PRISMS CAN FOCUS, but only if you have more than one

4 Feb 1995

        In "Democracy is the final victim of a cynical and adversarial 
press" (STWE, 14 Jan), Mr Koo Tsai Kee argues that journalists and 
writers who prescribe alternative "political agendas constantly" must 
enter the political arena; otherwise they,  unlike politicians, "cannot be 
held responsible for the consequences of their words". He also implies 
that a "free" press will not necessarily ensure that the truth is told.
        Mr Koo unfortunately leaves the key term "political agenda" 
ambiguous. This is non-trivial, for if "agenda" means "action plan", 
then it is unclear how commentary, even the occasional acerbic article, 
could possibly be construed as prescribing a political manifesto.
        It is far from being the case that writers are unaccountable. As 
Mr Christopher Lingle and Professor Bilveer Singh recently found out 
to their chagrin, writers can, and have been, called upon to defend the 
veracity of their work. Free speech does not entail the right to publish 
libelous material; and victims of slander always have recourse to legal 
action. This being a sufficient check, there is no justification for prior 
restraint on the press without a "clear and present danger" to Singapore.
        Mr Koo believes that Singapore journalism rates higher than 
American journalism. This may indeed be the case; in the absence of 
data, it remains speculative. Mr Koo paints a stark dichotomy of a 
"cynical and adversarial" press and (presumably) a "responsible" one. 
This is misleading; there are many positions between the polar 
opposites of sycophancy and contempt. Now that we have emerged 
from the unsettled Independence years, it is arguable that the Singapore 
press ought to move further towards balanced scepticism. In this 
respect, it is encouraging to note that Singapore journalists have also 
recognised the importance of a high degree of credibility.
        Mr Koo disparages the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights 
of the United States Constitution, calling it "ignominiously born" and, 
rather wittily,  a "right to be wrong". The shades of James Madison and 
Thomas Jefferson are summoned as witnesses. However, examples 
plucked from history are, as always, problematic.
        For example, it is surely salient that, as President, Jefferson 
often felt that he was the target of seditious libel by the press. His 
objectivity regarding the press is therefore suspect, particularly while he 
was President, as he was at the time he voiced the opinion quoted by 
Mr Koo. To Jefferson's great credit, he chose to prosecute his attackers 
in court instead of trying to impose prior restraint. 
        It is odd that Mr Koo, as a Member of Parliament, derides 
Madison's "U-Turn", and cites it as proof of the "ignominious" birth of 
the First Amendment. What is the first duty of a parliamentarian, if not 
to reflect the wishes of his constituents? Here I differ from Edmund 
Burke, who reportedly once told his ward: "I could hardly lead you, if I 
have to serve you too" (quoted in Koo Tsai Kee, "PAP Govt is popular, 
but is not populist, Straits Times, 6 Sep 94). But, surely, it is far better 
to be inconsistent, and right, than to be consistent, but wrong. James 
Madison was right.
        Was Jefferson fooled by his faith in the press as purveyors of 
truth? Maybe so, but Madison knew precisely what a free press 
entailed:

"That this liberty [of the press] is often carried to excess; that it has 
sometimes degenerated into licentiousness, is seen and lamented, but 
the remedy has not yet been discovered. Perhaps it is an evil 
inseparable from the good with which it is allied; perhaps it is a shoot 
which cannot be stripped from the stalk without wounding vitally the 
plant from which it is torn." 

Madison's faith was justified during the Nixon Administration. Would 
the Watergate scandal or the Pentagon Papers have been published if 
there had not been a free press in America? And if Madison, for all his 
ingenuity and intellect, failed to solve the dilemma of ensuring lasting 
good government  without a free press, what then of us with our "lesser 
minds"?
        The point is not to sing a paean to the American media, which, 
admittedly, has committed many excesses of liberty. However, a 
"cynical and adversarial" American media is as much a caricature as a 
"sycophantic" Straits Times. Like any caricature, it ignores the positive 
aspects: investigative journalism; persistent probing; and asking tough 
questions, etc. I believe the Singapore press can adopt those positive 
aspects and resist the temptation to slide into gutter journalism.
        Finally, to extend Mr Koo's optical metaphor: a single prism 
distorts, true; but multiple prisms create the possibility of enhancing the 
image and sharpening our view. There is a lesson here, and it is not just 
a science lesson.

END
 _David M. O'Brien, Constitutional Law and Politics, Vol.2, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (1991), 343

 _Annals of Congress: First Congress, 1798-1791, Vol. 1 (1834), 453, quoted in O'Brien, 341, emphasis in original.