The Public Sphere in Singapore

The former refers to the domain of the traditional media, like newspapers and national broadcast channels, where public consensus is reached regarding important national issues.  Conversely, the latter "informal spheres" are platforms for increased participation where individuals can share their perspectives more freely. The non-mainstream media, with its accessible nature and low barriers to entry, play an active role here (George, 2007: 94).

4. Public Sphere in Singapore

The public sphere in Singapore is a departure from the Habermasian ideal. Among other things, the imposition of Out-of-Bounds markers, punitive defamation laws and strict control over local media significantly stifles political discourse and impedes the development of a vibrant public sphere.

The following are the main factors influencing the public sphere in Singapore.

1. Out of Bounds markers

Euphemistically known as OB markers, these markers demarcate the topics allowed for discussion within the public sphere. Therefore, it is evident that the right to freedom of speech must always be balanced against the larger interests of society. Given our multi-racial and multi-religious society, a well-defined OB marker would include anything that “promote(s) feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races” (Sedition Act, 1985).

However, many of these OB markers are not enshrined in law. They operate nebulously and shift with the socio-political climate. As BG George Yeo pointed out, these markers cannot be defined precisely, lest people “work around that definition and say that they are in the clear.” (Yeo, 1999)

The lack of clearly defined boundaries vests the government with wide discretion to determine the scope of public discourse. This has created an environment of self censorship as people are unwilling to express dissenting views freely for fear of crossing these amorphous lines.

2. Strict defamation laws

The law of defamation in Singapore has been used to curb political dissent in an overly extensive manner (Tey, 2008: 2). Furthermore, political opposition leaders have borne the brunt of defamation actions. Defamation lawsuits often leave the losing party on the verge of bankruptcy as high amounts of damages must be paid. This is aggravated by the fact that no PAP member has ever lost in a defamation suit. This has caused the political opposition and other critics to be overly cautious in public discourse (Gomez, 2005: 13).

Therefore, the implementation of strict defamation laws has stifled the development of a vibrant public sphere in Singapore. It strikes undue fear in those who engage in public discourse and contributes to self-censorship in matters of public concern (Gomez, 2005: 9)

3. Strict control over local media

The Singapore Government exercises strict control over the local media. Mediacorp and Singapore Press Holdings, the key players in the local mainstream media, are either wholly or partially owned by Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund controlled by the Singapore Government.

As such, the mainstream media is required to filter out views that are contradictory to the government position. This has resulted in Singapore being ranked 141 out of 169 nations in the 2007 Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters without Borders (Worldwide Press Freedom Index, 2007).

As observed by critics, the government regards the local media as “essentially organs of the State” (Thio: 1996). Rather than acting as a check on governmental power, the public sphere is used as a tool for advancing the idea of a homogeneous and unified community and for consolidating the power of the dominant political party (Kitley, 2003).

5. The Success of our Approach Thus Far

The idea of a “vibrant” public sphere is anathema to Singapore’s developmental strategy due to the prioritisation of economic development and social order over other goals (Hor, 2001). Thus, it is not surprising that the Singapore government exercises significant control over the public sphere. Interestingly, Singapore has taken a further step in adopting the public sphere as a tool for nation building. More disturbingly, the public sphere has also been used to suppress political opposition by not only denying them the ability to spread their ideas, but also by actively portraying them in a negative manner (Seow, 1998).

This is contrary to the Harbermasian notion of the public sphere. Indeed, the process of becoming “Singaporeanized” is characterized as a state of becoming “politically inert and economically dynamic (M.C. Davis, 1999).  As a result of this policy of depoliticisation, the public sphere has been brought into alignment with goals such as “nation building” (Birch, Schirato & Srivastava, 2001: 90). This is further propagated by the nation’s leaders in their highly paternalistic approach to government. In other words, the collective mindset of society has also contributed to the formation of a “domesticated” public sphere.

As can be seen, the notion of the public sphere in Singapore is mostly top-down and bears little resemblance to Habermas' ideal. What was originally envisioned as a check on state power and authority has instead become a tool for government control.

While one might be tempted to castigate Singapore’s vestige of a public sphere as a mere product of an authoritarian regime operating behind the guise of democracy, it is undeniable that this approach has served Singapore well thus far.

