I refer to the Straits Times report dated 28 Oct 2009.

Mr Shanmugam was reported to have said that Singapore’s low ranking in press freedom is both absurd and divorced from reality. Is Mr Shanmugam man enough to allow International organisations to conduct a referendum or a survey to verify just how true his allegation is?

He questions how people can be unempowered in a modern, open economy. China is a good example. It’s economy is not only open but also one that is very rapidly modernising as well. Yet, the people of China remain firmly gripped by communism. So his question is really quite silly given the living example that clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible.

Mr Shanmugam implies that it is not possible for a modern, successful, wired and internationally connected city like Singapore to be a repressive state where people’s thoughts are controlled. But thought control happens even in modern and prosperous Japan. Since the end of World War 2, generations of Japanese have been brought up to believe that the Nanking massacre never happened and that the Japanese were the victims rather than the aggressors of the war. So too in Singapore, students have been receiving an education slanted towards the vitures of the government. This mind setting process throughout their formative years hardens quite often into stone for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, many old folks in Singapore are either uneducated or cannot read English. They are not connected to the Internet but are dependent instead on Chinese or malay or Indian news supplied by virtually state owned newspapers. So despite Singapore being wired internationally, there is a significant proportion of us who aren’t.

Mr Shanmugam states that the government demands the right of reply but that right of reply is not extended to the people. So in that sense, it is true that the media favours the government but not the man on the street.

Mr Shanmugan also says that critics of government policies should avoid personal attacks or that which is untrue. But it was precisely on the 11th Oct 2009 that Minister Mah Bow Tan personally attacked some Singaporeans over application claims. Furthermore, the allegations made by Minister Mah weren’t entirely true either. Is this how things work in Singapore? The govt has the right to make personal attacks and to say things which may only be half true while the people are refrained from doing so?

Mr Shanmugan brushes off Singapore’s low ranking by Reporters Without Borders by implying that since Singapore’s social order is much better than those of Guinea, Kenya, Congo or Venezuela, Singapore’s press freedom must necessarily be better. That is not necessarily true. The law and order in China is much better than Guinea, Kenya, Congo or Venezuela. Ye we all know that China is a communist state that imposes strict controls on the press and what it publishes. So Mr Shanmugam’s argument is simply nonsense. You can have very strict press controls with reasonably good law and order. In this case, the same agent that is enforcing strict law and order is also the one enforcing strict press controls.

So if Mr Shanmugam wishes to question the objectivity of the rankings, it needs to come up with more objective arguments than merely equating law and order with press control.

Am I missing something or what?
THIS is news!
One must wonder what the world's press think of Singapore!!

Law Minister Mr K. Shanmugam said in a speech in New York that Singapore's low -ranking for press freedom is absurd.
C'mon....133rd out of 175 countries is good. It could have been worse, all things considered, don't you think?

He went on to say.."Our approach on press reporting is simple: The press can criticize us, our policies. We do not seek to condemn that."

Er..helloo..first..where is there press freedom in Singapore?
Second, WHEN..ever did we EVER read of the Straits Times EVER criticising the government?
Which ST cronie would even consider writing such a piece let alone have the guts to show it to his Editor who in turn will do the only thing..and bin it.
And what then will become of the hapless ST reporter?
What of his CPF, his home, his job and his life ....all down the tube in one fell swoop.

C'mon, pull the other leg!!
When oh when...will our government and the media stop insulting our intelligence!!

The Chinese have a saying that goes something like this: 'When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others!'
----------------------------------------
2009 The Singapore Model – Where from; Where to?
Filed under Opinion (which the Straits Times does not have)

Is the Singapore Model a “Mud Buddha Crossing the River”? (Chinese idiom: ?????-???? Mud buddha crossing the river, can hardly save oneself). Does the Singapore model have any residual study value?

Singapore’s lap-dog media has routinely lauded the PAP government’s brilliant capability.
Among them is a report on 30th Nov 2008 with very typical wording: “Ever since China’s reform and opening up, many leaders have visited Singapore and also learnt from Singapore’s numerous effective methods. Moreover, in recent years many officials, academics and journalists have expressed deep interest in the PAP and Singapore’s political model.”
Clearly, the PAP and their supporters both think that the Singapore model is feasible, and can become a reference study for other developing nations.

However, Western academics have been doubtful of the feasibility of the Singapore model for many years. The 2008 Nobel economics prize recipient Paul Krugman wrote an economic commentary in 1994 disputing the so-called Asian economic miracle, and thought that Singapore’s economic growth benefited from the increase in foreign investments and not via gains in economic productivity.
Similarly, American political academic Samuel P. Huntington had always doubted that Singapore’s political system can persist in the post-Lee Kuan Yew era.

Is the new Singapore model proceeding towards a “eating, drinking, whoring and gambling” and “don’t care black money or yellow money as long as can make money” model?
Will Singapore degrade into a “laugh at the poor but not at the whore” kind of pragmatic society?

Today, ravaged by the financial thunderstorm, under the climate of a decelerating world economy, the Singapore model is a Mud Buddha in the water. The residual value of the Singapore model is to act as a negative educational example: one-party-rule, one-person-party is not beneficial to the long term development of a society.

The post-Lee Kuan Yew era has already begun.
Singapore must proceed towards political openness; moulding a society where a hundred flowers can bloom is the only feasible direction for Singapore’s transformation.
Hopefully after the Mud Buddha disintegrates, out of the muddy puddle will emerge an untainted and fresh new lotus blossom.

@Jason Tay : you ask..as per 7390....WHY??
The answer is simple.
The omnipotence of the CPF.
The graveyard of failed businesses gets fuller by the day.
The penalty and punishment for failure in Singapore is very severe.
Check out the insolvency notices in the press.

Its all very well for Cassandra Chew to say that good ideas inspire her.
Its not her money. Its not her risk.
She goes home evey night, her CPF safely locked into her account.
If an enterprise goes bust or as they say goes pear-shaped....she can say..sorry lah..and move on.
Its just another day at the office for her.
But another bankrupt faces court.

I have a GREAT business idea.

How about....drums rolling....selling T-shirts with prints which say -

I BUILT SINGAPORE WITH MY BARE HANDS


LITERALLY


100% PROUD TO BE BANGLADESHI

or

IF YOUR KIDS SPEAK GOOD ENGLISH

MOST LIKELY, I'M THEIR MAID


with 40% of our population comprised mainly of construction workers, and maids, these t-shirts will sell like pancakes!!!