Cherian George was a journalist working for the Straits Times. This interview was conducted in Singapore. Chong Kee's original article did not provide any dates as to when the interview was conducted, just that it was done in September.

SInterCom: How long have you been a Straits Times (ST) journalist?

Cherian George: I have been at ST for 5 years.

�

What are you covering now in ST?

I have been covering politics for the last four and a half year or so. I recently moved to money desk, covering business and economics. I am also covering media.

�

Are you happy in your job?

It is the kind of job that you'll stay in only if you have the passion for it, which you may have discovered long before you started working as in my case; I wanted to be a journalist when I was fourteen. You may also develop a love for it after you 'stumble' into the job. In general, most people wouldn't stay too long unless they liked it. It is very draining.

�

Nowadays, we have, on the one hand, increasing number of readers who are complaining about the lack of critical analysis in the Singapore press and on the other hand, we have many noted journalists who are reiterating the ideal of a pro-establishment, asian press. What are your personal view on this debate?

This is a very interesting question. On the one hand, there is a desire for an active, independent press, and on the other hand, there is what is seen a defence of the status quo by the journalists themselves.

Let's assume I'm addressing university students and people who are exposed to freer forms of communications. What would I say to them? In defence of the Straits Times: for a change, read the ST instead of judging it based on stereotypes. I consider myself a critic of ST, doing so openly and possibly embarrass my editor if it is necessary. Over the years, I have realized that a lot of 'stick' that has been given to the ST is not really warranted; it is often made by people who have not read the paper in the first place. Up to 80% of the criticisms I have heard of the ST have gone along the lines of 'why haven't the ST said this or why haven't the ST reflected this opinion?'. These charges are often factually incorrect because the ST has actually reported it or has reflected that shade of opinion etc. That is sad when readers don't actually see what is there and a lot of diversity of opinion is there. I take the point that many readers wish that in addition to the facts being provided or the diversity of opinion provided would like the ST to take a stand, to take a stand in a similar way to how the great newspapers of the world take a stand which is distinct from that of the government and to make sure that the pages not only include alternative views but also champion issues. I think that is what a lot of people are getting at; they want the ST to be more openly different from the government stand. The bad news is that that is not going to happen. The ST is an establishment paper and it will continue to be the case. Those who want alternative views to be expressed in a stronger fashion must turn to alternative media. Don't expect the ST to stray from the pro-establishment position.

However, don't assume that pro-establishment equals a mere mouthpiece of the government. I don't think that has ever been the case and I don't think that is the case now. If it were the case, journalist wouldn't be getting into so much trouble constantly. Usually not in view of the readers, but we do get into trouble. We do take risks for our stories and we do get rapped for it pretty often. It happens because the ST continues to believe that it is not serving any purpose to be a government bulletin, a government mouth-piece. It does need to reflect something broader. It needs to reflect public opinion as well as government opinion. I think we do that within limits, but we do that most of the time. Again, it may be difficult for Singaporeans to appreciate this, especially those students overseas. I know I found it difficult when I was overseas. I think what makes it difficult to appreciate is that in order to understand the ST role in society society and its political stand, first of all, you have to understand the political structure in Singapore. Really, the question that needs to be ask is: where on the political spectrum does the ST lie? The spectrum is from rabidly pro-government to the rabidly anti-government. Where does it lie in the spectrum between the reactionary conservative Singaporeans and the radical revolutionary Singapore as it were? That is the question that you have to answer not only for political reasons but also for commercial reasons. Because being a national paper, you have to make sure that you're in the centre, middle of the road centrist paper. I think that's what we are. We are a conservative paper by liberal standards, but as the government constantly berates us for, we are also a very liberal paper by their standards. So we are in the middle. It is difficult for me to appreciate that when I was a student overseas because, from my perspective, what I wanted to believe was that there was a public opinion in Singapore that was similar to my opinion, which is basically left of centre or more liberal. When you are in Singapore, and you cover politics and see the system up close from day to day, you realize that this is a dream. Singapore is a highly conservative society. Those who expouse the more liberal views, which I continue to believe are completely valid, are not reflective of the majority in Singapore. And as a national paper that for political and commerical reasons, we must respect the majority in Singapore. The ST cannot be the kind of liberal paper that the minority want it to be, including the journalists who happen to belong to the minority of liberals. That is the problem that we face.