During Singapore’s early years, there was grave social unrest as a result of the communist threat, racial riots, and frequent demonstrations and worker strikes (S Jayakumar, 2000). The unfettered freedom to publicly air one’s views, no matter how controversial, would likely lead to greater unrest and upheaval. In fact, at that time, the people were probably more than willing to relinquish certain liberties in exchange for security and economic development. Such a view is in-line with Maslow’s theory on the hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943).

Hence, the initial approach to “tame” the public sphere and utilize it to spread national ideals was largely justifiable and has led to greater prosperity for Singaporeans at large. In short, criticism and debate, for which Habermas' public sphere is recognised for, was set aside in favour of efficiency and order, arguably with positive results. As a result, Singapore is now a safe and prosperous nation. For instance, Singapore was ranked 1st in world for competitiveness in the Global Competitiveness Report and 1st in world for legal framework, according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook.

However, such an approach is not without cost. The strict regulation of the public sphere and the lack of feedback channels led to an unintended backlash when the Government failed to register the unhappiness of the people. Brewing discontent among the citizenry manifested itself during the 1984 elections when the PAP suffered a surprise "defeat", losing two seats to the opposition (Lee, 2004). The election results reflected the popular cry for more feedback and consultation. It was a wake-up call for the government and proved a critical step in the progression of the public sphere in Singapore, paving the way for the implementation of various discussion platforms.

6. Progress towards a more vibrant public sphere

Besides calls for liberalisation from the ground, the Government also faced pressures from the emergence of non-mainstream media in the 1990s, namely the Internet and its related technologies.  Academics (Webster & Blom, 2004) have acknowledged the impact of the media in complementing existing avenues for individual expression and increasing citizen activity.

1. The Internet

A spin-off of the era of globalisation, the internet has allowed the public unprecedented access to information. Today, Singapore has one of the highest Internet penetration rates in the world with more than 75% of households enjoying broadband Internet Access (Straits Times, 2009). Regarded as a “democratising force”, the internet as a place for the mutual exchange of ideas has certainly challenged the dynamics of the traditional public sphere (Papacharissi, 2002: 9).

While the government saw the need for regulation of this ‘global and borderless’ communication medium, they realised the futility of clamping down on the Internet. A complete repression would have placed the Government in a negative light, a situation that the Government could ill-afford due to Singapore’s desire to become an international hub.  Instead, the Government settled for a “light touch” approach, preferring self-monitoring to punitive measures in the regulation of the internet (Tan, 2008).

With the rise of the Internet, the mainstream media was no longer the dominant source of information or communication. The availability of alternative sources of information meant that it was no longer possible for the government to substitute its view for the public’s opinion. This has challenged and re-defined the influence of the state-controlled mainstream media in shaping the public sphere (George, 2007: 95).

Furthermore, the government has also recognised the need to bridge the divide between the mainstream and alternative media. In order to maintain relevance in the face of such challenges, the mainstream media has responded by providing more space for user-generated content as seen from the creation of online web portal STOMP.

More significantly, the government has embraced the Internet as a tool to engage the public. For example, popular internet sites like Facebook and Twitter are now commonly used by governmental bodies, like the Ministry of Health, to disseminate information and facilitate interactive discussion with the public. Online platforms have provided a forum for feedback at the grassroots level and allowed for greater public consultation.

However, the Internet cannot be an isolated and decisive factor in the development of our public sphere. According to (Hamelink 1986), “Assuming that giving human beings more machines makes them qualitatively different, the development of information technology allows more latitude for deviant political behavior. However, this assumption bypasses the significance of the social infrastructure in which humans and machines interact.”  In other words, within the context of Singapore, the claims by scholars about the political significance of the Internet depend on other factors as well (Yeo, J. and Banerjee, I. 2003).

For instance, statistics show that Singaporeans tend to be passive consumers of public information. Given that the Internet is an active medium, such passivity could undermine the potential political significance of the Internet. Furthermore, although most Singaporeans are politically interested, this did not translate to high levels of citizen participation, be it in the formal or informal public spheres (Yeo, J. and Banerjee, I. 2003).

