Aware saga highlights need for media demonopolisation

If there had been an important lesson that has not been learnt from the aftermath of this unprecedented epic, it had to be this.

The government's tight grip over local media has been a means for the authorities to control the flow of information in the country. However, the folks at Straits Times and Channel Newsasia had all but thrown Singapore's inter-religion harmony into a free-for-all.

Journalists are really smart people. Really. Despite never explicitly registering it's disgust for the pro-Christian old-new guard (ONG) in print, unethical methods e.g. ambushing interviews like Thio Su Min and subtle crafty undertones have been used to state their stand. As a result, with the ST being the only paper* in town, Singaporeans have been influenced into embracing ST's position on this issue.

Truth be told, the ONG had done a poor job in their communication with the public, often displaying a lack of tactfulness when addressing sensitive issues. However, their election into the leadership was completely fair and legal. Some may say they are 'exploiting' loopholes with regards to membership into Aware, but I believe they are just competing fairly. Moreover, elections are more than meets the eye. Tactics and strategies are involved. And isn't it just right for the ONG to contest for the elections when they have fundamental disagreements with their predecessors? By playing the crybaby, the old-old guard have followed the ruling party's example of snuffing out all forms of competition.

And back to the main point. The local media, sitting high and media on its throne without any competition, then induced the public in a vendetta against the ONG by focusing on religion. Does this sound right to you? And cheekily I ask you, would this happen if they are of another religion? But more importantly, would the anti-Christianity emotions be this strong if there were rival newspapers who will have provided the other side of the story?

Instead of putting the blame on the very limited sources of news in Singapore, why not simply point the finger at the editors and writers?

I believe that for any news story, the public has to get the full picture. And it is often gravely misunderstood that being objective is being without bias or having no stand. Thus in this case, ST have made known their anti ONG stand, which in itself is nothing wrong at all. However in doing so, they have deliberately pursued information that would support their position and sieving out any that works against their stand. And if a rival paper* was to exist, ST's views would have been contested.

To conclude, the public has been misled and misguided in this episode. And in an attempt to protect the delicate inter-religion harmony via the hold on the media, the government's plans has backfired on them. Without competition, ST has become complacent with its standards of newswriting.

The time for the government to review its hold on local media is way past due.

*I do not consider TODAY to be a proper newspaper as it is a free tabloid that mainly plays the role of gaining profits for Mediacorp through advertisements.