Staying or quitting? Somehow then-prime minister Goh Chok Tong’s hypocritical comments in 2002 has endured as a dialectical signpost of Singapore’s fledging nationhood. Immigration may claim the lion’s share of headlines in an election year, but the question of emigration cuts right to the bone – do the people still believe in their national narrative?
The Straits Times on Monday (April 4) offered an answer on the front of its Home section:
The headline is strong, and offers a good hook for the story, which details a study by the Institute of Policy Studies. But funnily enough, you couldn’t find in the piece any newsmaker or analyst framing the referenced data with the qualifier ‘only’. It was reporter Rachel Chang (or maybe her editors) who inserted the prejudicial adverb, and in the story too (emphases mine):
“Only 20 per cent want to emigrate or spend an extended period of time abroad, and more than half, the survey shows, have no intention of leaving the country.”
‘Only’? What’s with this ‘only’? I’d like to see more context for these figures before they are dismissed offhand. But Chang cares not for analysis, instead adding this operative word to spin a yarn of local youth expressing a strong sense of rootedness. In journalism speak , this is ‘editorialisation’ - defined by dictionary.com as: “to insert one’s personal opinions into an otherwise objective account“.
It gets better. Chang neither made clear in her story what she means by “no intention of leaving the country,” and nor did she provide a definitive figure. The closest she comes to doing so is as follows:
“When asked if they agree they would prefer to be a citizen of Singapore than any other country, 57.2 per cent agree.”
You’d appreciate that emigration doesn’t necessarily mean giving up citizenship – the researchers had defined it as “relocating to another country permanently or for an extended period of time” (emphasis mine). Perhaps Chang and her editors didn’t count on nosey Google search-fu exponents to track down the study’s executive summary, detailed findings and collated data, which can be read here and here.
Compare Chang’s claims to what Dr Leong Chan Hoong, who led the study, actually said in his presentation:
“More than 50% of the sample had a low intention to emigrate, were strongly rooted by their social ties and were positive about the country and their prospects here. These were the Cosmopolitan and the Heartland Stayers.”
Who would have thought the Straits Times, Singapore Press Holdings’ flagship English-language broadsheet, can’t tell the difference between “no” and “low”?
The poverty of Chang’s story is made even more apparent by the Today newspaper’s more nuanced report. The headline and an excerpt follows (emphases mine):
The study found four different profiles of young Singaporeans emerging with regards to emigration. Just over half, or 53.2 per cent, of the youths interviewed had a low intention to emigrate. These youths were classified as “Cosmopolitan Stayer” and “Heartland Stayer” (see box).
But about two in 10 of youths surveyed – classified as “Explorers” – are not as optimistic about their life in Singapore and feel threatened by the presence of foreign talent.
Sociologist Tan Ern Ser expressed surprise at the 20-per-cent figure. He co-authored a study in 1989, which found that 15 per cent of Singaporeans then considered emigration. “The ’80s must have been the golden age of emigration, given that the popular destinations of choice were perceived as allowing access to a more affordable, quality lifestyle, which includes the material things that matter to many Singaporeans: Houses and cars,” said Associate Professor Tan. “But … the world has become far more globalised during the last two decades, perhaps the 5-per-cent increase is plausible.”
As you may well know, statistics are not always merry bedfellows with truth and truthtelling. But with a little context, insight can emerge from beneath the barely-scratched surface. Like how Today’s Leong Wee Keat compared the latest IPS findings with Assoc Prof Tan’s comments on a similar study in 1989, and found that the proportion of youth inclined to emigrate may have increased.
Now that probably should have been the real story.
Or even this: the fact that 46.7%, or ‘nearly half’ as some journalists may say, of the respondents felt disconnected with their country – those classified as the “disengaged” (26.5 per cent, who “reported weakest family bonding and sense of national pride”) and the “explorer” (20.2 per cent, who “did not feel proud of Singapore”).
But try telling Chang and her bosses. They didn’t even think the (inconvenient) findings on Singaporean youth’s national pride and sense of connection to the country (or lack thereof) deserved mention on their infographic.