Additionally, the Internet could still be a potential source for abuse as a site for irrational and biased discussion by individuals hiding behind the mask of anonymity. This challenges the notion of the Internet being a source for rational discourse as it has a tendency to breed “fragmented, nonsensical and enraged discussion” (Webster & Blom, 2004: 379).

Nonetheless, in view of the factors brought up earlier, the advent of the Internet has still contributed significantly to greater diversity and vibrancy of the public sphere.  

2. Significant local events

Recent events further reflect a change in stance of both the government and the public towards their roles in the public sphere. In the AWARE saga which sparked off a debate on the homosexuality issue, many Singaporeans were surprisingly forthcoming in expressing their views on homosexuality in the newspapers and on the Internet.

The government, on the other hand, chose to adopt a relatively hands-off approach on the matter. This suggests a significant shift away from the traditional approach of the government. It is apparent that a more vibrant public sphere is emerging, with less government intervention and involvement.

The controversy surrounding the section 377A debate regarding homosexuality also saw netizens mobilizing into ‘repeal 377A’ and ‘keep 377A’ camps on sites like Facebook. This was observed to be a “very well organised campaign” by Prime Minister Lee (Singapore parliamentary debates, 2008: 23). All these happenings show that Singaporeans are gradually assuming a less muted role in the public sphere. While this may be an indication of a changing trend in the public sphere in Singapore, the significance of their roles in the public sphere remains to be seen.

7. Evaluation – The need for change and vibrancy

Singapore has moved from third world to first world in one generation. Such unprecedented progress was in no small part attributed to sound and efficient government policies, which not only provided for Singapore’s rapid economic development, but also set the necessary groundwork for growth in maintaining social and political stability (S Jayakumar, 2000). The success of Singapore’s development hinged on the integration of economic, political and social goals and it is plainly evident that the government has exercised a significant amount of control in all three areas, arguably with mostly positive results (Srivastava, 1998).

However, such an approach may no longer be tenable in Singapore today. Bringing up Maslow’s theory once again, now that Singaporeans have their basic needs satisfied; there have been calls for more liberalisation of the public sphere (Thio, 2002). As can be seen, due to recent global developments and the increased sophistication of Singaporeans, Singapore has been moving towards a more vibrant public sphere.

A vibrant public sphere is important for continued economic, political and social development. Firstly, a vibrant public sphere checks governmental power by allowing private individuals a platform for criticism of governmental action. There is no guarantee that Singapore’s leaders would remain “junzi” forever thus thoughtless deference to the government is not sustainable in the long run (Thio, 2002). Secondly, a vibrant public sphere also encourages discourse and allows the freedom for individuals to air their views. According to Maslow, this freedom is important for helping individuals achieve self-actualisation and in so doing, allow for the attainment of a more mature society (Maslow, 1943). Thirdly, this would in turn promote creativity and innovation among Singaporeans, both of which are important traits in today’s economy (S Jayakumar, 2000).

8. Conclusion

Thus, in conclusion, while a “vibrant” public sphere has not been integral to our success to date, it is submitted that it is nonetheless important for our continued success in the future. In any case, despite governmental reluctance, it is in our view that forces, both international and local, would compel it in the right direction towards a more liberal and “vibrant” public sphere.

---

Bibliography

Books and Articles Referred to:

1. Fraser, Nancy. 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, Social Text (Duke University Press).
2. Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, Cambridge Massachusetts: the MIT Press.
3. Calhoun, Craig J. 1992. Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge Massachusetts: the MIT Press.
4. Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Models of Public Sphere: Habermas and the Public Sphere, Cambridge Massachusetts: the MIT Press.
5. Birch, David & Schirato, Tony & Srivastava, Sanjay. 2001. Asia: Cultural Politics in the Global Age, Palgrave: St Martin’s Press.
6. Douglass, Mike & Daniere, Amrita. 2009. The Politics of Civil Space in Asia: Building Urban Communities, Routledge.
7. Ang, Ien. 2001. “Desperately Guarding Borders: Media Globalization, “Cultural Imperialism”, and the Rise of Asia”, in House of Glass, Culture, Modernity and the State in Southeast Asia.  Yao Souchou (ed.), Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
8. Lim, Shirley & Smith, Larry E. & Dissanayake, Wimal (eds.). 1999. Transnational Asia Pacific: Gender, Culture and the Public Sphere, University of Illinois Press.
9. George, Cherian. 2007. “Singapore’s Emerging Informal Public Sphere”. In: Tan Tarn How, ed. 2007.  Singapore Perspectives 2007: A New Singapore, World Scientific Publishing Co. Ch.8.
10. Sedition Act 1985. (Cap 290), Singapore.
11. Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2007, Reporters Without Borders. Available at:  

