我没有恋爱史。有的则是一串单恋惨败的事迹。

甲

第一次心灵触动是在中二时期。 身为学生警察，一个十三，十四岁的乳臭小子，竟然看上了比我年长两岁的 “师姐”。虽不托枪，个子还比我小，她待人的亲切和可爱的面容让我感受到空前的自在。小学时期遗留下来对女生的反感立即消失。取而代之的是单纯，无知的渴望。

如今回想，这首序曲也许是祸根。打从开始我就在高攀。身旁的同龄女生多的很，有的也比甲漂亮，更有交往的可能，但就是看不上。

我只在学警活动时和甲接触。小小中二男生哪来的勇气或傲慢主动找一个学姐交谈。告白更是荒谬。

唯有的是幻想的空间。我把她的照片从学校纪念册剪了出来，放在皮包的一个小角落里。上课发闷或休息时，我会拿出来瞄一瞄，回想和她相处的时刻。

除了与朋友交换秘密和互相挑逗，我没做出实际行动。甲始终是遥不可及。她毕业后，累积一年的情感逐渐消失。

乙

升上了中三，生活圈子毫无扩张。 每天读书，打球，玩电脑游戏。朋友不是同班就是学警同僚，加上一些放学后一起踢足球或打篮球的熟人。对女生的兴趣没有萎缩，可是认识的女孩不多，谈得来的更没几个。

目光再次锁定时，偏偏又是在学姐身上。同样是“师姐”的乙比我大一岁，戴着眼镜附有成熟稳重的风范。待部下有丝毫的冷漠，但携有被掩饰的关怀。

我自认毫无胜算，不打算做些什么。可是风声还是露了出去。相处变得尴尬。深感无奈，但也无助。她的毕业成为了我的解脱。

丙

我胆小，对自己的外貌毫无信心。中学时期我从没采取主动，连被动勉强都说不上。虽然听说学妹对我有好感，我毫不问津，而只产生了一种莫名其妙的好奇：“怎么可能有人喜欢上这样_____的我？”

虽然如此，我认知失调，喜欢上年轻一年的学警学妹。没什么天大的理由，只认为丙长得乖巧，有智慧与责任感。偶尔我会找接口和她交谈。话题都关于学警事务，从不撇开，不露一丝破绽。

‘O’水准会考将至。没什么闲情逸致去追寻纯需空幻的情感。潜入书海，没得翻身。

丁

预期会考成绩不错，让我得以升上初院。也许心灵空缺扩张了一些，保持四年“观而不战”的理念难以坚持下去。可能是新环境让我找回丝毫的自信。或许是丁那旖旎的笑颜，一种和蔼可亲，触动了我呆滞的心灵。

她就读于同样的中学，但在那四年里我从没意识过她的存在。到了初院，我们被分配到同样的班级，也不只是一次。三个月后，‘O’水准成绩放榜，我因成绩不理想被迫转校。丁因个人原因也转了过来，与我同班“重逢”。

我从没对女生正式告白过。这项“记录”还保持至今。但丁是唯一一个我有采取主动，千方百计去讨好的对象。

上课之余，我费尽心思亲手做小礼物：卡片，书签，镇纸的装饰品等。可笑的是，没有一次是自己亲手把礼物交给丁。拖朋友转手，上门寄信，把礼物放在教室桌上等等都尝试过。她客气地接受，也没有正面回应。

我心里有数，可是没完全放弃。心想也许再花一些心思，多费一点精力，就会有报酬。可是我始终等不到。

于此同时，有邻班同学开始婉转地向我示好。回到中学当学警队的学员督察，又碰到学妹对我有好感。茅盾不已。我不好意思正面拒绝，一直装着若无其事。残忍吗？

‘A’水准会考逐渐逼近，学业又成为重点。预考成绩平平，但侥幸地在正考里取得突破。

会考前已开始疏远的我和丁，离校后更没什么联络。我剃头入伍，开始新的人生挣扎。

但故事还没到尾声。当了一年多的兵，又开始和她网上对话。偶尔还趁同学聚会见个面，还有一次搭了她一趟顺风车回营。

结局却没改写。好不容易重建的关系最终还是瓦解。错在于我的天真，老是搞不清她人的用意，放不了手。

戊

服完兵役后，我被一所英国大学录取。更意想不到的是该大学也颁发助学金，实现我到国外深造的梦想。

我满怀兴奋，展开平生首次独立生活的篇章。大学有许多我国的同学，全副奖学金或靠父母的资助而来。但他们的活动我都不参加。远赴伦敦为的是见识海外的人情事务。在那儿交的朋友也几乎全都是外国人。