�

Could you give some examples of stories that have found disfavour with the government?

Take the single-motherhood issue. That was openly debated. The ST ran what my colleagues and me still think an innocuous story saying that a very small minority of Singapore women who are choosing a single motherhood as a lifestyle choice. The reaction from the government was very hard. They said that the ST was expousing liberal 'Murthy Brown' kind of values and threatening the conservative bedrock of Singapore society, tearing the moral fabric etc. It might seem quite comical from the perspective of the detached observer. But being in the ST, it was a serious matter to get the reaction, to be accused of not having our own moral fibre, to be accused of being more spokesman for foreign and western liberal values. We have not only our loyalty questioned, we have our professional judgement questioned. That is over a story which we don't even think is political at all.

�

It seem that there is a principle here that reports are never just purely merely informative, but always have a social function. Do you accept that; that newspaper reporting, in and of itself, is never neutral?

Every journalist in the world must accept to mainstream definitions of what journalism is, to accept that this job is to inform, educate and perhaps even to entertain. Contrary to the labels thrown about by the government or the editors, I don't believe that western journalists don't accept the educational role, nor do I accept that the Singapore journalists don't accept the information role. It is a question of where the balance lies. This different priorities are emphasized differently in different countries in different contexts, providing a social message, providing information that doesn't just inform but helps to produce certain desirable outcomes. That is strongly present within the western journalistic tradition as well. It is how you do it and what the priorities are. The priorities differ in this way; in the liberal democratic tradition, there's an assumption that the free market of ideas and information, and the quality and value of each piece of information doesn't have to be scrutinzed so closely because everything will sort itself out eventually. In the Singapore context, the assumption is different in that each piece of information must have its educational value; it is not enough to justify an article by saying that it is merely news or true. It is not enough license to say that a piece of information is factually correct. It is also demanded of us that it provides some sort of educational value or at least it doesn't undermine certain principles. The ST and all Singapore papers take on an educational role that is greater than that taken on by most government papers in the world.

�

S: But papers like the Guardian and the Times in the UK do take on an educational role, but each paper seem to have taken to state their own position very clearly, either positioning as pro-labour or pro-conservative.

C: I think that is a very narrow way of looking at what I mean by educational role. That is really about partisanship. What I meant by 'educational role' is quite different. Take for example, American papers; they all support different political groups, republican or democrats. But point out one major American newspaper that doesn't have respect for the American constitution, that does not consider its mission to educate the masses to support the constitution. I have not seen an American newspaper that does not consider it a legitimate role to educate the public about the need to uphold the constitution and certain key principles. Point out to me one American newspaper that does not have a pro-American policy.

Of course, we don't jump up and down and say that these papers are biased because of the impression they give that they are highly competitive. They give the impression because they each support different political stance. But that is at a very superficial level and at a much deeper level, they are all very strongly pro-American and pro-constitution. I think you could say the same of the British papers. It is no different here. Any national newspaper of whatever country, is the same.

Here, the complication arises because unlike other mature democracies where there is a very clear line between the nation and the state and the political party. All this collapses in Singapore. We cannot even conceive of Singapore without the PAP, and the PAP without Lee Kuan Yew. So, very easily, a pro- Singapore policy becomes a pro-PAP policy. But conceptually, I don't really see the distinction. Basically, all successful big newspapers are where they are because they have identified what makes the country tick and what is of fundamental interest to the country and they supported that interest.

�

It is not so much their perceived difference in political alignment, but rather in the amount of analysis in their reporting aparting from stating the accepted positions in the various camps. My personal criticism of ST would be that the reporting of any policies would usually stop short of any sort of critical analysis of future impact and side effects etc.

