Venerable Venereal Straits Times

I haven't wrote in a while. But today's headlines on the by-elections in Hougang in the venerable The Straits Times (Singapore) was sufficiently venereal to motivate me to awake from my slumber. 

Compared to another friend, who almost got a stroke reading the same news, my reaction is perhaps muted.

At least three websites, whose writers have, to some extent, informed insights into the workings of the Singapore Press Holdings, have addressed the coverage of The Straits Times. If you would like to understand my reasons for taking issue with The Straits Times, you can read this link, this link and this link.

What I want to write about is why I think this is happening and why it may be the return of an old normal that readers of The Straits Times should get used to.

If the general elections coverage of The Straits Times was the beginning of a new dawn for a newspaper under a valiant editor wanting to remain relevant to a readership disenfranchised with its less than objective coverage, the Hougang by-elections coverage of The Straits Times is the rehashing of an old story by an editor fearless in driving a blunt wedge through its readership, even if it means polarising a populace frustrated by a ruling party showing signs of complacency.

In February this year, The Straits Times replaced its former editor with the honourable Warren Fernandez. Warren believes he is a true son of independent Singapore. He has a written a tome about the founding father of the People's Action Party. He has gained immensely from the meritocratic system espoused by the PAP. He has waxed lyrical about the PAP's success in managing Singapore in columns aplenty, which I once followed as a young student. Read his book, if you would like a flavour of these insights.

It is therefore not surprising for someone like Warren to think that to be loyal to Singapore is to be loyal to the PAP in pushing the agenda of the PAP. I accept he owes a great deal to the PAP system for what he is today. After all, at least until he was invited back to The Straits Times, he may well have been working in a multi-national oil conglomerate bringing home twice his current annual salary in bonuses alone.

As such, I admire his deep-seated desire, willingness and ability to want to give back to our motherland.But there is a fine line between blind faith and good faith. The coverage today of The Straits Times was a display of the former.

In my view, there was something more important that was clearly more newsworthy and deserved the front page coverage. This, the solidarity of Singaporeans from all walks of life in that pelting rain in a cause they believed in.

I once said his book "represents Warren Fernandez's version of Singapore. If, as a reader, you do not like it, ignore it. Alternatively, you can choose to be engaged and offer your own version in return."

Likewise, The Straits Times is fast becoming Warren Fernandez's version of Singapore. Ignore it or embrace it.

Thinking about whether this is the kind of your newspaper you want to subscribe to in Singapore is allowed.


Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Singapore Parliament replies on its accessibility

This was a response I got from the Clerk of Parliament in relation to certain queries I made about parliamentary proceedings in Singapore.

Since then, I note MediaCorp now makes parliamentary recordings available to its viewers much quicker than before. I am not sure why should only MediaCorp be given the complete video footages. I wonder if any other media has applied to Parliament for such recordings, and how Parliament has responded to such request.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

REPLY FROM PARLIAMENT RECEIVED ON 31 OCTOBER 2011

The press has full access to parliamentary proceedings and speeches made in the House. For TV and online news coverage, MediaCorp also has the complete video footages of each sitting. As the extent of press coverage of speeches made by Members is entirely a media decision, Parliament does not interfere with the coverage nor impose any restrictions.

We currently publish the Singapore Parliament Reports containing the verbatim speeches of Members on LawNet, and on our website within a week after the end of proceedings.

We regularly review the feasibility of other avenues to make parliamentary proceedings more accessible to the public and will take your feedback, including their cost considerations, into our review. While video streaming of speeches is certainly something that is on the radar, the cost issues are not small and extend into tens of thousands a month for such a service.

We value your suggestions and wish to thank you for your interest in our parliamentary proceedings.

Ms Ng Sheau Jiuan
Clerk of Parliament

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

REACH needs new chief

ARTICLE FIRST PUBLISHED BY PUBLICHOUSE.SG ON 24 OCTOBER 2011

A few years ago, there was a rebranding of the government’s Feedback Unit. Led by a new chief then, the Honourable Member of Parliament Amy Khor, it became Reach.

Reach plays an important role as an arm of the Executive. In its own words, its role is “to feel the pulse of the ground and keep the government apprised of key issues of concern amongst Singaporeans”.

This year, through its different leaders, the government conceded that it had failed to comprehend the concerns of the people, and it had misread the pulse of the ground on key policies.

If nothing else, this showed that Reach had failed miserably in that mandate. The only reach that Reach achieved in its restructuring was its sheer lack of reach.

Reading the speech of its chief to support a motion to thank the President for opening Parliament, one can perhaps understand why.

Khor remarked, “Online engagement will increasingly become more important with the growing number of digital citizens. It is simply impossible to engage on all sites. The government could engage on sites which allow for reasoned and constructive debate and gain traction. Netizens themselves who desire rational discourse should support such sites or else start them. They should not be afraid of being labelled 'pro government.'"