戊是个美国籍混血儿，小我两岁。娇小，漂亮，友善。我们同系，经常上同样的讲课和教程。

她向我交换笔记，我借此和她多加接触，渐渐成了非常要好的朋友。也发现她有一名身在法国的法国籍男友。

俗语虽说近水楼台先得月，我没有企图“乘人之远”。心想，我这不起眼的家伙，凭什么去干扰她人的幸福。回忆起过去的创伤不浅，我也害怕重蹈覆辙。

我老实地保持朋友的关系。偶尔上门一起做作业，吃饭，聊天，度假时互寄名信片。

一年级考试期间，她突然消失。我和她室友慌张地寻人不果。原来她经不起压力，跑去法国躲避在男友的怀抱里。劝导之下，戊回到了伦敦。可是因错过考试，她得重念一年级。

隔年，见面的机会减少，但我还是像往常一样找她聊天，帮她应付功课与压力。看她心灵脆弱一点也不好受，更没有介入她感情生活的意图。

万万没想到，连帮戊升学这么一点事都无法完成。在我二年级中旬，她收到家里传来的噩耗，立即回国。

经历这次的打击后，戊再也没回返伦敦. 她渐渐地于世隔离，最后连我唯一能和她沟通的渠道，Facebook，也删除了。

之后的大学生涯，心思全投入了学业与心怡的课外活动。我不时会回想起戊，但当初的焦虑和思念渐渐被时间洗礼，减轻了许多。

己

毕业后，因想留在英国打全职工，在伦敦多待了四个月。当实习生之余，不断发出求职信。但金融危机的摧残把计划化为泡影。回国之际，本来约了要好的朋友搞个送别会。可耻的我临阵退缩，却了场。还好有心的朋友劝我在离别那天中午做个小聚会。感激不尽。

回国另寻高就，打了几分实习工。经历了一段苦心挣扎后，终于寻到一分心怡的兼职工。

不久后遇到了己。她比我年长几岁，外貌不错，为人直爽。寻工的焦虑被安抚后遗留下来的心灵空荡暂时给她填补了。

我猜想她应该是有对象，于是除了聊天以外，没有多做些什么。证实了猜测后，我立即死心。

庚

第一次和庚碰面时是在大学时期。刚修完一年级回国度暑假，有幸被一间本地公司录取当实习生。在共同朋友的介绍下，我和同样在实习的庚打了招呼握了手，便从彼此生活中消失。

毕业后回国打实习工时，碰巧又遇到了庚。当时参加一名同行的告别派对，我斜眼看她眼熟，但就是想不起为什么。连个客套招呼都不打我就悄悄引退。

事隔一年，我开始任职现在持有的工作。庚还是同行，这时已到别家公司效劳。在工作场合我和她再次见面。

我开始只觉得她面善，并没有产生特别的好感。因年龄差距小，也觉得她人长得娇小可爱，在工作时见面我就会和她同坐聊天。

在Facebook上交了朋友后，偷偷地瞄了她个人简介，看见她和前男友的合照。那时我并不知到他们两已经分手，熟悉的无奈涌入心中。

我和庚蛮谈得来。不论是面对面或是在网上交谈都能找到话题。发手机简讯向她问好逗笑时，她也风趣地回应。

无意间得知她正与新男友交往。顿时心灰。

可是我幼稚。明知没条件，没资格，却撇开逻辑，抱着不复存在的希望，等待着她。

等待。等了十几年的我还有多大的耐心，无从说起。

The Straits Times on Monday (April 4) offered an answer on the front of its Home section:

‘Only 1 in 5 of Gen Y wants to emigrate’

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):

Youths’ intention to emigrate ‘not linked to threat from foreign talent

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:

One in two young Singaporeans strongly rooted, says survey

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”.

Clearly, there’re more journalistically sound ways to tell this story. But perhaps we expect too much. After all, we are talking about a paper that splashes their pages with half-page profiles of individual ruling party candidates (see: “new faces”) while squeezing multiple opposition candidates (see: “rookies”) into a quarter-page slot. We are talking about a news station that prematurely declared Lim Swee Say and Dr Maliki Osman as East Coast GRC MPs and not realised it for days. We are talking about senior editorial staff who have the gall to declare their borderline propagandist spiel as quality journalism.

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.

So the Guardian begins with: “French planes enter Libya to enforce no-fly zone“. Later, le Grauniad says: “Libya no-fly zone: Gaddafi’s forces and rebels are hard to tell apart from the air“. Strangely on the Graun’s live blog, we are told: “Al-Jazeera is reporting that French war planes have destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south west of Benghazi.“

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.

“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?

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.

Singapore does well in global corruption survey but…

Singapore has done relatively well in the latest annual bellwether survey on anti-corruption by global civil society organisation Transparency International but some results of the survey, which was conducted online here, raised eyebrows among those whom MediaCorp contacted.

That barometer, in TI’s words, is “a public opinion survey that assesses the general public’s perceptions and experiences of corruption and bribery” covering 86 countries and territories. It asked respondents’ opinions on how corruption in their country changed in the past three years, how effective their governments’ antigraft policies are, which institutions they trusted most to fight corruption and gauged their willingness to personally combat graft.

