Can we trust our journalists to tell the truth?
-
February 6, 2010 - Temasek Review
By Anak Kancil
There has been a recent spate of books on Singapore history. This is nothing unusual and should be welcomed. The trouble however, is that these books are written and published at great expense with one purpose in mind, which is to set down one singular interpretation of Singapore history, its heroes and its villains. These books are intended purely to flood out all other accounts or interpretation of a history.
This is nothing new. Older readers will remember that the first group of people who were given permission or agreed to undertake this sort of work were foreign journalists working in Singapore. For several reasons, many of them have taken on a passion to defend Singapore against its detractors, even though they are only temporary sojourners who happened to pass through for one reason or another.
The first of this was Alex Josey, who wrote voluminous books and hagiographies of the founders of modern Singapore. The irony is that after a lifetime of yeoman service, he found himself unable to continue living in Singapore because the health costs became so huge that he could not afford to keep up with his treatment, and no one stepped forward to ensure that his last years was spent with some reasonable comfort. He therefore had to return to his original homeland, England, to pass his last days.
After him, other leading foreign journalists took on the task to continue the efforts of presenting Singapore to Singaporeans and to the world. Two of them John Drysdale and Dennis Bloodworth were given extensive access to Singapore’s intelligence records and other resources. They were also given access to personal interviews with Singapore leaders. Singapore scholars and researchers were not given similar privileges. Of course, these foreign journalists also make some effort to try to contact some opposition figures, so that they could give some semblance of objectivity to the story they would eventually write.
After the departure of these foreign journalists, local senior journalists found that they could now step into their shoes to produce a more credible account of Singapore’s history. Thus we have senior man in the Singapore journalist world, who got together to write The Man and his Ideas, and more recently, The Man in White.
Both of these books were written and produced at great effort and expense with extensive access to local sources. They are large books, each one longer and bigger than the predecessor. Each one of these books was given extensive publicity. In addition, copious chunks of abstracts from these books were also serialized and published in the local press. All these books are well known and helped to promote the continuing saga of the Singapore story, more or less on the same theme and along the same lines. Undoubtedly, these books also gave much publicity to enhance the career of these senior journalists in their subsequent careers.
Now we are told that more books along these lines are being prepared in the pipeline. The latest of this was the two volume biography of S. Rajaratnam which is again written by a local journalist and a fellow at a research institute. We are told that other books by scholars are being prepared to give a more comprehensive account of other leaders in the founding of modern Singapore.
All these books have been and will be widely promoted and distributed throughout Singapore, including local institutions, schools and even the supermarkets. The hope is that a new generation of educated Singaporeans will develop the reading habit of going through these volumes to understand the full story of how Singapore grew and developed as a nation and emerged from abject poverty to its current status, as a first world country.
The question however, is that whether these publicity drive and effort at great expense can lead the people of Singapore to accept and trust the account of the story which is being written and popularized. Or will the people learn to be more cynical and begin to ask whether they can learn to trust these journalists and these scholars.
In a free society, independent journalists and scholars will invariably emerge to write stories and accounts they honestly believe. If journalists and scholars only write to confirm one single version of the Singapore story, how can they expect the general public to accept their credibility, and to trust their intellectual objectivity and integrity? Surely the integrity of our journalists and our scholars are much more important than the need to tell one single version of what has always been a contested story. Many different accounts should be allowed to surface and to be published and given the same access publicity, so that the people can decide in their wisdom the full complexity of the Singapore Story.
-
So are these journalists playing propaganda?
-
The have to glorify the past as their present and future is in the shadow. Another sign of failing.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
The have to glorify the past as their present and future is in the shadow. Another sign of failing.
Nothing for them to boast about the present. One can never forever depend on the past, one must move on to contribute positively for survivial. -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
Nothing for them to boast about the present. One can never forever depend on the past, one must move on to contribute positively for survivial.History is only for reference. Re-categorised as not news.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
History is only for reference. Re-categorised as not news.
I believe the history in Sg can be manipulated, too. hahaha
-
Originally posted by Fantagf:
I believe the history in Sg can be manipulated, too. hahahaSometimes don't need to lie, half truth is good enough.
-
Originally posted by Chew Bakar:
Sometimes don't need to lie, half truth is good enough.
ya, just play with words will do.
-
You know there's no freedom of press of Singapore the same with personal freedom. Singapore is not counted among free countries and a culture of FEAR rule over common Singaporeans. Fear of lky and his lackeys which are nothing but mere thugs. The interesting thing is many Singaporean develop a weird sympathy for their persecutors and those who intimidate them which is known as the Stockholm syndrome. It is often based on the victim's attempts to relate to their captor or gain the kidnapper's sympathy.
People often make justification to their stance even when they are irrational and made up. How those reasons are making sense don't really matter. What matters is that they've come up with one and they will even go into fooling themselves into believing their excuses. Because they simply couldn't live with the alternative and couldn't stand the pressure of not conforming to what these tyrants and thugs expected of them.
-
and that what fear makes to people....dwarfing them to be a much lesser mortal....but of course they all have come up with mental justifications in their head as to why they are the greater lesser mortal they've become.
It's the same reason why Singaporeans could not be expected to achieve something great among the world's citizen even many Singaporeans come to think that having more than enough money is greatness itself which is not surprising because they've dwarfed their existence and dare not to FLY!
All these expense for the benefits of their captor and tormentors acting savior lky and his legion of thugs.
And for your enlightment Indonesia is heading to more or less the same way as sad Singapore too judging by the latest events here. All it takes is a president who doesn't have a lot of confidence and in awe with himself. How long will this condition last is for everyone to see. To give you an idea of how smart these people are, a figure from the demokarat party here commented that politics is power and power is horse like in cars. And as horses have their eyes covered so that they could only see straight ahead so it must be like that too in the coalition. And no it didn't come off as a joke. The guy was dead serious. -
Well said, Miracles.
Many sinkies simply find a common excuses for their contentment by quoting that at least there is no war, no protest in Sg. Think these are stupid excuses.
-
no,no, no,no
-
Originally posted by Jiani:
no,no, no,no
Okay we know you disagree but on which part all? Then post your differing view then
No,no,no,no don't tell very much.
You know what I believe these lky and his thugs could run over someone they've targeted on the street and get away with it...or to put it bluntly these thugs or animals as the way they admit it could chase after you with a parang and attack you repeatedly while the other people(onlookers) would just look on then go about their own business. That's how it is with sick Singapore. Too timid society.