In essence, Khor seems stuck in a time-warp. She is merely reiterating a past strategy of government that has failed: we deal with online media, on our own terms, with persons who will bravely wear the badge “pro government”.

In doing so, Khor has only shown why she is a better politician reaching out to her exclusive die-hard white-wearing fans rather than a feedback chief desiring to be inclusive, regardless of how critical the views may be of government. She seems to have no misgivings polarising the digital citizenry by labelling them as irrational and destructive. Her sentiments perhaps reflect that Khor may have passed her ‘use by’ date, and why one would be hard-pressed to justify her relevance as the face of Reach.

Contrast Khor’s remarks with the more enlightened and practical approach highlighted by her colleague, the Honourable Member of Parliament Baey Yam Keng.

Baey shared, “All communication media are neutral and social media is no exception. It is just another milestone in the evolution of media landscape. It is up to us to adapt and leverage on them.”

He then suggested, “The government does not have to rebut every single rumour or set the record straight for every misrepresentation made, even on the platforms it chooses to engage. Sometimes, it is better to leave the discussion open and not jump into defence too quickly or even at all. Firstly, it is not possible. Secondly, the time, money and effort expended would not be justified. Thirdly, the government should also trust in the public’s ability to make logical assessment of the information they encounter online. The government has to accept that it cannot and should not try to have the last word on every debate. Whether we like it or not, civic engagement in cyberspace has to be treated with the same level of respect and care, planned and delivered with the same competence we wish to achieve in our physical domain. Netizens expect their government to engage with finesse, diplomacy and sincerity.”

Baey speaks from the heart. He is a media veteran, in light of his track record as an artiste and communication professional. It is no surprise therefore that his views resonate with many in online media circles, including veteran journalists like Cherian George.

Being the natural charmer that he is, he has the potential to reflect the face of a government capable of engaging its citizens ‘with finesse, diplomacy and sincerity’. It is time for Baey to replace Khor as chief of Reach.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this? Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Singapore Theatre Festival 2011

I am a donor to the theatre company, W!ld Rice. I think there are many things that can be said or expressed through theatre about issues of the day, without offending prevailing sensitivities.

W!ld Rice has, in recent years, earned a name for itself in this regard. One of the ways it does so is through its biennial Singapore Theatre Festival, which started in 2006. The Straits Times interviewed me about this development then.

W!ld Rice has been so effective in its work that the National Arts Council wanted to send a negative message to W!ld Rice about this so it snipped the funds it gives W!ld Rice last year. Donors like me wanted to send a message to the National Arts Council so we increased our donations.

Perhaps, the Government now realises that it must provide such space for critical views if it wants to avoid losing more seats in Parliament.

In a sign of changing times last weekend, a sitting Minister decided to address theatre-goers at the festival. He discussed a range of issues with representatives from civil society and opposition parties.

Even the Chairman of the Council of Presidential Advisers made his presence felt by attending the performance immediately before the Minister addressed the festival.

Perhaps, the National Arts Council will now revisit its decision to cut W!ld Rice's access to necessary funds.

Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

ST Sponsored Stories Not News

NOTE SENT TO THE STRAITS TIMES EDITOR ON 1 AUGUST 2011

The Straits Times has spent the last three days promoting its new application for portable devices, which was launched today.

I am not sure how long this will continue but I will not be surprised if you run a story tomorrow to tell readers about the reception of this launch.

As a reader of The Straits Times, I cannot help but wonder if either The Straits Times has run out of stories to tell or, like some in dominant positions, it is trying its best to live in an illusion of its own creation.

It would hardly seem newsworthy since The Straits Times appears to be the only media in the world running such stories about its application and given there are many similar such applications launched on a daily basis.

Whatever the case may be, I request that these stories in praise of The Straits Times by The Straits Times be treated and labelled as "advertorials", which is the case for other sponsored content in your stable of publications.

I would rather The Straits Times focus on improving its content and perception of journalistic standards. For example, several readers have accused The Straits Times of having an editorial stance that disproportionately favours its former boss in its coverage of the presidential elections. There is also a sentiment that The Straits Times has been slow to criticise its former boss. These sentiments also reflect observations underscored by some other presidential candidates.

Of course, I am mindful and appreciative that, unlike some of its foreign counterparts, The Straits Times is not embroiled in controversies involving invasion of privacy, notwithstanding that several in its ranks have once been involved in sensitive intelligence gathering functions in government and this is a key skill inherent in these journalists at least.

In the hope that The Straits Times will continue to grow from strength to strength, I remain your loyal reader.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Where is the money, TOC & TRE?

In the heat of the recent general election, alternative media platforms like The Online Citizen and Temasek Review Emeritus launched their respective fund-raising efforts.

Many Singaporeans dipped into their hard-earned salaries to support such work. Others contributed part of their Grow and Share package to these causes. In doing so, these individuals chose to forgo the 250% tax deduction one would enjoy by giving to government-approved charitable or civil society initiatives.