Respondents were also asked whether they or someone in their household had paid bribes in the past year (to which institution and why), and to rate 11 institutions on how affected they are by corruption.

A couple of its findings “raised eyebrows”, according to CNA’s story:

…when asked to assess government action against corruption, 31 per cent of the 1,000 respondents here said these actions were ineffective, 40 per cent were undecided and 29 per cent said they were effective.

Among 11 institutions picked for the poll, the media here were perceived to be the most affected by corruption.

But there’s more to the report than just two uncomfortable findings. For instance, CNA declined to mention that 38 percent of the 1,000 Singapore respondents felt corruption had increased in the last three years, compared to 33 percent who felt it stayed the same and 28 percent who felt it had decreased.

It is also worth mentioning Singapore is the only country out of the 84 states and two territories polled that rated the media as the institution most affected by corruption. Bearing in mind, that entails beating out the likes of political parties, parliament/legislature, police, business/private sector, public officials/civil servants, the judiciary, nongovernment organisations, religious bodies, the military and the education system.

On a scale of 1-5, where 1 is “not at all corrupt” and 5 is “extremely corrupt”, the media topped the lot with an average score of 3.0. Trailing in joint second, with 2.9, were political parties, business/private sector, and public officials/civil servants. Scoring best, at 2.6, were parliament/legislature and NGOs.

Not that you’d know any of this from reading the CNA story – it mentions little beyond the fact that the media polled worst. You’d only realise politicians, the civil service and businesses came in a close, ignominious second if your curiosity took your eyes to the actual survey findings.

Perhaps CNA was doing damage control, focusing on the media’s discreditable rating and deflecting attention from the state’s perceived inadequacies. Nonetheless, they were also quick to cast dispersions over the survey’s significance:

…Singapore Management University law lecturer Eugene Tan said he felt that the difference in scores between institutions was too small to be meaningful and that the poll did not explain why the media was ranked lower.

To be sure, to put the numbers in some perspective, Singapore’s institutions scored better than the Asia-Pacific and global averages, which suggests public confidence here is higher than the overall mean. TI also states in its report that the margin of error per country in its findings are between +/- 2.18 to 4.40 percent.

Notwithstanding that, politicians are eager to prescribe a hefty pinch of salt for readers of the report:

When contacted, [Government Parliamentary Committee] deputy chairman (Home Affairs and Law) Hri Kumar Nair reiterated that the majority of Singaporeans do think that government actions against corruption are successful and that the online survey may not paint an accurate picture.

On what basis might Hri Kumar assert these findings don’t reflect the “accurate picture” is open to conjecture, but one suspects the best way through which he could back his claim is presenting data gathered using…a survey.

Then there are methodological issues:

GPC deputy chairman (Information, Communications and the Arts) Baey Yam Keng added: “The online survey might have attracted certain profiles, perhaps people who do not rely on the mainstream media (for news) … that could be something when digesting this information.”

Baey makes a good point. The Singapore survey was done online – hardly ideal as the respondent demographic is likely self-selecting and limited. Although TI said its sampling was probabilistic – i.e. every unit in the population has a greater-than-zero chance of being selected in the sample, and this probability can be accurately determined – doing it online means certain groups are very unlikely to be surveyed, like the 19 percent of Singapore resident households that are without internet access (as of 2009). Even within households with internet access, certain demographics use the internet only infrequently or not at all (think 70-, 80-year-old retirees who prefer TV soaps and newspapers).

TI also said it weighted its findings to make them representative of the general population, although how it might have sought to overcome online polling’s inherent sampling problems is unclear.

Furthermore, the survey design also affords much leeway for respondents to interpret what corruption entails. While this might not be an issue when perceiving corruption in most public and state institutions, it is less clear-cut what constitutes a “corrupt” media. Could the relatively poor corruption rating be a proxy for what respondents see as lack of independence or partiality in Singapore media, rather than a reflection of perceived graft?

So what we have here is no perfect survey; big surprise, nothing is. Still, this knowledge shouldn’t stop us from asking more discerning questions of the results to tease out fresh insight, while avoiding kneejerk accusations based on superficial readings of the data.

But if past form is any guide, government leaders and the mainstream press wouldn’t shy from citing this barometer in future acclamations of traditional media. After all, they were more than enthusiastic in citing less rigorously performed surveys that employed less representative sampling, like the Edelman Trust Barometer referenced by information minister Lui Tuck Yew, to make extravagant, sweeping claims.

Strange then that the Straits Times declined to publish any of TI’s findings on Singapore, instead running a broad-sweeping AFP story that placed the survey within a global context. And while CNA and Today indulged readers with a short story, it was angled to shroud the survey in doubt, applying critical scrutiny notably absent in reports of surveys that offered glowing reviews of our city-state. Such eager shifters of journalistic goalposts our newsroom denizens are.

