James Gomez

[Ed. Note: The author is the executive director of the Think Centre in Singapore.]

Introduction

During much of the year 2000, there was talk in and around Singapore of the media opening up in the island city-state. Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), a long-time monopolistic media player, now has a new contenderÐMediaCorp. Each of these two groups now has put out new publications: Project Eyeball, an Internet newspaper, and Streats, a free newspaper, by SPH and Today by MediaCorp, which aims, among other things, to look at political issues. From a broadcast point of view, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority is not clear what MediaCorp will produce; but on the ground, there are not enough indications to suggest that it will be something that will break with the past. Hence, in short, the current reality surrounding press freedom and plurality now is not very different from the past. The proliferation of radio channels in Singapore, for instance, has not brought greater press freedom and critical analysis. In this regard, the new print tabloid publications remain just thatÐtabloids. Focusing on where to eat, entertainment, fashion and local gossip, it is all geared towards chasing that advertising dollar. Where it counts, on critical political issues, nothing has changed, especially when it comes to local politics. The bottom line is that the government of the People's Action Party (PAP) still has financial investments in these two media companies through its government-linked corporations. In this regard, before we go into what can be done, we need to understand the environment in which those who want to put out competing views operate. From here, we can try to plot the path forward. This article looks at the case of opposition party publications as one instance of putting out competing viewpoints and suggests some ways forward.

In Singapore, publishing rules are stringent, and a culture of self-restraint prevents challenges to the dominant view Ða feature of its one-party-dominated State. Under the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, all publishers of periodicals are compelled to apply for a license from the Ministry of Information and the Arts (MITA). Additionally, there are various sections within the Internal Security Act, Official Secrets Act, Penal Code, Undesirable Publications Act, Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and Sedition Act that can be employed against violations contained therein. These acts are not exhaustive and need to be taken together with case law surrounding defamation suits decided by the courts in Singapore to comprehend the full extent of possible censorship. Although Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore guarantees the right of freedom of speech and expression, which has been accepted in legal circles to include freedom of the media, operationally, the above provisions imposed by Parliament stand to restrict these rights.

The employment of these acts over the years against media companies, organisations, opposition parties and individuals provides ample examples of restrictions which, as a consequence, have created a culture of self-restraint among both local and foreign individuals and agencies. Journalists, commentators and academics have recorded details of such incidents, but none have taken a broad look at the dilemma facing political party publications, especially those of the opposition, since the PAP came to power in 1959.

Political party publications and those individually published by their members are important records of political life in any country. An examination of the contents within a party's publication often offers insights into a party's work, the issues it raises and the internal reforms it takes as it prepares for the electoral struggle. Individual's contributions, such as commentaries and memoirs, on the other hand, usually contain the personal motivations, values and reflections about that person's engagement in his or her polity. Its common place in countries with a free press and mature literary culture is that such publications provide an additional avenue through which political parties and their members get to air their views. Therefore, the assessment of these publications, their licensing, distribution and availability provide an idea of what are the prospects for greater press liberalisation and whether these 'new' developments in the media in Singapore will contribute in any way towards realising this goal.

In Singapore, the ruling PAP publication, The Petir, founded in 1954, is now published regularly, of decent production quality, with varied contributors, paid advertising and a large distribution network. Announcements contained within the party publication are from time to time given wide coverage in the major local media. Additionally, it also explains why other related PAP publications, such as commemorative documents as well as private works by its party members, for instance, the memoirs of Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, are available in all bookstores, newsstands and even petrol kiosks!

On the other hand, it also explains why, for a combination of reasons, opposition party publications and sometimes private works by party individuals are largely unavailable in the way most other publications are available in a normal society, that is, in bookshops and on newsstands (one example is Chee Soon Juan's To Be Free, although Chee's two earlier titles were available in some bookstores, and another is J. B. Jeyaretnam's Make it Right for Singapore). The availability of opposition party newsletters is equally scarce in the traditional points of distribution. In the Republic, unless one happens to meet a member of an opposition party in the streets, at a public forum or during elections, such party and related individual publications are not readily available. Yet, and in spite of these conditions, opposition party and related individual publications do exist. And people do buy them.

What, however, are some of the challenges opposition parties face in bringing out their publications? What does it say about the Republic as a society and its maturity as a polity? Operating under such conditions, what issues do opposition parties raise, and what solutions do they offer? Have they been effective? Who is to blame? Is the situation likely to improve?

Thus, the environment within which opposition party publications operate is as equally important as the publications themselves and the message that they put across when seeking to understand a polity such as Singapore. They tell a story and add another dimension to the working of politics and media freedom in the Republic.