According to its website, as at mid-July, TRE has raised some US$31,000. On the other hand, less is known about how much exactly TOC has raised. Has TOC also raised a similar amount, if not more?

There are at least two questions such donors should also ask now. Where is all that money going to go? How has it been used so far?

It has been some months since the general election came and went.

Candidates who ran for political office have all filed detailed accounts about how they spent the money they raised. Yet, we have heard very little from such alternative media platforms about their fund-raising efforts and how they are using or intending to use the funds they have raised.

In contrast to TOC, TRE does give a regular update on its website how much it has received. In the past, TRE has also indicated where its funds are going to be utilised.

Apart from one statement touching on this issue more than a month ago and assuring greater transparency, TOC has not disclosed what it has done and what it intends to do with the funds it has raised. However, it is public knowledge that it has organised at least one dinner in honour of a prominent opposition politician following its fund-raising efforts.

Of course, one could argue that there is less to worry about TOC. Following its controversial gazetting as a political association under the Political Donations Act, its operators are registered and its sources of funds are monitored by the Singapore government.

Its representatives, which include outspoken financial practitioner Leong Sze Hian, are also visible. They attend mass events in Singapore and identify themselves as the public face of TOC. There is therefore perhaps less of a need for TOC to be accountable to its donors.

Conversely, almost nothing is known about the operators of the TRE. They carry out their work covertly. Their sources of funds are unregulated. Given how they go about their work, it is more important for them to be accountable to their donors and, to some extent, they have been.

Nevertheless, taking a step back, it is important to ask another question. Should regular donor accountability be something we insist on from such alternative media platforms?

Is it fair to require this from what is largely an initiative driven by volunteers who expose themselves to multiple risks without any expectation of monetary reward?

One could say too much focus on donor accountability could distract them from the work they are carrying out as alternative media.

The best way to judge them is not by their plans but by the work they are doing. After all, people donated to them on the basis of their track record. If they continue to do satisfactory work, they will continue to attract donors. If not, the tap will just stop gushing.

But then again, in the course of their work, TOC and TRE do a lot of finger-pointing, headline-grabbing and table-pounding.

In the course of espousing principles of fairness, transparency and accountability, they seek to assert their perceived authority on a range of issues, regardless of whether it involves a leader like the Prime Minister or a follower like the foreign worker making a living by pursuing the shunned dollar in Singapore.

Why should they therefore not be judged on these same principles of fairness, transparency and accountability?

In this context, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that both TOC and TRE owe a comprehensive explanation to their donors, which should be done regularly.

One can only hope that this will follow soon.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

*Disclosure: The writer is a donor of The Online Citizen.

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

A clarifying tale of two politicians from the legal sector

A former press secretary to a minister in Singapore once told me that it was not the policy of the leadership in power to respond to issues raised in the online or alternative media. I told the dutiful secretary that such thinking would one day cost the leadership, and be a thing of the past.

About ten days ago, Temasek Review Emeritus and news agency Associated Press published articles that, at an event organised by a policy think-tank, my friend, the Honourable Member of Parliament Vikram Nair ‘dismissed’ Singaporean opposition voters ‘nonchalantly’. He is alleged to have remarked, “Don’t focus too much on the 40 percent that didn’t vote for you. We have to remember and keep in mind the interests of the 60 percent that did.”

The story was picked up almost instantaneously on social platforms and it spread like wild-fire. Vikram’s remarks were controversial enough to cause the Honourable Member of Parliament Inderjit Singh to distance himself from Vikram’s remarks days later at another event.

Vikram has now clarified through social platforms that he was inaccurately quoted. Not surprisingly, The Online Citizen - the alternative media that is seen to balance the blunt views of Temasek Review Emeritus - has published Vikram’s reply.

As one of those taken aback by the remarks quoted who chose to give Vikram the benefit of doubt, I can accept his clarification.

However, what I cannot accept is that it took him a good ten days to respond with his position. I also cannot accept that, when he did so, he shared what he recollected rather than what was actually shared. If it was going to take so long to make available a response, he should have made available a transcript of what he said.

Think-tanks like Institute of Policy Studies, which organised the event, are known to make recordings of their events, if not take detailed notes of what happens at such events, for research or archival purposes.

Perhaps, Vikram faced some difficulties in getting hold of such records. Whatever the case is, the clarification appears to have come too late in diffusing the sting in an article positioned as a contemporaneous account of the event.

Compare this to a similar incident that happened at the same event involving another friend of mine, the Honourable Member of Parliament Pritam Singh. Mainstream media quoted Pritam as follows: "It may be a case in future whereby the PAP only wins 36 (seats) and we may have to form a coalition government."

Within a day, Pritam clarified his comments. His swift clarification helped to diffuse the sting in the remarks he was alleged to have made at the event.

It is heartening to know that the dominant leadership’s deliberate disenfranchisement of the alternative media is now a thing of the past but it would appear that the leadership in power has miles to go in its handling of adverse publicity in the alternative media.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Feel free to react below or leave a comment.