That politicians are so craftily selective in their rhetoric is to be expected, but regrettably some of our feted journalists too have adopted for an ethos the immortal words of that Class 90.5FM advertisement: “Only hear the good stuff.”

Singapore’s traditional press, long irritated by new media upstarts, were fortunate recipients of a elaborate back rub last month. Home affairs and law minister K. Shanmugam spoke of its trustworthiness and fulfillment of key socio-political roles. Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong called on them to convince readers they remain “one of the most dependable sources of news, information and commentaries,” while lamenting the rise of new media that “will give rise to an increasingly individualistic…or ‘atomised’ society.” Information minister Lui Tuck Yew too cheered the local press for being “broad-based, reaching as much of the population as possible.”

There is, of course, quid pro quo in this public lovin’. In return, the traditional news media politely scratch politicians’ pathological prickly backs, declining to poke holes in their flimsy logic and ask difficult questions like how we let a fugitive slip through a supposedly watertight dragnet.

But as intimate as they seem, this relationship’s wide open – the media welcomes all comers bearing the right gifts. Take the following story, run by the Straits Times on Wednesday (1 December) evening, on youth attitudes toward the media in seven countries in the Asia-Pacific region. An excerpt follows:

Young prefers newspapers

WHEN it comes to news, teens and tweens here are still turning to newspapers and not the Internet as widely thought.

That is what a survey by Panasonic Asia Pacific found. Covering seven countries in the region, the online survey had 609 respondents between 10 to 15 years old. Some 100 of them were from Singapore.

Those surveyed said newspapers were their main source of news, followed by TV and websites.

Most of the young people surveyed – 66 per cent – also found newspapers more credible than blogs.

Very eye-pleasing findings for the traditional media, particularly newspapers, indeed. But, of course, the Japanese firm concerned is a client of a company wholly-owned by the Straits Times’ publishers (see: “About SPH MediaBoxOffice Pte Ltd“), and hardly a disinterested player in the corporate media industry.

It was, however, Singapore Press Holdings’ rival Mediacorp that milked the story for its worth, throwing in colourful quotes and illustrative numbers. Excerpts of the story, also published Wednesday, follow:

S’pore youths remain very much traditional news consumers

SINGAPORE: The young in Singapore are serious news consumers, according to a regional survey conducted by Panasonic.

The survey was conducted in conjunction with Panasonic’s Regional Kid Witness News contest.

Close to half of total youth surveyed said they read or watched the news at least once a day.

The survey involved about 600 youth from Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

And, they rated traditional forms of media – such as TV and newspapers – top.

In particular, Channel NewsAsia spent some time boasting its superior street cred.

Youth also said showed a lower preference of seeking news and information from blogs and forums.

Singapore respondents particularly seemed more discerning about the trustworthiness of blogs.

“I like blogs and websites because I think it’s easier for me to access into it. Sometimes if I just want to check the accuracy, I think I just watch the news on TV,” said 14-year-old Loga Ragumathan from Sembawang Secondary School.

Another student, 14-year-old Calvin Leong from Sembawang Secondary School, prefers the newspaper.

“I usually go towards the newspapers. I find newspapers very reliable. The source is very very accurate [whereas] from blogs, you can get different opinions from other people.”

Having elaborated the media credibility gap, Channel NewsAsia broke down the survey results as follows:

Singapore youth formed 17 per cent of total respondents.

Ninety per cent get their daily dose of news from newspapers, followed by television (73 per cent) and online news websites (41 per cent).

In comparison, respondents in the region has television as the most common source (80 per cent), followed by newspapers (66 per cent) and magazines (40 per cent).

They also showed a low preference of seeking news and information from blogs, forums and sharing sites.

Only 36 per cent of Singapore respondents felt that news by bloggers is more believable than that in the newspaper.

Plenty of definitive detail devoted to a survey done by a consumer electronics manufacturer with merely 609 respondents, of which only 100 (or 103, depending on which story you read) are from Singapore. Unfortunately, there appears to be no publicly released documentation of this survey by Panasonic. But don’t let that stop you from passing critical judgement from the circumstantial evidence.

The survey’s small and questionable sampling reeks dubiousness of research aims and methodology, while the news stories bear the hallmarks of  ‘churnalism‘ – where public relations and advertising copy enters or even masquerades as news copy. Not that it bothered the Straits Times’ and Channel NewsAsia editors, clearly. But why not?

Veteran journalist Nick Davies believes commercial pressures placing a premium on volume over veracity may be to blame. Psychiatrist and science geek Ben Goldacre argued it to be a result of humanities-trained journalists’ lack of nuanced understanding of research methods. Perhaps they’re right. But I’m a cynical bastard, and I see this as the political economy of the mass media at work – a mix of conscious and unconscious collaboration, economic symbiosis and horsetrading.

