Beliefs
Over the years, taking into account his personal experiences and observations, Lee has adopted the view that it is better to have a government that can bring economic progress than to have one that is about championing the rights of people.
As he said in a 1962 speech to civil servants, "Men's minds turn to revolution when things are getting worse, not when things are getting better. That is fundamental" (Lee, 1962). He had further acknowledged that he is a liberal, albeit in the economic sense (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
This was something that he believes was the best way forward, in light of the city state’s need to survive without its Malay hinterland paramount, apart from in the need to improving the lives of people.
As Lee himself said, “A country must first have economic development, then democracy may follow…democracy has not led to development because the governments did not establish the stability and discipline necessary for development” (Lee, 1992). To Lee, this meant fusing free enterprise with the democratic socialist philosophy of equal opportunities for economic growth.
This prioritisation in governance is also due to Lee's belief that Orientals think differently. They pride economic development more so than the Western values of democractic freedoms and free speech. This means having effective and efficient government which can provide a living for its people, instead of a liberal, democratic government which champions the rights of the people (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
As Lee himself said at the Asahi Create 21 forum in 1992, “As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective, and efficient in protecting its people, and allowing opportunities for all to advance themselves in a stable and orderly society, where they can live a good life and raise their children to do better than themselves.” (Lee, 1992).
As a result, the city state's pursuit of growth and progress has led to the role of the press being placed on a lower pedestal from which to lend its support to acheive the goal of higher standards of living for Singaporeans.
Personal Experiences
Lee had, during the run-up to independence in 1965, remarked that his early experience in Singapore and Malaya had shaped his views about the press as being the defender of truth and freedom of speech. To him, “the freedom of the press was the freedom of its owners to advance their personal and class interests” (Lee, 2000).
In the 1950s and 60s, he saw the press as out of step with the PAP's successful nationalist movement. The Chinese-, Malay- and Indian-language media were slow to adjust to the realities of a multi-racial society. They championed the narrow interests of their respective ethnic communities and focused on the politics of their immigrant readers' former homelands rather than on Singapore as a new nation.
Some sections of the English press were also against the PAP in the 1950s when it was an opposition party then, preferring to back the British colonial authority (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998). One of these was The Straits Times, which was highly critical of the PAP. The newspaper relocated its headquarters to Kuala Lumpur in 1959 and returned to Singapore only in 1972.
Apart from his brush with the press then, Lee also saw the city-state as having a history of vulnerability to social conflicts. He cited the 1950 Maria Hertogh case and the 1964 race riots as demonstrating the fault lines that made an irresponsible press untenable for Singapore.
Another factor that countributed to Lee's stance on the press were the various lawsuits brought against foreign commentators which were tried in the courts over the years. In most cases, these journalists and columnists had questioned the Singapore system and Lee's integrity, which he had to intervene in, before their views would creep in and take root.
He explained the reason for his for no-nonsense approach in an interview with the BBC in 1995, when asked about a particular case where a foreign commentator had likened his leadership to that of a dynasty.
"If I had not taken him to court and asked him to prove what he said and offered myuself as a plaintiff and a witness for him to throw his accusation to my face, I would not be able to look at my voters, my electorate, in the face…How do you prove one side right and the other side wrong by writing letters to each other? You are English. You know the fundamental rule of providing the truth. You meet face to face. You confront fact with fiction, truth with lies and the judge or the jury decides…
If you don't challenge it, there are any number of crazy, idiotic, vicious people who are out to get me down, who're going to spread it and say, 'Read this, he's done nothing about it. It must be true'. But I've done something about it and the story can't take off. I have sued 15 or 20 times over the last 30-odd years and they come back with the same story that I have been plundering the place, I've enriched myself, and if I had not stopped it each time on its tracks, I would not have survived or enjoyed the reputation that I think I do enjoy, that I'm prepared to stand up and be scrutinised" (Lee, 1995).
Such a line of reasoning, has in part, to do with Lee's observations on the nature of Asian societies, which he believes comprise the important elements of respect and authority to lead.
Observations
Lee initially started out as a social democrat. However, his observations of the failure of developing countries in implementing democratic systems changed his mindset. He felt that certain prerequisties needed to foster democracy were not in place in these societies. These included a strong government, responsible opposition parties, and a mature electorate present in many Western democractic countries.
These were a given in those societies, but he had seen many countries fail in trying to walk the same path, citing countries such as Burma (Myanmar), Ceylon, India, and Pakistan. They had no national cohesion then when they tried to implement democracy (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
Hence, he was not welcoming of the idea that this system could take root fully in Singapore as it was made up of different racial and religious communities brought together by the British, but having loyalties to their homeland in India, China, or the Malay Archipelago.