�

I would say that the quality of our coverage is a slightly different issue. In terms of our positioning within our society, I see not much difference between ST and other major newspapers in the world. Of course there are differences. But these differences are due to the structure of Singapore politics. They are not due to ST per se. I think the biggest mistake that the critics of the ST makes is to pick on ST as an easy target for their contempt and their scorn, and not going beyond that to ask why was it the way it was. Because if they had ask why it was that way, they will have to answer that it is that way largely because they have continued to vote in a government that stands for certain things, one of which is an openly stated agenda and transparent portfolio that it does not believe in a free press. It believes in a pro-PAP press essentially. Criticize the press system by all means but criticize it as a small subset of a larger critic of Singapore politics.

The quality of our coverage is another issue. Even if we were to solve our political problems, our coverage will still be quite superficial and unsatisfactory.

�

Is there political pressure stopping ST from continuing to do critical analysis of policies?

�

There are political pressures at all levels, from cartoons to jokes to serious analysis to news stories. Take cartooning for example. I think you would have noticed in Singapore, an emerging cartooning tradition that involves very bitting caricatures and serious lampooning of politicians. This happens in every country - not just in the west but even in the east. We see political cartooning that really takes the mickey out of politicians. A bit of logic will tell you that if you don't find that in Singapore, it must have something to do with the political situation in Singapore and not because of some reason that Singapore journalists and cartoonists somehow don't see anything funny in the politicians. There's political pressure which has been internalized among our editors so that it doesn't seem like political pressure anymore. The editors themselves believe that part of Singapore's success is due to the traditional high regard and respect that politicians are accorded and that helps the politicians to do their job better, doesn't erode concensus and doesn't discourage potential politicians from entering politics. The editors agree now that the ST should not run cruel caricatures or mocking cartoons of our political leaders.

�

What about serious analysis?

�

Of course, at one level, there are topics that we just wouldn't touch. It affects our choice of stories to pursue, whether as news stories or analysis. This comes back to my point about imagined omissions. A lot of the topics that are actually worth writing about have been written about. Normally what our readers are protesting against is that after the analysis, the bottomline of the article differs from their preferred bottomline. If you think about it, it is a bit of intellectual intolerance on the part of the reader. You can't expect the newspaper to agree with you and only you. The ST has to be all things to all men. There is no way that you can please everyone at the same time. Readers do underestimate the degree to which a lot of our opinions do actually ring a chord. It is not as if the ST is a lone voice in the wilderness.

As to how political pressure makes us reign back our analysis, I don't think it does very seriously. In fact, there is a lot of scope for analysis. I think the government is more comfortable with alternative points of view raised through rational, analytical reasoning to impassioned appeals. I can't really recall any piece I wanted to do that is worth doing in Singapore that I have got to hold back on. Do you think there are any subjects that need to be dissected the way that we haven't?

�

One example could the ECP charging for usage; there was a lapse of more than one month between the announcement and the one letter that was published in the Forum page about the diversion of jams to other roads.

�

I think during the week that it was announced, there probably was a reaction story where we interview readers about their reaction to the announcement and what they planned to do.

�

But was there analysis on the impact of the scheme?

�

I'm glad you brought this up. For highly complex subjects that needs to be studied in some detail, the main handicap is not political pressure on the press, nor is it laziness or extraordinary stupidity of journalists, it is mainly the lack of alternative sources of information that hinders our work. If you look at the best newspapers around the world, you'll find superior coverage of complex issues. For example, if by any chance, an American or a British city starts a electronic road pricing system, firstly, you will have great pictures of riots, and more than that, the papers will carry very high quality analytical articles analysing the policies and probably giving a totally different stance to that of the government. If you examine the articles closely, you will find either one of two things; the article was either written by a non-journalist but by a specialist in lobby group or university academic specializing in land transportation or op-ed contributed by a specialist. Or it was written by a journalist interviewing a specialist.