Sure, I might have a chip on my shoulder in saying this, being an acolyte of the disparaged new media. But a spade is still a spade, and excessive extrapolation from a suspect survey done with weak methodology toward scarcely scientific purposes is still bad journalism. And despite the healthy prognosis from politicians and Panasonic, traditional media has had good reason to keep its friends close and happy.

Take the numbers from the recently released 2010 SPH annual report. Circulation for most of its major newspapers have slipped again from a year ago. The Straits Times’ daily average circulation in August 2010 fell to 365,800, down 2.3 percent from 374,500 a year ago, and a drop of 6.3 percent from 2000 – the only year in the last 11 that saw the Straits Times circulate above 390,000.

Only the Sunday Times (+0.05 percent), Shin Min Daily News (+3.6 percent) and Tamil Murasu (+5 percent) saw circulation increase from 2009. Many other SPH newspapers extended decade-long slumps – the Business Times, Shin Min Daily News and Tamil Murasu are the only papers showing in 2010 better circulation figures than in 2000.

Overall readership too fell slightly from a year ago, as seen in this imprecise trend graph from the 2010 annual report. English newspaper readership also dove slightly from 2009, according to another conveniently vague chart; in fact, there appears to have been no net growth in the decade since 2000.

No need to push the panic button, though; the political, legal and economic framework is still in place for continued SPH and Mediacorp dominance of the local media market. But, as I’m sure they figured, greasing palms with softball commentary and advertorials to win some friends with benefits won’t do them any bad. Not at all.

You may recall his earlier venture in October 2009, when he memorably told lawyers at a New York State Bar Association International Section’s meeting that “[Singapore is] different. We are a city. We are not a country.” It was classic politically expedient semantics; an act of verbalised realpolitik rightly mythologised in the Singapore blogosphere.

Photo: Straits Times

A year on, Shanmugam took on bigger game at Columbia University’s inaugural forum series “A Free Press for a Global Society,” where he explained: “The Role of the Media: Singapore’s Perspective“. His oratorical arsenal remains well-stocked on the evidence of last week’s speech, already the subject of a detailed critique here. As a latecomer to this party, I shan’t replicate that effort, instead focusing on points dealing specifically with Singapore media.

His talk began on rather agreeable terms:

The question of what role the media can play in a society, has to be considered in the context of how that society has structured its political framework – the media does not operate in a vacuum.

The game plan is obvious as it is predictable: why Singapore’s unique circumstances necessitates a particular media model. After setting out the “traditional liberal theory of media” that posits the media as watchdog and a clearinghouse of debate contributing to better social outcomes, Shanmugam proceeds to describe the reality:

(1) Journalists, like the rest of us, are human, and subject to the same influences and vices. They can be biased, unfair and prejudiced, as much as any of us can be.

(2) Media companies are often profit-driven, like other commercial entities. It is not uncommon for journalistic values to be sacrificed in pursuit of profit.

(3) Media companies and journalists, like other entities and people, can be bought, suborned and corrupted – particularly in developing countries.

(4) Competition and the need for the advertising dollar can compromise ethics.

(5) There has also been a trend towards tabloidization to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

(6) The media can have tremendous influence in the political process. It can set the agenda for discussion, it can shape public opinion about Government and government policies, and it can make or break politicians. As the Fourth Estate, it is an active participant in the political process. Yet it is the only institution in the political process that is often not subject to any checks or balances. The answer that the public provides the check and balance is really a non answer.

These are all fair points, although Shanmugam’s pithy précis is hardly revolutionary. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky did the hard work back in 1988 of describing the political economy of the mass media in their book “Manufacturing Consent.” Still, Shanmugam provides a baseline against which to assess his later prescriptions. These he puts forth with three points, summarising the government’s view on the role of the media:

(1) It should be a neutral medium for conveying news – with commentary clearly separate from news;

Sure, if by some extraordinary literary contorting he finesses “neutral medium” to mean newspaper companies whose “management” shareholders must be approved by the government, and that each of those “management shares” give the shareholder 200 times the voting power of an ordinary share on issues concerning the “appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff” of the company.

Or a media corporation led by career civil servants and politicians, like the Singapore Press Holdings, which counts among its chairmen – past and present – President S R Nathan, the late former cabinet minister Lim Kim San, and ex-deputy prime minister Dr Tony Tan, the incumbent chair.

Or one that boasts in its ranks ex-intelligence services types, including former Internal Security Department director and ex-communications ministry permanent secretary Tjong Yik Min, who served as SPH group president and executive director from 1995 to 2002, and Straits Times’ political editor Chua Lee Hoong.

Or, in the words of Straits Times editor Han Fook Kwang, a newspaper that is “a living, breathing, active member of the community” and not “a passive provider” of news.

It’s hard to pick the greater marvel here – Shanmugam’s capacity for cognitive dissonance, or his giftedness in verbal gymnastics worthy of Orwellian Oceania. But I jest.