Media regulator to Singapore pay TV providers: Consider Al-Jazeera

Some time ago, I had received confidential feedback from certain sources, including employees of pay TV providers, that the government was not supportive of Al-Jazeera English channel being carried in Singapore. I wrote to Singapore's media regulators on this. Their reply setting out the government's position follows below. I will now be engaging my own pay TV provider, Starhub, to provide this channel.

If you wish to catch Al-Jazeera on television in Singapore, contact your pay TV provider, show them this reply stating the government's position, and tell them you want Al-Jazeera in Singapore!

Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav

*****

REPLY FROM DIRECTOR (CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS), MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS, SINGAPORE

Thank you for your email to Minister for the Information, Communications and the Arts.

Pertaining to your feedback that the Al-Jazeera English channel be allowed over our cable television channels, we understand that it was a commercial decision by Al Jazeera to discontinue the channel’s carriage on SingTel’s pay TV service. Al Jazeera itself was reported as saying that “it was a ‘mutual’ decision between Al Jazeera and SingTel for the broadcaster to drop out of the latter's pay TV service. Al Jazeera’s contract with SingTel was coming to an end, and in view of the low number of subscriber households, it saw the need to look into other distribution avenues”. Furthermore, we understand that SingTel also regularly streamlines its content offerings in order to address the demands and requirements of its customers.

The introduction of new pay TV channels and the removal of existing ones are part of the constantly evolving media landscape in Singapore. These are commercial decisions made by the pay TV operators, which periodically review and refine their channel offerings to meet market demands.

We agree that we should have access to a variety of news and information sources. In addition to news on our own free-to-air channels, our pay TV providers currently carry a good number of international news channels.

We would like to thank you for your feedback. We will forward it to the respective pay TV providers for their consideration.

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Bring back Al-Jazeera English on cable

LETTER TO MINISTER FOR INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND THE ARTS ON 23 MAY 2011

Firstly, I wish to congratulate you on your recent appointment as Minister for Information, Communication & the Arts. Your appointment could not have been more timely and I am sure we will see certain changes in the way the desires of viewers, readers and listeners are managed. Insyallah.

Secondly, I write to request that the Al-Jazeera English channel be allowed to be carried over our cable television channels. This channel used to be carried by Singtel Mio TV but the plug was pulled on it last year with insufficient justification.

At least one viewer has suggested, “Perhaps Al Jazeera has rattled the nerves of the ruling elite with a host of programs scrutinizing the socio-economic problems in Singapore, more so than any other news channel (including the venerable BBC World News).”

Singapore is the only country in our immediate neighbourhood that does not have this channel. Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia all carry this channel. Unfortunately, this unavailability of the channel is a damning testament of our commitment to access to current information.

As a person who travels to these countries often, I find the information Al-Jazeera shares insightful. It clearly provides a different perspective to developments in the world. As a premier Middle East channel, it also gives one unprecedented access to the Muslim world. I am sure as the Minister also responsible for Muslim affairs, you of all persons should appreciate the importance and value of such access.

If I want to watch this channel on the television in Singapore, the only way for me to do so is through an Internet connection to my television. This is not hassle-free and the feed is grainy.

I have tried to engage our cable providers about making this channel available, only to be told that the broadcast of this channel was not palatable to your predecessor. If this is true, your predecessor’s position does no justice to the viewing population in Singapore.

Let me give you an example of a recent incident to underscore this. At the press conference to announce his new cabinet line-up, the Prime Minister was asked if Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam had plans to be the next chief of the International Monetary Fund. The Prime Minister denied knowledge of this and laughed it off. Now, if the Prime Minister could watch Al-Jazeera as an ordinary viewer here, he would know that Al-Jazeera had named his deputy as a leading Asian contender for the position.

I hope you will allow our cable providers to bring back Al-Jazeera to Singapore. Viewers in Singapore should not be denied access to this source of information.

Happiness
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

2011 General Election Media Monitoring

Before the General Election, I took issue with The Straits Times about its past elections coverage. The editor of The Straits Times and I have exchanged further correspondence on this and it follows below.

RECEIVED FROM THE STRAITS TIMES EDITOR ON 9 MAY 2011

I delayed replying to you because I thought you should have the benefit of reading The Straits Times' entire coverage of the General Election. Now that it is over, I hope you have changed your mind. If you have not, I think we probably have to agree to disagree on whether we did a professional job in our coverage.

In fact, The Straits Times did very well in terms of sales during the period leading up to Polling day on May 7. We attracted more readers to the paper as a result of our election coverage. As we reported in the paper today, our daily circulation increased by more than 12,000 every day from Nomination day to Polling day. We put out a special noon edition on Sunday, and it was snapped up by readers, all 70,000 copies of it.

I took that as a vote of confidence in the paper, and more specifically of our coverage.

Thank you for being a reader of The Straits Times. I hope you will continue to read us.

