Finally, the facts…

My ex-boss has written a tell-all book. I read it yesterday evening and closed the book with mixed feelings. Cheong Yip Seng was the man who brought me into journalism, and to this day, I have always considered him the top newsman in Singapore. Not by virtue of his position as editor-in-chief of the Singapore Press Holdings English and Malay language newspapers division, but as a consummate professional. That is, if politics didn’t get in the way.
I would ring him at home after office-hours when I find difficulty angling a story or was unclear about how to proceed with the reporting or writing. My colleagues were aghast that I would bother Cheong, as we all called him. But a short conversation answering a few sharp questions he posed would always set me right. I would hang up and start banging away at the keyboard. He missed news reporting and editing; that was clear to me. One weekend many moons ago when I was helming weekend coverage of the sinking of navy ship, RSS Courageous, he actually called me to ask if I needed him to come in to help. He was the only editor who offered to do so – and he was my top boss. I told him how much space I was giving to the story and he told me this: “Let it rip! Open more pages!’’ I was stunned. Anyway I doubled the coverage.
Cheong is the only journalist to have survived the bruising media environment and to retire gracefully. He did so by navigating the political environment skilfully. And because those who worked with him trusted that he would still do his utmost to ensure we practised good journalism, albeit within the OB markers. Of course, younger journalists wanted wider fairways and chafed when we thought them to narrow. Cheong would do his best to persuade us to his point of view, especially at his famous coffeebreak editors’ meetings. Sometimes we agreed with him, sometimes we did not. Sometimes we wished he would simply order us to toe his line. After all, he was editor-in-chief. But he never laid down the law. Always, in the end, we did as he wanted. He allowed feedback and dissent to surface and, in my case, I would do what he wanted because I appreciated his frankness and his earnest wish to get us over to his point of view. Also, I knew that Cheong was usually right. Butt heads with the G over one incident and risk the fairways becoming so narrow that we couldn’t do very much?
Cheong’s book, OB Markers, is remarkable for the revelations that senior editors had thought should be closely guarded secrets. The phone calls from ministers, slap on the wrists, face-to-face meetings were something that we do not talk about in public. Now here is Cheong telling all. It is a factual account and I myself was party to some of the discussions which took place. I wonder how the reading public will view the book. Here are some scenarios:
a) Ahah! I knew it!
Patrick Daniel, Cheong’s successor, had wondered if this would be the reaction. Will the book only confirm a perception/misperception that the ST is a “docile’’ press, one veteran had asked. Cheong replied that there wouldn’t have been so many run-ins if the ST was docile. Truth to tell, there have been occasions when I thought the ST reactions to G’s overtures (that’s the mildest term I can use) could be more vigorous. But you know something? If you are not in the business and not privy to some information, it is easier to shoot from the hip. I have always tried to take the view that Cheong was thinking for the long-term, hoping that time and technology and the unstoppable trend towards political openness would allow journalists to better practise their craft. Actually, journalists do have a lot of room to do good journalism which does not touch on the politics of the day. Over the years, there was less “interference’’ over non-political stories. On these stories, we “went’’ with the newspoint as well as with Cheong’s three principles firmly in mind – accuracy, accuracy, accuracy.
b) Wow! The G really doesn’t trust the media
That’s true. Even to this day. The catchphrase civil servants threw at journalists when the reporting does not go their way is: You have an agenda. My usual response would be: “Where got so much time to come up with an agenda? What’s the agenda anyway? Bring down the G?’’ It’s laughable. Most times, the accusation comes from thin-skinned civil servants and politicians who want only favourable stories that put them in a good light. On several occasions, I have had to face newsmakers who do not “like’’ my questions, considering them too aggressive or do not “like’’ my writing because it was too racy. The flip side happens as well. They also “like’’ some of my stuff, which almost makes me wonder if they thought I was their PR machinery….I try to comfort myself when we get hit at by both the People’s Action Party and the opposition – if we are equally disliked, we must be doing something right!
c) The media people are really cowards….
Then there will be those who think the media should have “fought’’ back. That we should report “everything’’ and let the people decide how to view the articles. After all, as Cheong himself said, it is not likely that the Internal Security Act would be invoked against the media or that its publishing licence would not be renewed. True enough, but the G’s hold over the media is far more sophisticated. You should read Cherian George’s Freedom from the Press for indications. Editors have come and gone. But more importantly is what these people who advocate a “fight’’ really want? Too often, they are the first people who will say “don’t quote me’’ when asked to put their views in print. They expect others to lead while they watch on the sidelines. I always say “I am not going to be martyr for you’’ and will just do the best journalism I can. In any case, I will say that I don’t believe in full freedom of the press. On bilateral relations, for example, I will be guided by the G. When you do not have full possession of the facts, you put your country at risk by running uninformed accounts. I am not about to be responsible for Malaysia turning off the water supply!
d) The media here has such a tough job…
The thing about journalism is that we do not write about the difficulties of the craft. We just tell you about the information we have, not about how we got it or the hoops we have to go through, the telephone calls we have to field, the late night changes. It’s all part and parcel of reporting and writing. Cheong’s book gives a good insight into this. Sometimes the job is so tough that good people leave. Too narrow a fairway, too controlled an environment, too many considerations before even the writing starts, too many missed dinners PLUS the constant heckling that journalists have to endure, now tuned louder because of the Internet. I have on too many occasions had to console younger journalists upset at the jibes they receive – from both the G and the vociferous, nameless netizens – even as they try to do the best job they can under trying circumstances. I tell them to keep doing their job and trust that their bosses will take the flak and not deviate from ethical journalistic principles. As a senior editor, I try to convince them to “trust’’ us. That we do not roll over all the time. That we hold firm against the tide. But even I find it tough. Which was why I quit.
I am now waiting for public reaction to the book. Which scenario will pan out? Cheong said that if it resulted in some re-calibration of G-media relations, it would have done some good. Maybe it will realise that too controlling a hand will simply drive thinking people away from journalism. Maybe it will realise that this control, however subtle, puts ST’s credibility at risk especially with a better educated people with better access to information. The G should trust that journalists are not out to undermine Singapore. But it, too, should not undermine their editorial integrity.
Thank you, Cheong, for the book. It must have been tough for you to write it. The wonder is that you got Lee Kuan Yew to endorse it as “worth a read’’! Times, they are a-changing…