(2) It should report fully and fairly what goes on. It can probe, ask inconvenient questions, and expose wrong-doing;

How can an intrinsically biased media be expected to “report fully and fairly” as a “neutral medium”? After all, one of the most strident criticisms of the news media (see: Herman and Chomsky) is made against its systemic subordination to political and corporate power. Or perhaps the “living, breathing, active” Singapore press the minister imagines is also a sagely, omniscient entity. Even so, there are things it shouldn’t do, like…

(3) But it should not join the political fray and become a political actor. It should not campaign for or against a policy position. The media can and should convey the views of opposing political actors – and people can judge for themselves the validity of any particular point of view. If a journalist or a newspaper owner wants to take part in the political process, then he or she should join a political party, and not use the privileged access to the media to push a political perspective.

Forceful rhetoric, sir! Would you like to personally inform Dr Tan and Ms Chua of an impending career switch? Or would you prefer the time-honoured and, in your case, well-deserved politician’s accolade of pathological hypocrisy?

The answer to my unasked question comes when Shanmugam quotes former British prime minister Tony Blair on the nature of the modern corporate media. Ah, who better to speak on the subject than the charismatic face of New Labour, who understood better than most how to co-opt the supposedly adversarial British news media into his own agenda, peddling outrageously sensational falsehoods in the 2002 September Dossier and 2003 Dodgy Dossier about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the press dutifully repeated?

Channeling the master, disciple Shanmugam proceeds with a rhetorical sleight of hand – a Bliar Blair favourite – by citing the United States as notional alternative to the Singapore model; the classic false dilemma, better known as the either-or fallacy. I shan’t bore you with details but suffice to say, departing from our status quo doesn’t necessitate diving recklessly into the American media quagmire.

His straw arguments are nonetheless good for some snicks and giggles. Take this gem, for instance, where he flatters his hosts:

The basic point is a simple one. Your society has in-built stability. There can be fringe lunatic behaviour, but mainstream Americans are sensible, rational, and extremist sentiment will not threaten the very fabric of society.

So by implication, Singapore doesn’t have built-in stability, because there is lunatic behaviour and mainstream Singaporeans can’t be relied upon to be sensible, rational, and extremist sentiment will threaten the very fabric of society. Comforting, though not as much as our collective faith in our media, as Shanmugam boasts in riposte to Reporters Sans Frontières’ annual press freedom index (see: shame parade):

In 2005 and 2006, Gallup asked residents in 128 countries whether they had confidence in the quality and integrity of their media. 69% of Singaporeans polled answered in the affirmative…. Singaporeans trust our media.

Is that so? It is a claim similar to one made earlier this year (discussed here), when then acting information minister Lui Tuck Yew (he has since been appointed on a permanent basis) cited in parliament the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer, which said that 68 percent of Singaporeans polled regarded newspapers as their most trusted source of information – a proportion higher than the global average of 34 percent.

Flunking Shanmugam’s “full and fair reporting” test, Straits Times reporter Zakir Hussain, in his report on Lui’s remarks, had elided the fact that Edelman’s Singapore study involved only 200 people that are college-educated; with household income in the top quartile for their age in their country; read or watch business/news media at least several times a week; and follow public policy issues in the news at least several times a week. Hardly a representative sample of the Singapore population.

Funnily enough, a day later the Straits Times reported the findings of a Reader’s Digest online poll that ranked 40 professions on how trusted they are by Singaporeans, based on responses from 760 residents. It placed journalists at 30^th and politicians at 39^th. Charming.

Even the Straits Times’ Han was coy enough to admit in May that “We’re aware people say we’re a government mouthpiece or that we are biased,” adding “the test is if our readers believe in the paper and continue to buy it.”

How do they fare then? From 2000 to 2009, the Straits Times’ circulation fell by four percent. Detailed figures aren’t available, but the net readership trend in the same period, provided in the 2009 SPH annual report, indicates only modest growth for SPH’s English-language newspapers. In the same period, Singapore’s total population grew by 24 percent, while the resident population grew by 14 percent. While potential readership rose rapidly, circulation actually fell and net readership grew only modestly.

So much for SPH’s flagship newspaper that despite having free rein to corral its market in the absence of an equivalent domestic competitor, has had to step up bulk sales to schools to keep up circulation numbers. Result.

What of the Gallup poll? Gallup discusses it on its website, reveals their methodology and makes a couple of tentative observations: “While a country’s press may be considered free, it may not be widely respected by the residents who live there. Further, media considered to have relatively limited press freedom may have the support of their people.” What the results reflect on each society is not clear, but interestingly Singapore’s performance puts it alongside Botswana, Costa Rica and Tanzania, while trailing the likes of Nepal, Cambodia, Laos and table-topping Rwanda.

But bollocks and yah boo sucks to them, right? Only one audience really counts, as Shanmugam reassured us:

Our approach has been to ignore criticisms that make no sense – and we continue to do better. The people of Singapore also know better. 66% voted for the Government at the last general elections on our policy platform.