RESPONSE FROM ME TO THE STRAITS TIMES EDITOR

Thank you for your reply. I do appreciate it.

I agree your coverage for this general elections was unprecedented, driven by a desire to provide more balanced coverage. This is probably also due to more gracious newsmakers in the dominant political scene (as much as I am given to understand that some of them had reservations or concerns about your coverage).

To qualify my observations further, I should add that I know of several people, who stopped reading The Straits Times during the same period. I am also told that at least one major opposition party consciously refused to entertain media queries, due to the probability of skewed coverage.

Since I was not able to suspend my subscription and the Government encouraged us to donate the Grow and Share package disbursed, I made a donation to MARUAH in support of their media monitoring initiative. The results of this initiative provide much information to reflect about. I hope you will peruse this and, if you find it newsworthy, make this known to your readers. The results are available here.

On a more tongue-in-cheek note, I know that thanks to the headlines '81-6' on Sunday, the 4D numbers 0816 and 8160 were sold out. I think you should ask Singapore Pools to donate part of its collections on Sunday to your School Pocket Money Fund – it will bring more smiles to the kids you help!

Finally, as your reader, I can only hope that your coverage continues to improve and gets more balanced, as time passes.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?
Do leave a comment as it will make a difference.

Replies: Banned JBJ Film

I sent a request to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), Media Development Authority (MDA) and Ngee Ann Polytechnic (NP) to release and screen a banned JBJ film. MICA sent an initial reply and I sent a follow-up.

Further replies came from both MICA and NP. As a matter of public interest, these are made available below after my afterthoughts on this issue. The replies are self-explanatory.

AFTERTHOUGHTS

1. I am now looking forward to the Films Act amendments, which the Prime Minister should be commended for raising.

2. I thank NP for correcting the impression that their film equipment and tapes were confiscated by our censors. In fact, they do not own the film. They also had no equipment confiscated. I only wish NP had provided this information much earlier. It would have reduced hassle and saved both NP and me some time.

3. Nevertheless, it is regretful that NP does not wish to consider making a comprehensive documentary. They did not provide reasons so one can only speculate. Perhaps, their student newspaper may investigate this aspect further.

4. I hope someone will bring this exchange to the attention of the film-makers, who are really in a better position to pursue this matter with the relevant bodies. It is clearly in Singapore's interest to have this film retrieved and preserved for purposes of history.

REPLY FROM MICA ON 6 OCTOBER 2008

I refer to your follow-up queries.

MDA will fund and support film projects based on a careful assessment of their merit and contribution to the Singapore film industry. Pending the amendment of the Films Act, it is premature to speculate on what kind of political documentary will be supported by MDA.

K Bhavani
Press Secretary To Minister and
Director, Corporate Communications Department

FOLLOW-UP WITH MICA ON 6 OCTOBER 2008

Thank you. I look forward to the public consultation on amendments to be made to the Films Act. I request that Secretary Chan exercise his discretion to forward the proposed amendments to the Law Society of Singapore for feedback before they are placed before Parliament.

In the meantime, I shall await the response from Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

REPLY FROM NP ON 8 OCTOBER 2008

I refer to your email to Ms Bhavani which was copied to my Principal.

Thank you for your feedback.

Ngee Ann Polytechnic has no plans to pursue the matter further.

May Goh
Deputy Director
Corporate Communications Office

FOLLOW-UP WITH NP ON 13 OCTOBER 2008

...Having taken 5 days to digest your reply, I do not understand your reply. Which matter are you referring to since the e-mails do raise a number of matters?

For purposes of comprehension, let me set out the matters I raised again here.

With the proposed amendments to the Films Act, I hope:
a. Ngee Ann Polytechnic can request Media Development Authority to return its confiscated film equipment.
b. Ngee Ann Polytechnic can request Media Development Authority to release its tapes.
c. Ngee Ann Polytechnic can arrange for a screening of the film after the tapes are released.
d. Ngee Ann Polytechnic can produce a more comprehensive documentary about the late J B Jeyaratnam.
e. Ngee Ann Polytechnic can arrange for the full stories of the film-makers of Ngee Ann Polytechnic's banned film to be told.

Thank you.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

REPLY FROM NP ON 13 OCTOBER 2008

We have no plans to pursue any of the matters you have listed.

Thank you.