Channel NewsAsia too tried to put on a brave face, but could only come up with this:
Which kind of makes you wonder…what about the other half? But at least they aren’t as confused between “no” and “low”.
The Straits Times and Channel NewsAsia might seek shelter under the discourse of developmental journalism and argue their approach serves a larger national interest. But Leong too took on the subject from a so-called pro-nation angle, but instead of framing the study with an prescriptive, even disingenuous boilerplate premise, he offered a more sobering take on the state of play and some comments on the policy challenges in fostering “rootedness”.
Staying or quitting? The Straits Times has apparently made our minds up for us. So perhaps the question is better posed to their journalists who might care about their professional bona fides.
Just because the official line on joint action on Libya began with talks of a no-fly zone, and that the United Nations Security Council’s Resolution 1973 explicitly mandates a no-fly zone, doesn’t mean that the UN member states enacting the resolution are going to enforce just a no-fly zone. At least not in the manner in which the phrase is commonly understood (from post-1991 Persian Gulf War experience).
Not that some media outlets care particularly for the fine print, it seems.
The following are the key clauses in UNSC Resolution 1973 governing military action in Libya (emphases mine):
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;
This presumably is the provision under which the UN member states concerned (effectively NATO) are acting to conduct air strikes against Gaddafi’s forces. Note that it says “all necessary measures” to “protect civilians”, and doesn’t dictate that these measures take the form of a no-fly zone. Taking out Gaddafi’s forces seen to be attacking rebel-held cities can logically be held as a “necessary measure” to “protect civilians”.
Also of note is the bit about barring “a foreign occupation force of any form”. The inclusion of the qualifier “occupation” opens the possibility of the insertion of a “transition” force – a label often used on UN military peacekeeping missions in the past. If the genuine thrust for the resolution was to bar completely any foreign ground forces from entering Libya, the qualifier “occupation” is surely superfluous, totally unnecessary.
6. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;
8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,
Again “all necessary measures”, this time to enforce the no-fly zone. And again a potential qualifier for broad action against Gaddafi’s forces – the enforcement of a no-fly zone can be hindered by ground forces providing anti-aircraft defence, and as such UN/NATO can argue it legitimate to destroy certain Libyan government units under the aegis of clause 8.
Such is the legal framework for more extensive intervention, one feels, even as cordite, copper-scented red mists linger in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anything for energy security, eh?
By the way, I also hear some pretty rough shit going down in Bahrain and Yemen…oh sorry, my bad. I forgot it’s already being taken cared of.
P.S.: If the comic still whizzes over your cuckoo’s nest, see this and this. If you jelly, I appreciate it. Took me about half an hour.
Singapore Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan in a parliamentary speech last week:
“In a series of articles on public housing in the TODAY newspaper last year, I explained the three key principles which underpinned our public housing programme. Incidentally, I would be compiling these articles into a booklet for wider circulation soon.”
ZING!!! For nothing reaches Singapore’s heartlanders better than a government circular.
And a follow-up for Mr Mah: why did you pitch those pieces to Today in the first place then?
Pictures tells stories, blah…thousand words, blah…Sontag, blah…photography. You know the form. But like sense, what is thought to be common knowledge/quality really isn’t. Although you’d expect a national “newspaper of record” to know better than the rest of us.
Not on evidence of their web staff’s editorial judgement. Below are screen caps of two separate stories published on the Straits Times’ website. The first, from Feb. 23, describes local police busting online sex syndicates, while the second, from March 4, tells of Indonesian police alleged to have gang-raped a teenager.
What’s the link between the two? I’m not sure, but the Straits Times’ web editors evidently know something I don’t.
Leave aside the fact that the keyboard was clearly customised, and that its use in the first story was acceptable. Rather, ponder what a crassly insensitive goof you have to be to deem that same photo appropriate for the gang-rape story.
I ranted lamely at @stcom about this, but as of 0222 GMT on March 4, that ill-judged image choice remains. Which reminds me, @stcom does tweet rather crassly. I’ll tell you more about that next time.
P.S.: Disappointed that my first post of 2011 was on something rather inconsequential? I am too.
