西方媒体为何老跟新加坡过不去？

As a regular traveller overseas, and having access to the major Western media, it pains me that many label Singapore freely as an authoritarian society, with freedom of speech and other attributes of democracy curtailed.

　　They also single out our accomplished Senior Minister as a dictator who still rules the Republic with an iron fist, even though he had voluntarily relinquished his premiership years ago.

　　Are these Western media being fair to Singapore, and are their views coloured by their own perceptions of what it ought to be in order to conform to the dominant Western value systems？

　　Having had the benefit of reading, viewing and analysing their commentaries and reports on Singapore over the years, my view is that, with some exceptions, they have done our country grave injustice by deliberately distorting its image internationally because it steadfastly resists being dominated by them.

　　They should be keenly aware that this little dot on the world map can never be a carbon copy of a Western society, given its different history, diverse cultural heritages, value systems and national goals.

　　From its earlier obsession with political and economic survival to its hard-earned First World status, Singapore leaders and people are increasingly striving to ensure that it remains an open society, in which the citizenry has a voice in good governance and that more avenues are available to debate and seek redress on public policies adversely affecting them.

　　Sadly, the Western media choose to ignore these, and continue to place the Republic unjustifiably in the company of the truly authoritarian regimes elsewhere.

　　What they like to see happening here is the virtual unfettered prerogative of the media to ridicule, condemn or even defame its leaders under the banner of fostering more open debate, as epitomised in the United States,and which Singapore and many other countries will not accept.

　　Why do they relish picking on Singapore？ The reasons are manifold but, I believe, the following are relevant.

　　First, it has always stood up to its principles when confronted with strong pressures from the West to deviate from them.

　　The Michael Fay episode is an example. While the caning punishment meted out to this young delinquent by the court was applauded by many Americans, some media there, nonetheless, called it barbaric and compared it with the inhuman treatment of black American slaves by the white American plantation owners.

　　Second, several world-renowned Western media, over the years, had to apologise to Singapore leaders and pay heavy damages for falsely libelling them, the most recent being Bloomberg News. They can‘t forgive Singapore for such self-inflicted humiliation, and would look for fresh opportunities to humble it.

　　Furthermore, our leaders, especially Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had on numerous occasions spoken up against aspects of Western policies or values as pitfalls to avoid. His strong advocacy on upholding certain time-tested Asian values, as being superior to those of the West, further alienated him to their media.

　　Rudyard Kipling, a sagacious British writer, once commented： “Nothing is more fallacious than to judge the East by the yardsticks of the West.”

　　However, many Western journalists are convinced that Western notions of democracy, including their interpretations of human rights, are universally applicable and seek to impose these worldwide.

　　These have not found favour with most non Western nations. For example, the US-initiated annual UN resolution condemning China for its human rights record has been rejected repeatedly by the majority of the member countries, including some from the West.

　　Whether the Western media will ever modify its biased views on Singapore, only time will tell.

　　（The writer is a retired lawyer）

我经常出国和阅读西方主要媒体的报道，它们给新加坡贴上的标签，例如新加坡是一个专制社会、没有言论自由和其他民主社会应该具备的条件，让我感到非常难过。

　　它们更把对于新加坡的成就居功至伟的李光耀资政，描绘成仍旧以铁腕方式管制新加坡的*者，无视于李资政多年前便主动让位给新一代领袖的事实。

　　这些西方媒体对新加坡公平吗？它们的观点是不是被它们的主观意念左右，硬要新加坡跟着主流西方价值观走？

　　多年来阅读和分析西方媒体的评论和报道，我的看法是，除了少数例外的情形，因为新加坡拒绝受它们支配，它们便一直不公平的对待我们，刻意的歪曲新加坡的国际形象。

　　西方媒体应该非常清楚，新加坡这个弹丸小国有不同的历史、文化遗产、价值观和自己所要追求的目标。新加坡不可能成为一个翻版西方社会。

　　新加坡早期致力于在政治和经济上求存，经过多年努力才进入发达国家行列。新加坡领袖和人民目前正努力确保新加坡社会继续维持开放、人民能够对政府的政策发表意见、有更多的途径让人们公开辩论和要求纠正对他们造成不良影响的政策。

　　可惜西方媒体却选择对这一切视而不见，继续把新加坡和一些真正的*政体混为一谈。

　　它们希望看到的，是媒体享有不受约束的权力，利用公开辩论的名义，嘲弄、谴责甚至诋毁国家领袖，美国的情形就是的例子。然而，这是新加坡和许多国家所不能接受的。

　　为什么西方媒体老爱跟新加坡过不去呢？我想原因有很多。

　　第一、新加坡向来坚守原则，拒绝向西方压力低头。迈克菲事件便是个很好的例子。许多美国人赞成法庭判处的鞭打刑罚，一些美国媒体却形容这是野蛮的行为，把事件和美国黑人奴隶被白人农场主人残酷对待相提并论。

　　第二、一些国际知名的西方媒体，过去曾因为诽谤新加坡领袖，必须作出道歉和付出巨额赔偿。最近的一个例子是彭博社。虽然是它们自取其辱，它们却耿耿于怀，不忘寻找新的机会批评新加坡。

　　另外，新加坡领袖特别是李光耀资政，时常指出西方制度和价值观的弊端。他极力提倡一些历久不衰的亚洲价值观，认为它们比西方价值观优越，更加深方媒体对他的不友好态度。

　　具有深邃洞察力的英国作家吉卜林曾说过：“没有比用西方的准则来评定东方更荒谬的事了。”然而，许多西方记者却深信西方的民主观念，包括对人权的诠释，是放诸四海皆准的观念，因此执意要把它们强加于其他国家。

　　许多非西方国家都对这种作法感到不满。例如，美国几乎每年都在联合国提出议案谴责中国的人权记录，但每一次都被多数成员国挫败，这些成员国还包括一些西方国家。

　　西方媒体会不会逐渐改变对新加坡的偏见，我们惟有拭目以待。