude remarks. Littlespeck will, of course, subject itself to the same criterion.
Jul 29, 2003

Roses

Letters in a newspaper - especially in restrictive Singapore - play an extraordinary role to allow citizens to speak out against public policies they dislike.

It also provides a public platform for aggrieved consumers and victims of wrongdoing by civil servants or private business.

When so many families are suffering hardships, it is crucial the desperate cases have a channel to speak of their problems. (Read betweenjobshell.com).

I have noticed a marked improvement in letters to the press in three areas. One is the rise in quality. Contributors are better educated, better informed and more articulate.

Secondly, more people are prepared to air their grievances or unhappiness and be identified for saying them. As a result, the grounds covered are extensive, more national issues than just whining over personal matters.

And thirdly, all English-language newspapers are practicing less self-censorship.

(Besides Singaporeans would always like to know what other Singaporeans are thinking about on various issues.)

The wider doors may be due to government's gradual opening up, or pressures from the Internet or the editors themselves feeling that it serves Singapore better.

Some of my friends, however, disagree, saying that newspapers are still refraining the publishing of many letters for fear of upsetting the government.

This had prompted one website to post letters that had been rejected by The Straits Times. Unnecessary editorial fears undoubtedly exist.

But not all letters deserve to be published. As an editor, I know some of them are unprintable for reasons of libel, excessively rude or stirring racial or religious conflict, etc.

But improvement there has undoubtedly been, and the public is better off for it. For that, Littlespeck.com hands out bouquets to all the newspapers.

Subjects of recent strong views in letters included: -
SIA's retrenchment, poorly handled compared to the SQ006 crash in Taipeh.

* HDB's $200 million bonus for "retrenched" civil servants, something not available to the private sector.

* Higher ticket charges for the North-East MRT and its decision for not opening Buangkok station allegedly over insufficient passengers.

* Allowing gays to work in civil service, with critics mostly coming from religious and conservative Singaporeans.

* Refusal to allow CPF savings for the retrenched workers to tide over their plight.

The largest role is played by The Straits Times with its much longer history and bigger pool of letter writers. It also has a bigger forum space.

Special Roses for the paper's idea of - "Bouquets" where readers write in praise of kindness encountered and "This and That" which criticises poor service and rude people.

By encouraging both groups to speak out, the paper will help build a civil society.

Rockets

For Sunday Times Sports (July 22) for a big half page story headlined: "Money-bags Chelsea make world record $201m bid for Raul." Gret story but for the fact that it was outdated in print: the Real Madrid striker had in fact turned it down.

Readers would not have known had it not been for The New Paper on Sunday, which published the wire agency copy that ended Chelsea's ambition. Weekend TODAY never had it since it came out on Saturday.

If there's only one newspaper in town, readers would lose out in a late news-break. Early - termed 'lazier" - deadlines have always been used to argue against newspaper monopoly.

Roses

Good to see that there's no noticeable drop in quality in the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) newspapers after its third retrenchment in two years.

Shouldn't be surprised, actually.

A bouquet of roses for Straits Times' Sars special, "Remembering". Its articles were of high standards, good writing, bright headlines. Some of the interviews were very touching.

Rockets

It's time for sad comments on the low level of personal friendship between journalists of the two media rivals - SPH and MediaWorks.

Competition appears to have beyond normality as far as personal relations are concerned.

This non-mixing between journalists is typically Singaporean, not one that we can be proud of.

In most countries - Hong Kong, London, New York, Tokyo - newspapers and TV stations compete vigorously, too - but at the end of the day the journalists would meet in bars to drink over their work.

Some poke fun at each other's "exclusives" - all in clean, comradely fun.

In Singapore, the opposite is happening. I'm told that staffs of the two rivals seldom mix socially after work either in the Press Club or outside.

Some of them don't even shake hands when they see each other at the same press function. "It's true," commented one reporter, who put the blame on editors, who "may not like it if you become too friendly with the enemy."

I hope it's not true. If it is, the two sides should work towards a friendlier environment without lessening the competition by explaining to their staffs that rivalry does not mean enmity.

My advice to reporters is: Compete, work hard but relax in your attitude towards rival reporters; your work doesn't get better because you don't socialise with others.

In fact, the opposite may be true. No one likes an unfriendly reporter with an attitude problem.

Journalists from neighbouring countries often view their Singaporean counterparts as unfriendly, cold - even arrogant because of this.

The way its reporters behave affects Singapore's image abroad.
By Seah Chiang Nee