Or in “fuller” and “fairer” terms, 56.6% out of a total registered electorate of 2.16 million in 2006.

Mind you – Singaporeans are now well-educated, sophisticated, and know their rights. And as stated earlier, they also trust their media.

Only minutes before, some of us were lunatics and the rest of us aren’t really sensible and rational. Bravo sir, a perfect volte-face. Comăneci would be proud.

Wednesday’s (3 November) print edition of the Straits Times’ story provides some basic details on the survey that was missing from the online version published Tuesday evening.

In a infobox placed with the story (on page A8), the Straits Times reported: “This year, the Education Ministry polled 74,000 students in Primary 4 and 6, Secondary 2 and 4, and Year 2 junior college.” However, the Straits Times didn’t provide similar background for the 2008 survey of students. It also didn’t provide details for the surveys of National Servicemen. (Read full story here and here).

As of Wednesday evening, the Channel NewsAsia story “95% of students say they are proud to be Singaporean: survey” has not been updated – it still lacks any background information on the surveys.

________________________________

Remember when I said the Singapore media is a tad too dependent on official sources for authority and convenience? Well, seems that they’ve been at it again.

In the wake of Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong’s pithy response last Friday (29 October) to an undergraduate’s poser on the dilution of national identity, Channel NewsAsia was kind enough to indulge me on Tuesday with this report by Sharon See.

95% of students say they are proud to be Singaporean: survey

SINGAPORE : The Education Minister and Second Minister for Defence, Ng Eng Hen said he is upbeat about Singapore youth and their sense of belonging to their country.

He said two National Education surveys on students conducted in 2008 and 2010 showed that over 95 per cent were proud to be Singaporeans.

Emphatic headline. And 95 percent sure is a nice, grandiose figure. But when nosy me wants to find out a bit more about this survey, Ms See disappointed me. Nowhere else in her 443-word piece does she say anything of note about these surveys.

Then numerate me starts to get a little bothered. Doesn’t Ms See realise Dr Ng’s claims are virtually meaningless? 95 percent of what? 100 people? 1,000? Details, Sharon, details! The devil’s in there somewhere.

By now the inquisitive me has kicked in, bolstered with some understanding of the vagaries of polling (lucidly explained here by the legendary Sir Humphrey Appleby). I wanted to know, among others: Who commissioned it and what did it seek to investigate or test? How was the survey designed? What were the methodology and sampling process? How was the data collected and who conducted the surveys on the ground – teachers, MOE officials, or pollsters? Who were surveyed – which schools, what age, what stream of education, what family backgrounds, etc.? Were the findings statistically significant?

Of course, for the sake of brevity and ease of understanding, Ms See didn’t have to explain all that to give readers an idea of the reliability of the surveys. But if nothing else, we at the very least can handle something as arithmetically basic as sample size, can’t we?

Not really. For she goes on to share this gem, woefully bereft of numbers or context:

Similar surveys on National Servicemen have also consistently shown that a majority feel they belong here and would defend Singapore should it come under threat.

Ah, yes. Now, wouldn’t we be worried if the majority of our armed servicemen hadn’t polled this way, especially if Encik was around…not that we’d know if he was or not.

It thus seems like neither Dr Ng nor Ms See thought we proles and common folk could handle the…um, ah…information (insert stale “A Few Good Men” reference) on these surveys. Sad if it’s true – a lamentable commentary on the state of our education system, something we ought to raise with the relevant minister…hang on.

Then again, maybe it’s just CNA that were so cavalier with context and dispensed with the details. So I turned to the Straits Times, which offered this report by Amelia Tan:

S’poreans will defend nation

MOST Singaporeans feel a sense of belonging to their country and will step forward to defend the nation if it is under threat.

Education Minister Ng Eng Hen said this strong sense of patriotism has been borne out in surveys of National Servicemen and the public in recent years.

More than 90 per cent of the respondents said they would defend Singapore when it comes to the crunch.

Funnily enough for a story fashioned around survey findings, there is only one figure to hand – a smashingly meaningless 90 percent. I can see the thought process behind it now: Never mind the minutiae, here’s the sexiest number (the right people will get this).

So faithfully have Channel NewsAsia and the Straits Times bought into the government’s nationalist narrative, jumping in to fight the troubling fires set last week by a Mr Lim Zi Rui and SM Goh, and perishing the scandalous thought that Singapore’s youth are less than patriotically inspired.

Or maybe Ms See and Ms Tan simply didn’t see it within their journalistic purview to examine or question Dr Ng’s claims and took him at face value. Tsk, tsk, Dr Ng wouldn’t be pleased with that. Especially with Ms Tan, who with no small amount of irony went on to quote him as follows:

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a National Education seminar on Tuesday, Dr Ng also said criticism and questioning are natural and essential to ensure that National Education messages are internalised.

He has told NE practitioners that criticism and negative sentiments should not be discouraged.