May Goh
Deputy Director
Corporate Communications Office

SECOND FOLLOW-UP WITH NP ON 13 OCTOBER 2008

Since Ngee Ann Polytechnic has no plans to pursue any of the matters listed, please:

a. Allow me to put on record that the confiscated film equipment were bought using funds of the polytechnic. These resources are financed at the end of the day by funds raised through fees paid by students and/or government subsidies funded by ordinary taxpayers. Your plans not to pursue this matter - where the Prime Minister has indicated a green light - does not appear to be in the interests of financial prudence that the public bodies such as yours should be held up to. The irony of the situation is unmissable. Ngee Ann Polytechnic was able to conjure plans and commit resources to break the law. But given the opportunity to uphold its legal rights, it has no plans to pursue a matter permitted by the law. This is an unfortunate reflection of the management of Ngee Ann Polytechnic.

b. Give me your permission to request MDA to release the tapes to Singapore's national archives. It is clearly in the national interest to have these tapes preserved for purposes of history.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

REPLY FROM NP ON 14 OCTOBER 2008

I wish to clarify that the film referred to was not commissioned by the polytechnic. The polytechnic did not 'conjure plans and commit resources' to make the film, nor did we have any film equipment confiscated. Point (b) is moot since the film does not belong to the polytechnic.

As mentioned in my earlier email, we have no plans to pursue any of the matters listed. With this clarification, we will not enter into further correspondence on the subject matter.

Thank you.

May Goh
Deputy Director
Corporate Communications Office

FOLLOW-UP WITH NP ON 14 OCTOBER 2008

...Your response is adequately appreciated.

Please be aware that one source notes:
"Apr 2001: Government officers raided Ngee Ann Polytechnic and confiscated film equipment and tapes after three lecturers had made a documentary about JB Jeyaratnam. The three were told that they could be charged in court if they went ahead with a planned screening of the film at the Singapore International Film Festival. They submitted written apologies for making the film and withdrew it from the Festival."

Having read your final reply, I now wish you had clarified earlier that the polytechnic neither commissioned the film, owns the tapes nor had property confiscated. It would not have led to my negative impression of your organisation, which was motivated by the initial reply from your good office. Had I got the information that you have just provided earlier, I would also have been more than happy to drop this matter.

Taking your lead, I too "will not enter into further correspondence on the subject matter" with you or Principal Chia. I may write to the then Ngee Ann Polytechnic female lecturers - Christina Mok, Mirabelle Ang and Tan Kai Syng - to request them to pursue this matter with the relevant authorities.

Have a great week!

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Engaging the Nay-sayer

Ten years ago, student journalists in the National University of Singapore published uncut an interview with a leader of an opposition party. The publication of the article did not come easily for these students. It involved a lot of negotiation with the then university administrators.

This year, student journalists in the Nanyang Technological University tried to publish a sanitised news report of an opposition party leader's unsolicited visit. It is unfortunate that the students failed to publish the story. This non-publication is also a reflection of the state of mind of the person who made the decision to kill the news report.

Today, in Singapore, we have a team of persons in leadership positions, who were brought up on a culture of fear. To them, when unsure, the natural answer should be no. They have been tamed to simply avoid taking risks, if given a choice.

Former diplomat Vergese Matthews wrote about such persons in his story, Speaking Up For Singapore, in the book, The Little Red Dot, Reflections by Singapore's Diplomats: "I fear that there has been a perceptible deterioration in... the civil service as a whole where this culture of speaking up and/or offering views at variance with those held by the leadership has dissipated...One possible reason is that there has been a national tendency to favour "safe hands" that would not rock the proverbial boat and that had the additional uncanny ability to second-guess what the Ministers were thinking."

Without engaging these persons through confidence building measures, nothing will be achieved. It will require a lot of time and a great deal of patience to get them to trust you. It can be a very frustrating process.

As a result, many choose to simply give in to their demands. Others make a quick exit from the organisations these persons run, so as not to be led by such persons.

I have found it more rewarding to engage these persons and win them over. I have found that, once you have their trust, they do all they can to get you what you want. They will also stick their necks out for you, should you get into trouble.

It was therefore a shame that, instead of continuing to engage their university administrators and exhausting the highest channels of appeal available to them internally, the student journalists chose to bring their battle out into the public sphere.

It has damaged the reputation of their university. It will do little to help them achieve what they want, that is have the news report published in the university publication.

Of course, I am not saying one should not take out one's gloves. There are some battles worth fighting in the open. This just does not appear to be one of them.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

MICA Reply: Banned JBJ Film

Some days ago, I sent a request to the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts (MICA), Media Development Authority (MDA) and Ngee Ann Polytechnic to release and screen a banned JBJ film. This is MICA's response and my follow-up.

REPLY FROM MICA ON 3 OCTOBER 2008

Thank you for your feedback addressed to PS [Permanent Secretary] MICA.

In his National Day Rally speech, the Prime Minister has set the direction for reviewing our current laws on party political films. The Government accepts that our policies must evolve to remain relevant in the current media landscape. It is no longer realistic to disallow all forms of party political films.

In line with this direction, the Films Act is currently being reviewed. The amendments have to be passed by Parliament and the amendments are likely to be tabled early next year.

K Bhavani
Press Secretary To Minister and
Director, Corporate Communications Department

FOLLOW-UP ON 4 OCTOBER 2008

Thank you...

Your reply only addresses one aspect of my query. From your reply, I gather that you are trying to impress upon me that a politician's death does not make a film non-political. Thus, if and when the amendments are passed by Parliament, the banned film about the late J B Jeyaratnam can be released and screened. Correct?