Meanderings of a muddled mind

Now…that was a good speech by the PM. So good that I don’t mind being journalists being paralysed by him. We got the works – excerpt, reactions and all. And we will probably get more when he elaborates on the theme in his National Day Rally speech.

So what did he say and what should we do? The PM has set some parameters: getting children to the same starting line, meritocracy to remain, racial harmony reinforced, financial prudence reiterated, more giving back to society. Can’t disagree with that at all. Maybe we should add income inequality reduced, more public engagement and nationalistic sentiments tempered. Because that’s the reason for all this introspection and angst isn’t it? We feel the pressures of being hemmed in by foreigners, rising cost of living and a sense that while we give feedback, is anyone listening?

My guess is that meritocracy is alive and well, although we should watch the rise of “patronage” – people getting to where they are because of their parents and who they know. Multi-racialism is alive and well too – strangely, I think this is being bolstered by the presence of so many foreigners….so as Singaporeans, we close ranks regardless of race. As for financial prudence….we tend to leave that to the G, with its CPF and Medisave and what have you. So while the G might be financially prudent (Brompton bikes aside), I am not sure as a people, WE are.

Minister Heng Swee Keat is supposed to look at approaches and policies. This must be after we have decided what sort of Singapore we want to have? Then those new/reformed ministries will get to work. Actually, before we get to that, my question is: what sort of SINGAPOREAN do we want to be?

For some time now, I have been thinking about the values we hold and whether we should use a different prism. I prefer to think of a person in terms of being principled, pragmatic and passionate. Over the years, I wonder if we have got this balance right. It looks like pragmatism trumps every time – over principle and passion. And that pragmatism is seen in very economic terms – having more money, paying out less – we have a culture of accumulation of assets.

I see more passion now, especially among young people. They are interested in more than just making money (I hope it’s NOT because they depend on their parents’ money and have never been in economic need). That passion comes across in the causes they espouse, strongly held beliefs – and a determination to have their own way. Sometimes I find passion over-powering. Especially if taken to extremes. It leads to an inability to take in different points of view.

Being principled is I think the most neglected value of all. It involves the concept of integrity, dignity and honour. The only times we use the word “honour” is when we address the court..or when a cheque is not honoured. But honour is an important word – you honour your promises, you say what you mean and mean what you say. There are no two ways about it. We can temper passion and, in my view, pragmatism should always give way to principle.

