The Joke That Never Was

From: (Mr) Law Sin Ling
To: Singapore Review
21 Sep 2004

Singapore Media Competition : The Joke That Never Was

A U-turn it was not, so suggested the Prime Minister of Singapore Mr Lee Hsien Loong who assured the country that the recent media merger deal was an "adjustment" (see footnote 1).

Bewildered? Do not adjust your hearing-aids.

To astute observers of Singapore politics, the latest development bore every indication of yet another volte-face. But the PM works on a rather different articulation level of comprehension and interpretation.

Indicating that it was not technically a U-turn, the PM punctuated that from the ashes of the costly experiment will emerge at least one surviving free newspaper, and a new TV channel (see footnote 2).

By that absurd definition one could suppose that frittering billions to produce peanuts makes for a wise investment. That would at least partially ease the vexation of the Singapore government to explain its incredible GDP which is formulated according to the iconoclastic philosophy of much-in-little-out-that-is-what-it-is-about.

The PM also sounded adamant that media-competition would be detrimental to consumers, casually citing examples in Taiwan and the Philippines where standards were allegedly compromised, to sustain his argument (see footnote 3). It was a tune many were familiar with following his father's interview with ChannelNewsAsia "The Other Side of the Tube" last year in 2003 (see footnote 4).

The PM however fell short of elaborating how Singapore is socially, politically, or economically comparable to the cited countries on this subject?

The reality has never escaped anyone that the so-called competing TV channels and newspapers were seriously lacking in differentiation. More of the same in different names and forms hardly qualifies as competition.

The new channels and papers are more suitably viewed as extensions and branch-offs of the main stream, offering variations on the same theme, with perhaps a pinch of spice. There are hardly substantial materials to captivate consumers eagerly seeking true value-added alternative sources of information, and a channel airing the candid opinions of the population on national issues.

The ex-premier Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong summed up the suspected hypocrisy of the government in his usual self-contradictory and roundabout way (see footnote 5).

And that begs the question if the government had really been sincere about opening the market to competition in the first instance? More of the same playing within the same restrictive parameters established by the government is a recipe for a national fiasco.

And it was a dear failure seemingly scripted and foreseen by the 44-years old government since day one.

The PM frankly admitted to the mismanagement in the introduction of competition into an essentially unchallenged state-monopoly (see footnote 6), a verity enthusiastically seconded by SM Goh (see footnote 7).

The empty conviction of the government had produced an undesirable waste which saw the unnecessary squandering of millions in a huge 4-year simulation to validate the government observation that Singapore lacks the criteria to accommodate more than 1 media and press house.

The PM typically has a vastly differing intellectual view on the subject.

Boldly challenging the consensus views on government influence and manipulation, the premier essayed a clumsy attempt to dissociate the close relationship between the government and both state-linked SPH (which wholly owns MediaWorks) and government-owned MediaCorps (see footnote 8).

Even dismissing the assumption that the government as major shareholders of the principal actors had not exerted considerable influence on the decision, one worrying riddle remains.

If government-linked companies with unchallenged domination or even access to generous state funds could fail so emphatically, what hopes are there for private start-ups? Is the media industry in Singapore destined to remain as state monopolies, operating outside the jurisdiction of the Competition Law? What sort of media hub will Singapore evolve into?


(Mr) Law Sin Ling

Footnotes

(1) "We haven't made a U-turn. We've opened, the companies have tried, they haven't succeeded, so they are making an adjustment"
– PM Lee's assessment of the move, The Sunday Times, 19 September 2004.

(2) "It's not going back to where they were before. You still have Today newspaper with Streats in some form. You will still have Channel U; they have said they're going to keep it" – PM Lee's interpretation that it was not technically a U-Turn, The Sunday Times, 19 September 2004.

(3) "In any case, the media industry, is a rather 'unusual' one in which competition did not always mean that consumers would be better off. Look at Taiwan and the Philippines. Competition is intense, but it doesn't necessarily benefit the consumer or society because standards have dropped" – PM Lee's consolation of the development, The Sunday Times, 19 September 2004.

(4) http://www.singapore-window.org/sw03/031112to.htm - Comments on MM Lee Kuan Yew's interview with Channel NewsAsia on his view of media competition in Singapore.

(5) "We would have loved to have had two newspaper groups and TV stations if we could. It makes for a better competitive environment. But unfortunately, the market is too small, especially for TV"
– SM Goh, The Straits Times, 20 September 2004.

(6) "If there had been more preparation and a more gradual move towards competition, it might have had a better chance" – PM Lee's post-mortem of the failed competition, The Sunday Times, 19 September 2004

(7) "They are not just competing against one another. They are competing against Cable Vision; they are competing against programmes from overseas on Cable Vision. It's very tough for them to compete and yet not sink one another" – SM Goh on hindsight, The Straits Times, 20 September 2004.

(8) "The Government didn't interfere. It's entirely up to the companies. SPH... private shareholders; MCS, Temasek is a shareholder, but MCS has to operate commercially too" – PM Lee uncharacteristically caught in his own words on non-government interference, The Sunday Times, 19 September 2004.