There was one other aspect to my query. Would Ngee Ann Polytechnic and Media Development Authority be willing and able to produce a more comprehensive documentary about the late J B Jeyaratnam?

If Ngee Ann Polytechnic does not wish to undertake this public service, can other film-makers apply for funding from Media Development Authority to make films about the late J B Jeyaratnam? What is the likelihood of MDA approving such a funding request? And how can one increase one's chances of having a funding request for a film about the late J B Jeyaratnam approved?

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Release & Screen Banned JBJ Film

LETTER SENT TO SINGAPORE'S MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS, MEDIA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND NGEE ANN POLYTECHNIC ON 30 SEPTEMBER 2008

This country today mourns the loss of one of its sons, Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam.

In April 2001, under the instructions of its then leadership, officers from Singapore's media regulators raided Ngee Ann Polytechnic and confiscated film equipment and tapes after three lecturers had made a documentary about the late J B Jeyaratnam.

The justification of your team then was that it had violated a prohibition in the Films Act. That prohibition can now no longer stand. I hope, with the passing of J B Jeyaretnam, your officers will now release the film.

I hope Ngee Ann Polytechnic will make the request for the confiscated film equipment and tapes to be released to it.

Three lecturers had been involved in making the film. They offered apologies. They were also reprimanded. One resigned, and the remaing two chose to remain silent. I hope Ngee Ann Polytechnic will now arrange for the full stories of these film-makers to be told.

Similarly, I also hope the Media Development Authority will encourage journalists and other media professionals, who had covered J B Jeyaretnam in his lifetime to talk about their experiences covering him. It is important for these stories to be told uninhibited so that lessons can be learnt to better assess the legacy of J B Jeyaretnam.

Both the Media Development Authority and Ngee Ann Polytechnic should jointly arrange the screening of this film. Both organisations can perhaps also look into collaborating to make a more comprehensive film to honour the legacy of J B Jeyaretnam.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Investigative Journalism & Foreign Workers

Afterthoughts:

1. Some years ago, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong stood up and argued that there is no place for investigative journalism in Singapore.

2. Several have begged to differ. The above Al-Jazeera English video underscores the case of those who disagree with SM Goh.

3. Of course, one has to view this video with a pinch of salt since it features no official response from Singapore.

4. Nevertheless, considering the story was aired over a week ago (according to the Youtube link above), there has been no official reaction from Singapore's Ministry of Manpower to this video too.

5. Usually, the Singapore Government is quick to react to issues that are raised by reputable international media, especially those available in Singapore.

6. Perhaps, there are similar stories that Singapore's own local media will find the courage to pursue. But then again it would not be in Singapore's national interest to have its own local media publicise its less than satisfactory laundry, would it?

7. There are precedents, however. For example, The Straits Times' shaming of National Kidney Foundation's excesses.

8. As a result of this initiative, Singapore now has a more accountable National Kidney Foundation. It has also led to higher standards of corporate governance within the charity landscape as a whole.

9. Thank you, Prashant, for sharing this video with me.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Political Censorship Revisited

Three years ago, I argued that the Government had to rethink its policy on political films in Singapore.

At this year's National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong adopted some of the suggestions made.

I had premised then, "These moves would address the Government's concerns about the negative effect of party political films and its desire "to keep political debate in Singapore serious", while in the long run, also enrich our creative industries and make audiences more media savvy."

I stand by those views.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Encourage Re-Use of Commuter Newspapers

LETTER SENT TO THE STRAITS TIMES ON 18 MARCH 2008

In recent years, there has been an increase in the circulation of commuter newspapers in Singapore.

What happens often at the end of a journey is that a person throws the newspaper in litter bins. Such bins are available easily at train stations or bus interchanges.

This is unfortunate because it encourages irresponsible social behaviour.

Operators of these stations and interchanges should consider providing recycling stands or areas for these newspapers. Others will then be free to pick up these newspapers and further benefit from the information in these publications.

At the end of the day, the newspapers could be sold to recycling companies. In that process, public transport operations will gain an additional revenue stream.

The National Environment Agency and Media Development Authority can facilitate the realisation of this idea as a public-private sector initiative.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

YourFilm.SG: Time To Test, Provoke & Question

Some of my friends are behind this initiative, YourFilm.SG.

I encourage you to participate; if not to win, then to at least put YourFilm.SG's promise of accessible expression to the test.

According to the website, "the theme for this year is YOUTHniquely Singapore, giving youths of any background" - but only those "youths" between 13 and 35 years old - "the opportunity to convey what, in their opinion, makes Singapore unique", and to keep the "competition as accessible to the masses as possible, the organisers will be accepting films captured using any type of video recording device, including mobile phone cameras and digicams".

The website then goes on to say, "all entries will be showcased on to the world once they are approved and uploaded to this website" and there are "great [cash] prizes to be won".

