 |
K Bhavani's reply on July 3rd to Mr. Browns June 30th satirical article "S'poreans are fed, up with progress!" is a setback for the government's call for us to be actively involved in our nation's future and also generates unnecessary implications for our journalists and newspapers.
The reply factually corrected the misperception of issues in the satirical article. However, as the President of the Institute of Public Relations Singapore, K Bhavani must be aware that the tone of the reply is as important as the content.
Even if the intention was not, the perception from the reply is that the government is less willing to receive feedback, especially it they are not positive. We should ideally offer constructive criticism and alternatives for issues raised, but it may be challenging for ordinary citizens, even journalist such as Mr. Brown, who often does not have sufficient information to always do so. This is why we have elected paid representatives with the involvement of the public to come up with solutions.
The reply also asserts that "It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. " Has the role of a journalist or the newspaper been legislated by Parliament? If so, which law(s) supported this statement within the reply issued by K Bhavani?
Article 14 of our Constitution describing the restrictions imposed on our freedom of speech and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act do not appear to explicitly support the statement. Therefore, it is unclear if the reply should have sweepingly defined what journalists or newspapers cannot do, especially when the reply aims to correct factual misinterpretation in an article of a long running satirical series.
The law has always been consistently applied to everyone in Singapore, including its government, and therefore my constructive suggestion is that replies issued by the government must adhere to our constitution and laws.
Soon Sze Meng
Postscript: I send this letter to Today, but received the following reply:
Dear Sze Meng
Thank you for your feedback. We will not be publishing any correspondence on this issue. Shoud you feel strongly, you may want to wish to redirect your views to the source of the letter.
With regards.
xxxx
editorial assistant
