Mrs Leong-Ho Ah Chan from the Ministry of Information and the Arts (MITA), claims that "Competition Already exists in media here" (ST Mar 30) citing the ability by Singaporeans to access to some 5,500 foreign newspapers etc.

Ministers have been using this well-worn argument in interviews with foreign correspondents over the years. While these are undeniable facts, the reality is totally different. In any case, there is some hollowness to this argument.

Recall the arrest and imprisonment of Mr Ho Kwong Ping when he was a journalist with the Far Eastern Economic Review in the 1970's. (Mr Ho is now Chairman of Singapore Power and the President of Singapore Management University, besides heading his family Wah Chang Group.) The FEER was itself banned for a few years in Singapore and still has its circulation restricted. The Singapore government also restricts the circulation of the Asian Wall Street Journal mentioned by Mrs Leong. If my memory is correct, Asiaweek and Time magazines also had their circulation restricted. It seems that memory is rather short in Singapore.

All the publications/broadcast as mentioned by Mrs Leong, are by their nature not Singapore specific. They simply do not have the same reach to the Singapore audience and readers compared to the Straits Times and the Lianhe Zhao Bao. In this sense, there is no real competition to Singapore Press Holding's monopoly of the newspapers and the Television Corporation of Singapore and sister TV channels in Singapore.

I therefore support the calls to have another newspaper and/or an independent broadcast channel in Singapore. This is so that the news and articles, especially those, which affect the lives of ordinary Singaporeans, can be presented in a balanced, fair, objective and accurate manner. This is to enable Singaporeans to form unbiased and objective opinions to make an informed decision on government's public policy, which affect their lives.

Unfortunately, I feel that this has not been the case. I do not read the Chinese language newspapers but feel that the English language dailies have only been presenting the government's points of views on many, if not most issues. I suspect, the editors know that the items published are not balanced and objective.

Take for instance the change in the CPF Investment Scheme effective last December.

Even before the Government announced the change in September, the English newspapers were mobilized to extol the merits of unit trusts investments. Last August the Sunday Times carried headline grabbing articles about a woman who netted a return of over 2300% over 30 years. I have written to ST to point out that the woman only achieved a compounded rate of 11% return per annum, as compared to interest rates of over 12% during the 1970's and up to 20% in the early 1980's. I have also pointed many examples of poor performance by fund managers and the underperformance by the closed end unit trusts run by big four local banks. Sadly, ST did not published my letter.

I have also written many letters to the said newspapers on matters of public interests, in areas like the CPFIS, noise pollution from construction sites, in-door air quality, lighting in our classrooms and institutions of higher learning. These letters rebutted and debunked government departments' replies. Not surprisingly, the newspapers refused to publish those letters critical of government policies.

Even when the Straits Times did publish my letters, they were invariably edited. This generally blunted my arguments and weakened the adverse impact on the government's case. Take for instance my letter, which appeared in ST's Forum page on Mar 31, appealing to the MAS, in the public interest, for direct invention in ensuring that the Singapore Exchange lowers the brokerage commission forthwith. Those who have read my letter, which was also slightly edited, in the Business Times on the same day would have noticed the big difference in the contents of what I wrote. I just wonder why ST is ashamed of my quoting President Nathan, and Deputy Prime Minister and MAS Chairman Lee Hsien Loong to support my arguments.

I do not intend to write too much about what I perceived as matters and government policies which are against public interest in this letter as I would like to cover them more fully in my reply to Ms Lim Huay Chih's (PS21 Office, Public Service Division, PM's Office) letter published in the Straits Times on Mar 2. I have not sent it in to the Straits Times because I was not sure if it would be published.

MITA mentioned about some countries where some of the multitude of newspapers resort to sensationalisation etc. The US, Germany and Japan amongst many other advanced countries have many newspapers and yet democracy thrives, their economies have generally been in good shape and there is social order. In fact, Singapore's policies have been to emulate that of the US. Newspapers in the said countries have performed an admirable role in fostering democracy based on factual and balanced reporting. Rivals have exposed any biased reporting or sensational reporting. The same cannot be said in Singapore although the Government has unlimited powers to present its views should it deems appropriate.

The beneficial effects of competition to the consumers have been fully shown by the liberalization of the telecommunications industry. Prices of handsets and access charges have dropped dramatically and services have improved significantly. I have no doubt that the beneficial effects of competition as reflected in the telecommunications industry would similarly be reflected in the media industry.

Yours faithfully

Bin Hee Heng

Pls note that this is a computer fax as such does not carry my signature.

Cc: Mr David Lim Tik En,
Minister of State for Defence, and Information and the Arts, and Chairman S21 Committee

Nominated MP Mdm Claire Chang/Mrs Ho Kwong Ping

Nominated MP Mr Simon Tay

Nominated MP Mr Zulkifli Baharudin