Journalists by their very nature around the world are generalists. There is no way to ask me as someone covering politics etc to come out with a reasoned critique next week if there is an announcement tomorrow about a policy that has taken a team of top civil servants from Oxbridge and Ivy league colleges years of research to come out with it. I have to rely on a team of experts around me. The problem is that the supply of experts in Singapore is simply not there. If they are there, they simply don't talk. In many cases the experts are not there at all. That is partly because Singapore is small and there are only two universities. There is a limit to how much specialization there is. We don't have specialized institutes studying different problems. The other possible reason is that they may have been included in the government committees. So naturally they won't talk because they are an insider. Many academics are in that position. Thirdly, they may be independent but they are too scared to talk. Basically, the number of people that you can rely on to answer your calls and write a piece for you can be counted with the fingers on one hand.

�

Do you see this situation improving?

�

Yes, it is already improving. This is where the improvement will come from in the Singapore press system. Of course, the government is slowly becoming more open and the press is becoming more intelligent and independent. Really, the most significant change will come from the growth of the civil society. We are going to have more individuals and groups interested in, knowledgeable about specific issues, and when these issues become political, they will be out there forming public debate. You already see this to a certain extent. You see it in the work of our feminist groups, in a way you wouldn't see five years ago. You can count on the fact now that if the government is introducing a scheme that is unfair to women, you can see the women lobby challenging it in a thorough and reasonable way and the expertise shows. They have given life to the paper in a certain sense. You see a similar thing happening within the environmental lobby as well. They have also helped to improve debate. Again, another source of independent expert information. You are beginning to see the consumer lobby, CASE, becoming a bit more active. But this is nowhere near mature democracies. I think that the universities have a big role to play. How can journalists improve on coverage if they are not backed by that kind of intellectual resource? That is something I feel very strongly about; that too often, our critics expect us to do too many things, forgetting that we are mere journalists and journalists around the world do not see themselves either as experts or activists. These are jobs for other people. Specialists and experts are to be found in universities. Activists are to be found in lobby groups. The job of a journalist is to connect everyone; to take the government, experts, activist and the public and get the dialogue going. It is so one sided in Singapore. Journalists are out there putting their names on articles and people are turning to us and saying; 'Why aren't you doing this?', 'Why aren't you criticising policies?', 'Why aren't you increasing the level of criticism of this policy?' etc. That is not where we should be looking. We should be looking elsewhere in a civil society.

�

What do you think of the government's policy of billing Singapore as a media hub? How will that change the production and consumption of news? How would you like to see journalism develop within this scenario?

�

The media hub plan involves making Singapore the regional base for a variety of media enterprises ranging from publishing to broadcasting to electronic media. It is largely an economic and business plan. Nowhere to my knowledge has the government said that it wants to turn Singapore into a media hub in order to increase the information and diversity of information available to Singaporeans. It is just to milk international media companies for the money they will bring to Singapore. The fact that they may actually improve Singaporean lives by giving us a better media is incidental. If anything, the argument is reversed; we'll bring them in, but the ill effects of having all these sources are controlled. So it is seen as a negative thing to be checked rather than a positive thing. Given that that is the reason behind it, I don't think one should expect too much in terms of improving the media scene here from the point of the consumer. But it certainly will and already has improved entertainment options. The high end-user has seen a lot of changes and will continue to do so in terms of specialized business information, scientific and technological information. The access has definitely increased.

How will it improve news? Indirectly, it will help local journalists be more plugged into different sources of information. It will make the whole business a lot more competitive. Even if the ST has a monopoly in terms of English language morning market, excluding Business Times, it cannot behave like a monopoly because we face competition for reader's time from radio and television etc. That's the print journalist's greatest fear; that the reader find it more convenient to find information in other ways. So we do have to be sharper, to pay a lot more to reader's criticisms rather than assume that they've got to read the ST because they've got nothing better to do.

I think readers and newsmakers need to realize that a newspaper is a living and breathing thing; it is not a tape recorder or a consumer product that a R and D department can hole itself up, design and market. So much of the quality of the newspaper depends on the readers of the newspaper. So much of it is what they make of it. The journalist is just one of the three legs that is supporting the newspaper. If the readers and the newsmakers want better newspaper, they've got to get more actively involved in it.

I want to comment on the above interview

Back to Interviews