[Accessed 23 March 2010].

12. Yeo, George. 1999. “OB Markers and Internet” The Straits Time, 26 May. [Online].

Available at

[Accessed 20 March 2010].

13. Tey, Tsun Hang, 2008. Singapore’s Jurisprudence of Political Defamation and its Triple-Whammy Impact on Political Speech. UK Public Law, pp 452 – 462.
14. Gomez, James. 2005. Freedom of expression and the media in Singapore. Article 19, [Online]. Available at  [Accessed 27 March 2010]. 
15. M.C. Davis, 1999. Constitutionalism under Chinese Rule: Hong Kong after the Handover. Denver Journal of International Law, 27, pp 275 – 312.
16. Li-Ann, Thio, 2002. Lex Rex or Rex Lex? Competing Conceptions of the Rule of Law in Singapore. UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal, 20, pp 1 – 56.  
17. Shared Values White Paper, 1991, cmd. 1, para. 41.
18. N. Balakrishnan, 1991. Values Offer Shares in Confucian Society: Esprit de Core, Far Eastern Economic Review, pp 27 – 28.
19. A.H. Maslow, 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), pp 370- 396.
20. Kitley, Phillip, 2003. Television, regulation and civil society in Asia, RoutledgeCurzon.
21. Lee, Hsien Loong. 6 January 2004. Speech at Harvard Club of Singapore 35th Anniversary Dinner: “Building a Civil Society”. [Online]. Available at:

[Accessed 22 March 2010]

22. Tan, Tarn How, 2008. Talk: “Internet censorship and Its Impact on Society”, Institute of Policy Studies. [Online]. Available at:

[Accessed 23 March 2010].

23. Papacharissi, Zizi. 2002. “The Virtual Sphere, the Internet as a Public Sphere.” In: F. Webster & R. Blom, ed. 2004. The Information Society Reader, London: Routledge. Ch.26.
24. Yeo, J. and Banerjee, I. 2003. "The Internet and Its Impact on Political Participation - A Case Study of Singapore" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Marriott Hotel, San Diego, CA Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from  
25. Hamelink, C.J. (1986). Is there life after the information revolution? In Traber, M. (ed). The myth of the information revolution: Social and ethical implications of communication. London: Sage
26. “To snip, ban, hold the line or open up further? Censorship Review Committee” The Straits Times, 30 Oct 2009.
27. S Jayakumar, 2000. The Confluence of Law and Policy: The Singapore Experience, taken from The Singapore Conference: Leading the Law and Lawyers into the New Millenium @ 2020
28. Hor, Michael, 2001. Singapore’s Innovations to Due Process. Criminal Law Forum, 28 pp 25-40.
29. Seow, Francis, 1998. The Media Enthralled: Singapore Revisited. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.
30. Li-Ann, Thio, 1996. “Human Rights and the Media in Singapore.” In Robert Haas, ed. 1996. Democracy, Human Rights and the Media, London: Routledge.
31. Sing., Parliamentary Debates, vol. 83, col. 2354ff (23 Oct 2008) (PM Lee)

Further Readings:

1. Sense of Responsibility Must Follow Power of Press, Straits Times (Sing.), Aug. 12, 1993, at 26
2. Be Fair, Be Truthful, Be Part of a Virtuous Cycle, Straits Times (Sing.), July 16, 1995, SR4
3. Media Should Not Set National Agenda, Straits Times (Sing.), Nov. 4, 1999, at 4
4. No Lackey or Adversary, the Media's a Partner, Straits Times (Sing.), Nov. 27, 1999, at 86.