Opposition Party Publications

Official opposition party publications, which are planned for regular intervals, often face administrative delays from the early stages of licence applications. MITA requires the proposed contents of the publication and details of the entire central executive committee of the political parties and their individual disposable capital, including the value of their movable and immovable properties. In addition, the committee is also required to endorse their signatures to attest to the truthfulness of the particulars and information they have provided. The collective responsibility of the central executive committee sets the framework of difficulty for opposition parties. The publication needs the approval of the central executive committee before it goes to print. The dynamics of group cooperation within the context of fear and persecution builds into the publication process an in-house 'hindrance' that makes the production of these publications for these parties extremely difficult from the beginning. The 'anxiety trap,' for instance, by one member can cause a publication's delay or, worse yet, no publication.

The contents of these publications are always under scrutiny by the ruling party and the licensing authorities. In the case of Hammer by the Workers' Party, its secretary, J. B. Jeyaretnam, was accused in 1986 of allegedly breaching parliamentary privilege in sending five signed newsletters to his constituents to inform them of ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him for his behaviour as a parliamentarian. In 1987, Jeyaretnam was found guilty and fined for contempt for an article published in Hammer that said that he was denied a fair hearing in front of the Committee of Privileges. Later, in 1993, Hammer was accused of using articles written by foreigners against Singapore (articles reproduced from The Economist). In 1995, an article about the Tamil language issue resulted in successful defamation cases turning into bankruptcy suits against the Workers' Party and J. B. Jeyaretnam. Similarly, the Singapore Democratic Party once ran into some difficulties for not having its licence renewed on time. The issuance of printing and media licences and governmental scrutiny creates a typical situation of 'adapt and survive, rebel and perish.'

More than this, however, there is the day-to-day task of producing such publications that is problematic. For instance, getting the contribution of articles for the publication is not always an easy task. Many contributors require that their identities not be revealed. Some even go to the extent of demanding an undertaking that the party bear full responsibility if any lawsuits arise as a result of their articles. This indicates the extent of the problem. A population cowed into fear because of actions taken by the ruling party against political opponents makes the task of sourcing for contributions a very serious issue. Thus, much of the writing is often done in-house by party members and is guided by the available in-house expertise.

Another accompanying difficulty is that of distribution. For instance, many roadside newspaper stalls and minimarket operators are unwilling to carry such papers in Singapore. An oral check with opposition party representatives revealed that some outlets, especially sundry corner stores that have carried such publications in the past, have had such publications mysteriously bought out. Other incidents include 'friendly' warnings to newsstand proprietors from carrying such titles in the future. In a tiny place like Singapore, where word about such incidents gets around quickly, it explains the practice of self-censorship adopted by news vendors and bookshops when they refuse to sell and carry opposition party papers and books by its members. Even good discount rates are not an attractive enough enticement for vendors to carry opposition party publications. Vendors harbour a fear of losing their hawker's licence, normally a temporary permit renewable on a yearly basis, while bookstore owners fear losing the clientele of the State or jeopardising their business interests, thereby, literally pushing opposition party members onto the streets to do the selling themselves.

Another obstacle is securing advertisements for the newsletters. Most would-be advertisers fear that their businesses will suffer if they place an advertisement in an opposition newspaper or at the very least expose their sympathy to the opposition cause. Given this climate, party members usually do not expend energy looking for advertisers even though they would like to carry advertisements to help defray production costs. Hence, most opposition party publications do not have any advertisements.

Ideally, most parties would like to give their newsletters away for free if advertising could cover their printing costs. However, to ensure that such publications are taken seriously, usually a nominal sum of a dollar (US.57) or less is charged. Most people are willing to pay up to a dollar when they buy such papers. Even if they do not read, they buy it as a statement of support for the opposition cause. Thus, if the papers are sold in sufficient quantity, it can generate a small amount for party funds. However, it is not uncommon for opposition party publication sellers to receive sarcastic remarks when payment for the paper is requested. Materialistic Singaporeans still prefer to receive a copy only if it is free. Nevertheless, it is not unusual during election periods when such publications are on sale that members of the public will buy them in greater numbers. The public also will pay more than a dollar, that is, they will offer dollar notes denominated in 10s (US.75) and 50s (US.74) for the opposition party selling the paper. However, the Singapore police are often quick to stop this and evoke the rule that such monies thus collected are tantamount to 'street collection' and are against the law. This keeps opposition funding sparse. A recent law, the Political Donations Act of 2000, that contains disclosure clauses for donors will further ensure that opposition party funding is kept lean.

Other factors include the inability of opposition parties, because of manpower constraints, to bring out their publications on a regular basis, in greater frequency and quality. They are often handicapped at the level of distribution, forcing them to literally 'hawk' their magazines directly to the people, which, incidentally, is a direct contravention of the Environmental Act's anti-hawking legislation. When some opposition members were probed further, they revealed that they have made requests for an application for a temporary hawker's licence to sell their publications, but these were rejected on the grounds that such licences are no longer issued. (I too made a verbal enquiry at the Ministry of Environment when I first published my book Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame in 1999 for a temporary hawker's licence
to sell my book but received the same reply by an officer at the Hawker's Department).