I don’t know if I am making sense. Being principled is easier if you have options, like chucking your job because you don’t like the way the company is heading or you think it calls on you to be deceitful and dishonest. Likewise, being passionate is easier if you have something/someone to lean on – I can be a full-time tree hugger or work with dogs and cats if I don’t have to work for a good living.

Without options, we become pragmatic. We do what WORKS for us, never mind if we don’t like it or think its right. In fact, I think we take pride in being a pragmatic people. I am not sure we should be that proud…

Anyway, the above are just meanderings. Forgive my muddled mind please.

Solemnity at breakfast

I was at breakfast this morning in my Phnom Penh hotel with two Vietnamese and a Myanmarese. One V lady is from the state television, the other from a newspaper and the M represents a company that has both web and print editions. They were among 11 other journalists – from Indonesia, the Philippines, Timor Leste – who have been brought together by a German programme to train Asean journalists covering the Asean ministerial meeting that was taking place.

I like talking to journalists from the region. I like asking about how their media operates. The V told me very matter-of-factly that whatever she or her state TV colleagues put on air is what the G sanctions. Other media (and there were two others in the team) had to follow suit. So V opens up economically, but its still tight control over what the media says. Especially on reports on its claims over the South China Sea. “The officials never give interviews,” she said not at all perturbed. There was no point running after them to get the latest facts on the meeting of Asean foreign ministers. Nor was there any point asking for views from the officials or any other Vietnamese either. They won’t talk, and even if they do, their words would never see light of day. Put a foot wrong and you risk a fine. Jail? In the past, yes, they said.

She continued stirring her coffee. Her compatriot made a face. “Yes, yes,” she said. “I have to see what she says and then I have to copy. And then I have to see how to make it different.” Then she asks me for names of people she can interview…and then she says whatever she writes might not even be published. She eats her toast.

The night before, they had hesitated joining the rest of the team who wanted to stake out the Peace Palace, where the meetings were going to be. The Indons and the Filippinos wanted to get to their Foreign Minister. The V though said there was no use them going with them and would rather stay with me to pick up pointers on how to report and write.

I didn’t know what to say at first. You’re a journalist, you go where the action is. Even if nobody talks to you, go and see what’s happening. Record. Listen. Watch. Take notes.

I was glad they changed their minds. Except that the pace of reporting seemed beyond them. One V caught the group bus on time, the second V had to run after it as it was moving away,the third got left behind and took a tuk tuk to catch up with the rest.

But the three V ladies are really full of spunk. Never mind their difficulties with the English language, they did their level best to make themselves understood to the rest of the team. And they had plenty of opinions, on superpower rivalry, on China’s tactics vis-a-vis Vietnam, on a possible arms race in the region and the pace of Asean economic integration. Slow, slow, said one. I look at them and I think, what clever minds they have. May they have the room to grow, exercise their instincts and not be disheartened by the state of media play.

The M is a gem. His English is pass-able but he makes himself understood. I have always found that language really is not a barrier for the intelligent. Somehow a basic grasp is enough for them to convey concepts. He says the country is opening up both economically and politically. The fear was the pace of change. The media? It’s relaxed on paper but not so. Even if legal tools controlling the media are not available or have been disbanded, the informal tools can be just as tough…He finishes his porridge and remarks that his G had just arrested 20 student activists.

Talk turned to The Lady. Enviously, they noted that the western press was so fulsome in their praise of her. But both the V and M media reported her by-election victory matter-of-factly. As they were told to do. Well, too much praise for the Lady might not be good for her either, I responded lamely.

Solemn stuff.

The journalists are trying to adjust, balancing state control and freedom to report if not the truth, then the facts. I try to help them along by showing some things that were still do-able – within the bounds of journalistic integrity as well as the constraints they face.

Of course, they ask me about the media in Singapore. I tell about the newspaper laws – they nodded sagely. I tell them that it is natural that any G of the day would want to be able to control or influence the press. Even the Gs of the glorified Western press. They nodded again. I tell them that the Singapore media has a lot more room to report, compared to 20,30 years ago. I live in an open country, with so many foreigners and foreign business. It won’t look good for the G to do anything terrible to the media. And no, I have not been jailed. They nodded in unison.

Yep, solemn stuff.