Coupled with this was Lee's observations on the nature of Asian societies. He believes that leaders who govern in Asian societies are expected to lead. They are given respect and deference in lieu of their role in providing for the people.
But they would be unable to lead if they are corrupt, have their ability called into question, or are unable to assert their authority on the citizenry (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998). He cited the Tiananmen Square incident in June 1989 as an example. Students protested against the government for reforms and moved to criticising government leaders, including President Deng Xiaoping. This, Lee felt, was the final straw before military action moved in, which eventually did so.
Lee also cited another example in 1968 when he was in the US, watching a local television network broadcast of Richard Nixon being elected as the 37th president of the US and announcing his cabinet line-up. This was followed by a panel of experts commenting on the proceedings, to which Lee felt was simply one of show business, consisting of harsh criticisms and personal attacks.
This was thought through by Lee, who saw the media as having such power to skillfully and disdainfully criticse and reduce the value of the political leadership which had been elected by the electorate when they seemingly had no mandate or were in a position of authority (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
Comments
Lee's views, towards local journalists at least, could be measured through a speech made at a local election rally at Fullerton Square on August 29, 1972, which was seven years after the city state gained its independence (Seow, 1998).
"I read reports of all the bright students going into engineering, the sciences, medicine, economics, and so on. The not-so-bright go to political science and sociology. When they cannot get a good job, they go on to journalism" (Seow, 1998).
As a guest-of-honour of the Singapore Press Club on November 15, 1972, Lee spoke about the work of journalists, comparing it with other professions such as lawyers and doctors.
"What amazes me is that this powerful instrument does not require of its practitioners special professional training nor codes of conduct to govern them. You can be a journalist without understanding the impact on the minds of millions when you write smut and circulate it through millions of copies to literate and semi-literate people…
You can be a powerful influence for good or for bad by just having a good television personality. But special qualifications acceptance of a code of ethics are not demanded" (Lee, Nov 15 1972 Singapore Press club speech).
In the same speech, Lee added that the media has a duty to educate Singaporeans about the country and the world, to build up a cohesive society, and to sell without resorting to sensationalism.
After 1971, Lee took a shift in stance towards political reporting in the media, stating that foreign media must not interfere in the city-state's national affairs. Local media could critique, but should not be used by others to damage the 'primacy of purpose of an elected government'. This should be done by a political party and not a newspaper (Chew, K. C., 1987). This perhaps explains the view which he made earlier in Helsinki in the same year.
Views on the role of the press
Lee's view of the role of the local press is simple and clear, a point which he made at the 20th Assembly of the International Press Institute in 1971, where the role of the media was discussed.
“We want the mass media to reinforce, not to undermine, the cultural values and social attitudes being inculcated in our schools and universities. The mass media can create a mood in which people become keen to aquire the knowlege, skills and disciplines of advanced countries. Without these, we can never hope to raise the standards of living of our people.” (Lee, 1971).
This entails the values of multiracialism, religious tolerance and respect for minority rights in order to work towards economic progress. Lee, who made the speech against the background of Singapore opening up to foreign investments from the West, said that this was necessary as there would be Westerners coming to live and work in the city state. They would reinforce through personal contact the impact of the Western mass media, including 'the more erratic behaviour' of demonstrations and violence prone youths. The local press has to take the role of educating Singaporeans to not imitate such acts (Lee, 1971).
Hence, the local press model should be used primarily for nation building and social responsibility purposes. It was also due to a different cultural context in the city state which has its roots in an immigrant Asian population, said Lee.
"Remember, when we started, we were not even one society, never mind a nation. We were several different separate societies brought together under the British, an accident of history. Our loyalties and roots were in different parts of China, India and the Malay Archipelago." (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
Lee also saw this as an apt role for the media due to his belief that the press does not have the authority to question what the government does, at least in the Singapore context.
In his view, journalists, columnists and commentators are unelected and so do not bear any responsibility to the people. Thus, they do not have the role or the right to challenge the governing of the country by its leaders or what is envisioned for the state by the government (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
Lee had formed this belief during the early stages of his political career. It was reinforced over the years through his personal experiences and observations, and is perhaps a reason for his comments towards journalists in the 1970s (Seow, 1998).
This is a stark contrast to the Western press model, which is represented by the American press. It acts as a fierce critic and watchdog of the government operating with the concept of the marketplace of free ideas, where the good is sorted out from the bad, and the former rewarded.