Note, however, that little is said about the approval criteria or even how the winners will be picked. In such a situation, one can only hazard a guess.

It is interesting to also note that the "audience choice" winner will take home the smallest share of the bounty.

If this is a contest to honour expression, it may have been ideal to let the people express their choice and pick all the winners.

To me, to be a youth has always been an opportunity to question and to do the things that one will probably be less comfortable doing as an adult.

It is also a fantastic opportunity to be idealistic or contrarian; to basically test what in common parlance is known as the "out-of-bound" markers.

I hope youths will jump on this opportunity by submitting entries that will question and provoke thought; that will be idealistic or contrarian; and that will test the organisers censorship - oops, "approval" - criteria.

In the spirit of idealism that defines youth, one can only hope that the judges will not differentiate between those "approved" films that pay homage to the laurels of Singapore's political masters and those that are less than politically correct.

Of course, it will be fantastic if a young person whose family really needs the money is rewarded for his pure creative talent rather than the bias of his film.

When I was a college-going youth, my interview with David Marshall could never be published unedited, given the circumstances then.

But after a decade, it happened; it has now not only been published by the Law Society, it's also been featured in a magazine for male professionals, Lexean, and many other online sites too!

And the satisfaction I got from this far surpasses a dollar value that one can ever place on it. Happiness indeed.

With today's technology, doing what I did will take less than decade. So if YourFilm.SG does not "approve" your film, don't worry; there's always YouTube!

Oh yes, if you're one of those "unapproved" film-makers, make sure you leave a link to your film on this blog page!

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

Show Me Your Story First

I have read about at least one instance in Singapore, where a journalist provided a political leader and newsmaker "the final edited version" of an article.

Separately, I have been told of incidents where a newsmaker explicitly requests, "Please send me a copy of your article before it is sent to print."

Depending on who the newsmaker is, a few journalists will agree to such a request.

I am personally against such acts, especially if the request comes from a political leader or a person of some influence.

To me, it is the equivalent of doubting the integrity of the journalist.

It can also lead to an intrusion and censorship of the creative work of the journalist.

In my dealings with various media - local, regional and international - I have often found that a journalist who takes great pride and has a high level of confidence in the creative work he or she produces is more likely to decline the request.

Newsmakers make such requests because they are concerned that what they have shared with a journalist will be misused or misinterpreted.

Many media owners are likewise concerned about this, since this can adversely affect the reliability and reputation of the media.

Hence, one finds editors in the newsroom, who are meant to serve as a check and balance within the media. Editors are expected to bring an objective, sharp and critical eye to the work of the journalist. Editors are often able to do so because they have themselves been journalists with many years of experience.

Editors also have at their disposal corporate counsel who can provide them legal advice on legal issues that may arise from the work of journalists. For example, libel claims. I know from personal experience that editors in Singapore and England tap this legal resource with some frequency.

It is also for this reason newsmakers have at their beck and call publicists, whose role is to help the newsmaker decide when to accept an interview request from the journalist, prepare the newsmaker for the interview, anticipate how a journalist may use the response and to manage the responses provided in a manner that the response will be responsibly used; of course, not always in this order!

Most individual newsmakers for practical reasons cannot afford such luxuries. As such, individual newsmakers should take steps to mitigate the risk of having their responses to the media misconstrued.

Now, asking the journalist to provide a copy of the article before it is published is certainly not the way to go about doing it. Consider yourself very lucky if the journalist is willing and able to do so!

In my experience, I have managed the situation in two ways.

Firstly, I ask the journalist for a right to reply.

More importantly, I ask the journalist to include a link to my blog. This enables me to react quickly and post a reply on the blog, if the published article did not convey my views in a fair manner. I am also able to make my full interview with the journalist available on my blog.

I am aware that some others find it useful to run their responses by their friends, especially those with a keen eye for detail or those with some journalism experience or legal expertise, to ensure that they have phrased the responses appropriately.

I also know of a few persons who, as a matter of principle, stop providing responses to a particular media or journalist, if they feel they have not been treated fairly by the media or journalist.

The lesson here is really simple. Don't disrespect the journalist by asking to see his creative work in advance. Learn instead to better manage the journalist and take steps to mitigate the risks you may face as a result of your dealings with the journalist.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

MICA Reply: Review Films Act To Compensate Film-Makers

This is a reply to a proposal I made some weeks ago.

Happiness,
Dharmendra Yadav

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this?

REPLY FROM PRESS SECRETARY TO MINISTER, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION, COMMUNICATION AND THE ARTS, SINGAPORE, RECEIVED ON 10 MAY 2007

We are an open society with a free flow of ideas and rational discourse on matters of public interest.

Films are banned only in exceptional circumstances when they are inimical to the larger interests of our society.

Consequently, it is not logical to suggest compensating or underwriting the costs of such undesirable productions.

We will continue to review our regulatory framework regularly, taking into consideration the changes in our society resulting from globalisation and new technology.