‘Just because you have articulated those messages, it is not the end point. In fact I would be very worried if people said I believe you straight away because this process requires you to reflect on what has been said,’ he said.

‘Examine it, question it and even test it, and then internalise it. This takes time and different experiences,’ he said.

Alas, his very interlocutors had failed at every hurdle but the last.

Pah, some might say dismissively, arguing these are minor mishaps in the grander scheme of things.

Not quite. One of the YOG’s key selling points, business-wise, is the global media exposure it brings for Singapore, its people and, of course, the sponsors. Yet some of those partners have come out of the bargain more philanthropist than investor, with a bitter taste in their mouths.

The Straits Times reported Thursday (30 September):

There were some who were disappointed with what they felt was meagre international coverage of the Games.

Said Lim Keng Boon, assistant general manager of Crocodile International: “We are extremely disappointed with the organiser and the scale of advertising and promotion done by them.

“It is a joke to the world and a shame to the YOG and Singaporeans, and a shock to first-tier sponsors like us who had spent close to a retail value of $10 million worth of apparel.”

The organisers offered this in defence:

But Singapore Youth Olympic Games Organising Committee (Syogoc) chairman Ng Ser Miang disagreed, insisting that the Games had plenty of coverage.

“Of course some countries didn’t get it but, overall worldwide, it was huge,” said Ng, who is also vice-president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Singapore National Olympic Committee.

He pointed out that there were 166 rights holders, 26 live telecasts and “fantastic coverage” of the YOG Flame’s journey. He added that the IOC is compiling statistics about the Games coverage.

So Ng rests his case on a couple of numbers and some weasel words. And they are so convincing too, if you don’t think about it.

Consider the numbers. What do “166 rights holders” and “26 live telecasts” mean? Not a lot.

Starting with the latter, which I understand Ng to mean all 26 sports enjoyed some form of live broadcast (he can’t be talking about each competitive session as a discrete entity – the number would be far higher). Big news then. I would imagine the full summer Olympiads to boast 26 live telecasts too. What can this tell us about how popular the YOG broadcasts were globally? Zilch. Nadah. Nothing.

Moving on. The “166 rights holders” refer to the number of official broadcasters, each holding rights for an individual country, or in some cases, region. It appears to be a reasonably big number and, lacking official viewership data, a good measure for judging the scale of coverage.

By a way of comparison, let’s look at the broadcast data for the main Olympic Games (on pages 22-32 of the Olympic Marketing Fact File). In terms of number of countries/territories that received broadcasts, in 2008 some 220 aired the Beijing Olympiad. The 2010 Winter Games, with reduced appeal to countries lacking temperate or continental climates, attracted less – 200 countries/territories.

I hear you, number of rights holders isn’t the same as number of territories. So what I’ll use for comparison is an official Olympic list of YOG broadcasting countries (updated 13 August, the day before the YOG started), which shows just 185 territories – well short of that of the full Olympics.

That was just the warm-up. The number of broadcasters/territories isn’t very meaningful as we have no idea how many viewers there were in each territory. Without this data, one way to gauge popular enthusiasm is to look at the Games’ broadcast revenues – networks shell out for rights in anticipation of enthusiastic advertisers and sponsors, who in turn expect high viewership ratings.

In a simplistic metric, the more the broadcasters paid, the more confident they were about pulling in viewers. Of course, you’d have to factor in other considerations like the level of competition and the type of bidding process in each country/region, inflation, etc. Nonetheless, fundamentally, Olympics is big business; the bottom line counts, and where networks are willing to draw that bottom line can tell us something.

The 2008 Beijing Games commanded a whopping US$1.7 billion in global broadcast revenues. Its sister event, the 2006 Turin Winter Olympics, took in for the IOC US$831 million worldwide. For the 2010 and 2012 Olympiads, NBC alone is paying US$2 billion for exclusive US rights.

How much did the YOG take in? Consider these statements, taken from a SYOGOC press release (emphasis mine).

…the IOC has informed all existing official Olympic broadcast partners (in territories outside Singapore) that they have the opportunity to acquire the right to broadcast the Youth Olympic Games within their territory without charge, if they guarantee certain levels of exposure across all media platforms.

The official IOC and Singapore 2010 web sites will also broadcast the Games online (live and on demand) to viewers around the world free of charge.

Basically, the IOC was peddling YOG rights for free, in return for ensuring the Games received a minimum amount of media exposure. If the YOG was anything of a business bonanza, would such a caveat be necessary?

In the full Olympiads, internet broadcasts are part of the rights package purchased by networks, which then restrict viewership by territory to adhere by licensing agreements and, more importantly from the IOC’s perspective, prevent free-loading (think the strict policing on YouTube, where sports highlights are hunted down vigorously and removed). But in the case of the YOG, the IOC didn’t dare monetise internet broadcast rights.

Is this the kind of huge worldwide coverage you speak of, Mr Ng?