Reflections on Press Freedom in Singapore

Freedom House (FH)’s 2011 report on Freedom of the Press’s methodology explains its criterion used for rating the degree of press freedom within countries from 2010 to 2011 (Freedom House 2011). Through this ranking, FH promotes press freedom. FH collects information from key actors in the legal, political and economic environment to draw conclusions. Researchers develop moderated conclusion through multi-layered analysis of data collected and cross-references of information across regions and years. Major shifts are scrutinized to remove any biases.

FH assumes that press freedom is a basic right and implies that there exist two polarities of press freedom: complete freedom and complete restriction. FH predominantly focuses on how actors may individually promote or restrict press freedom, failing to addressing how they may collaborate instead. With negative consequences implied for a restricted press, it is surprising that the model was not further elaborated, especially in the context of Asian countries such as Singapore.

In the report, Singapore was given the ranking of “Not Free”. It heavily criticized how Singapore’s political and legal actors acted to restrict the press during 2010. Being a grassroots activist in Singapore, I have had many discussions with senior activists regarding the supposed lack of freedom of speech, with many citing the reverse of FH’s negative view on press restrictions. Many have cited how the restrictions have benefitted the nation. Hence, one questions the validity of FH’s models, especially the model of the completely restricted press in Singapore’s situation.

Thus, this paper focuses on how legal and political actors might interact in promoting a restricted press effectively based on the model of a completely restricted press, with Singapore as the key example. For young political activists in Singapore, the insights will aid them in forming their own opinions regarding press freedom in Singapore and understanding Singapore better.

Key actors in the legal environment include the judiciary while those in the political environment include those wielding political might. In Singapore, one cannot discuss the judiciary without the political players as the two are interlinked. FH’s method of analyzing their individual actions creates a limited view of the situation.

For any country, the legal and political sector intersects in the area of governance. In order to be perceived as accountable, one method is to control the press. This has been effectively carried out in Singapore through the