During the early post-independence years, Lee argued that the government could not adopt a laissez-faire attitude, or a policy of non-intervention in the press because Singapore was a fledging state. He had seen how the press could be manipulated by foreign powers who wanted to have a hand in local developments and to stir up the feelings of people towards their culture, religion, and language. He made his point while giving a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1988 (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
"Singapore's domestic debate is a matter for Singaporeans. We allow American journalists in Singapore in order to report Singapore to their fellow countrymen. We allow their papers to sell in Singapore so that we can know what foreigners are reading about us. But we cannot allow them to assume a role in Singapore that the American media play in America, that of invigilator, adversary, and inquisitor of the administration. If allowed to do so, they will radically change the nature of Singapore society, and I doubt if our social glue is strong enough to withstand such treatment" (Lee, 1988).
Despite Singapore being a developed country today, Lee believes that the concept of the free market of ideas and the press acting as the fourth estate as a watchdog on the government, cannot be applied to Singapore. This was made clear in the same speech.
"From British times, the Singapore press was never the fourth estate. And in Singapore's experience, because of our volatile racial and religious mix, the American concept of the 'marketplace of ideas', instead of producing harmonious enlightenment, has time and again led to riots and bloodshed." (Lee, 1988).
Lee added that the American press model was not something that can be a one size fits all approach. Instead, countries' media grow and evolve from the different contexts which they are in to fulfill different environments (April 14, 1988). He cited the BBC world service as the more appropriate model for the local media. This meant reporting events impartially, but interpreting it from its own perspective, and not necessarily that of Western liberalism.
Perhaps one of the stronger rationale for Lee's approach to handling the media would be what was also happening similarly in countries who champion freedom of the press, none more so than the US.
"No foreign television station claims the right to telecast its programmes in Singapore. Indeed America's Federal Communications Commission regulations bar foreigners from owning more than 25 per cent of a TV or radio station. In other words, only Americans can control a business which influences public opinion in America. Thus before Rupert Murdoch purchased the independent TV stations of the Metromedia group in 1985, he first took up US citizenship. If a mightly nation of 240 million finds such safeguards necessary, what about a plastic, uniformed society like Singapore?
As for the US print media, in 1976 the the South African Ministry of Information was negotiating covertly to buy the Washington Star to soft-sell apartheid. When the story broke, a strom broke out in Washington and the purchase fell through. Americans were outraged at this South African attempt to soft-sell apartheid in America's marketplace of ideas. But apartheid is patently abhorrent. If the marketplace of ideas automatically separates the good from the bad, and rewards the good, why this outrage at an attempt which is doomed to fail? When America reacts in this way, is it surprising that Singapore feels it cannot take chances with the offshore press taking sides on Singapore's domestic debate?" (Lee, 1988).
There have been critics of Lee's approach, those who believe that the Western press model is the most appropriate. Lee, however, countered that a free press would overstep itself due to its eagerness to fault and check its leaders as well as boosting advertising sales by stirring up controversies, causing a debasing of the very institutions that these liberals championed.
Ultimately, in the end, Lee contends that it is the country's leaders who would bear the responsibility of ensuring that its people are well taken care and provided for. Hence, the decision to elect the government means that in turn, leaders have to repay the trust and faith by doing whatever it takes to meet their electorate's expectations. And this includes dealing with a press that is seen to be meddling in national affairs or local politics.
These beliefs have influenced Lee in being firm and countering any opponent who would seek to undermine him when he is in charge. He had remarked before that he would not hesitate to run a bulldozer to clear the way if he found an obstacle in the way of a policy or goal that needed to be acheived (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998). Perhaps this tough stance is no clearer than when he spelt it out in a speech to civil servants back in 1962. “Authority has got to be exercised. And when authority is not backed by position, prestige or usage, then it has to defend actively against challenge”. (Lee, 1962).
For Lee, Singapore will navigate its own way despite all the criticisms. For those who have labelled him as an "authoritarian, "dictator" and even "boring", his reply would be what he said as he took to the stand in court over a defamation suit against the International Herald Tribune (Fernandez, Han, and Tan, 1998).
"If I were a Saddam Hussein, then I would be a pariah which, unfortunately for them, I am not. I have access to any of the leaders I would like to meet in Europe, in Asia and indeed in American. And I think we should have the courage to withstand their assaults but only because we are open to scrutiny and willw ithstand microscopic examination. We shall proceed, and in the end, I believe we will be able to justify ourselves to the world" (Lee, 1995).
No comments:
Post a Comment