Most opposition parties and their members have had their 'confrontations' with the police over this licensing problem when selling their publications on the streets, but none have gone beyond 'warnings.' However, in the case of Chee Soon Juan, he was once charged with illegally hawking his book at Raffles Place. This was before his foray into public speaking without first applying for a licence from the police. Subsequently, however, the Environment Ministry did not follow up with any further prosecution even though he continues to sell his book. The Singapore police are well aware of this and other situations and observe opposition members when they sell their newspapers in public areas but generally choose not to prosecute them. If the police did, it would mean the censorship over opposition party publications would be complete. Furthermore, the prosecution of opposition members on such a charge would also draw attention to the issue and add fuel to the opposition cause. However, surveillance is tight and visible by both the Ministry of Environment and Singapore police. Oral interviews with some opposition party members reveal that plainclothes officials do conduct surveillance, gauging public support and the volume of sales. Being under such scrutiny, it often requires much personal courage, even for party members, to take their paper to the streets.

Paper-selling trips are also not easy to organise. It requires that party members make time and meet to go through the physical process of selling the papers. This includes arranging transportation for the magazine, ensuring members turn up for the paper-selling sessions, having a strategy to approach members of the public, collecting the monies and accounting for them.

Before members arrive at that stage, however, they have to first become their own writers, editors, layout artists, publishers and also do their best to handle language translations as the publications are often in the four official languagesÐ English, Chinese, Malay and Tamil. Sometimes the inability to handle translations adequately bears on the fluency of the articles that are published.

To add insult to injury, party members encounter people whose objections can range from verbal abuse to actual physical accosting. Opposition party members have related incidents where some individuals have literally torn their newsletters into pieces and disposed of them in front of the sellers. Others just treat these newsletter sellers as 'transparent' and do their best to avoid eye contact and physical proximity. It is not unusual to see people physically avoiding the space of the sellers by making a detour. Observations of human behaviour as people pass these 'sellers' tell the whole story of political maturity and openness in Singapore.

Additionally, if party members are selling their newsletters in the vicinity of shopping centres, the security guards often arrive within a matter of minutes to inform them that they are not allowed to do so as the premises are under the control of the 'management.' In Singapore, where every piece of land is accounted for and there are rules surrounding one's business on it (as can be seen from the anti-hawking legislation), there is nowhere else to go freely. This then is reduced to a standoff when party members tell the building security officers to inform the police. The police are usually informed, observe the situation or, in some cases, even talk to party members, but often stop short of prosecution.

All of the above reflects the dominance of one-party rule, a culture of political self-restraint and a self-appointed gatekeeping culture nurtured through years of conditioning and a weak state of competitive party politics. Bearing in mind in Singapore that there are no writers' guilds, advocate groups or civil rights commissions to seek recourse when one suffers at the hands of the gatekeepers, the contents produced and circulated under the above constraints are therefore no mean task for opposition parties in Singapore. Thus, these publications should be read, understood and appreciated within this context. This, by extension, is a statement on the current state of press freedom in the Republic.

There have been a variety of party publications in Singapore, although not all parties have produced publications. Moreover, some parties have ceased to exist or have merged with other parties and with that also their publications. Yet others just become exhausted after awhile. Some examples in the past include Plebeian of the Barisan Socialis, Unity of the United People's Party, Wijaya of the United National Front, Suara of the Singapore Malay National Organisation and Hammer of the Workers' Party. At the time of writing, there were only three that were known to still be operating: Commentator of the Singapore National Front, The Demokrat, which was reissued as The New Democrat, of the Singapore Democratic Party and Solidarity of the National Solidarity Party.
Recommendations

Looking at the case of opposition party publications, the laws in Singapore and the industry response to competing political views, there are several things that need to be done:

- Public education so that competing viewpoints in the media are welcomed;

- A complaints bureau to look into instances of self-censorship practices by the industry;

- A media watch group to act as a watchdog over the industry;

- More independent publications to present competing views to the mainstream media;

- Creating web sites that provide alternative views to the existing ones;

- Engaging students of journalism and their teachers in thinking about the value of competing views;

- Engaging current journalists and media operators to open up;

- Engaging bookstores and distributors to be more open-minded in stocking alternative titles; and

- Regional networking and the sharing of ideas with individuals and agencies.

Conclusion

In an environment where there is little competing political news in the mainstream media, the party organ serves an important role in raising issues while individual writings by party members and activists give the personal dimension of political involvement. That such publications remain important can be determined from requests made by the Prime Minister's Office for opposition party newsletters from the Legal Deposit Section of the National Library Board as well as requests from members of academia. An appreciation of the issues raised through such publications, however, must be understood hand in hand with the conditions under which opposition parties operate in Singapore.

Globalisation and the Internet are forcing Singapore to open up and will put pressure on print publishing and its distribution network. Apart from the Internet, however, there is little evidence on the ground and in the present media that things have changed. The celebration that the Singapore media covers the region well, but not itself, says everything. Unless there are political and citizen initiatives to force the issue, it is unlikely one will see any positive change that goes beyond the cosmetic.