It's obvious that the Singaporean media has a clear bias towards one party, It Which Must Not Be Named.  I don't think the newspapers are exactly a propaganda machine, as most bloggers claim -- opposition views do come up, albeit in a less frequent and more shallow manner.  Once in awhile alternative opinions are offered.  But though the censorship and bias is subtle, it is also apparent.  Now, our journalists are educated, articulate, intelligent people, and we can only assume that the editors are too.  So why is this bias coming through?

I do know by virtue of association some people who work for the Straits Times, either as journalists or in high-level executive positions.  The problem is convincing any of them to speak up, for fear of retaliation from the person who commands the payroll.  Former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan is the current chairman of Singapore Press Holdings, which publishes the Straits Times, and owns a 40% stake in MediaCorp, who broadcasts television news and publishes Today.  That is pretty formidable to journalists, and understandably so.  Straits Times journalists are pretty damn well-paid, and this naturally makes it all the more difficult for them to take a step that would jeopardize their careers or the food they're able to bring to the table.  This means two things; first of all, no one is going to step up and commit to what's been going on in the press, because that's putting their head on the chopping block.  Secondly, even if I hear things -- and I do -- that give me insight into how things work, everything I say will only be hearsay, because I don't have the right to put other people in that kind of uncomfortable and threatening situation by telling the world who said what.

Let me just hypothetically say that the journalists largely exercise self-censorship.  When they do not, they hypothetically face the dismembering and disfiguration of their articles.  This is because the editors are hypothetically afraid of reproach from the higher-ups.  Hypothetically, they justify it to themselves by saying that 'every newspaper must take a stand', and that no newspaper is free from bias.  Hypothetically, once in awhile when editors step out of line, they may receive a stern reprimand.  But I don't think that there is any active persecution of journalists.  I don't think there is anyone telling them what to write and how.  I don't even think there are consciously expressed instructions of what is acceptable and what isn't.  I think it's more of an unspoken understanding.  That's curious about Singaporeans -- a law here, a law there, and they shrink back into their shells.  Are we really under so much pressure? Do we do it to ourselves, and have we ourselves to blame?

The white elephant T-shirt incident, where RGS girls sold T-shirts with the white elephant on them in a form of mild political protest, was extremely illuminating.  The police issued warnings to them -- but on whose instructions? I don't think the head of the ISD woke up one morning, read about it and went 'tell those girls we will lock them up if they continue to sell those T-shirts'.  I think it was more like the police chief thinking, oh no, will I be in trouble if I let this carry on? Is my job at stake? Hence the ridiculous action taken of clamping down on the kids.

We're a society who lives in a self-bounded prison of our own fears.  I've always felt that the most important part to freedom is realizing that we are free.  What holds us in, what stops us from realizing it, are all arbitrary constructs that very often have little potential to really harm us.  Yes, we are judicious.  Yes, we are wary.  Yes, we are cautious.  But it doesn't mean that we should resort to paranoia, or assumption that everyone who speaks out will be persecuted.  I have a friend who says her family will be voting for the PAP because her relatives, father included, are in prominent positions in society.  Here's a curious thing -- not a single person I've talked to believes that the vote is secret.  I'm the only person who thinks it is.  Maybe I'm naiive, or maybe I'm right: that the PAP, being such a legalistic party who prides itself on non-corruption, wouldn't put itself at risk by doing that.  That the PAP is arrogant enough to feel that they can get by without doing that (and they can).  What gives them this license? Ourselves, our fears, our active imaginations, our assumptions, our fetters.

On other news: I heard today from an again unnamed source that more news will be revealed on the Gomez issue, and we're edging closer to a police investigation.  That the PAP is unveiling its strategy in stages and we're only in an intermediate phase.  Hmm.  I have to go for class now, but I'll leave you with that thought.