This is an opinion piece I wrote in April 2023 for my politics class at the School of The New York Times Gap Year program.
Mr Wong, define the "OB" Markers.
Illustration by Nicole Cheah.
Last April, I was tasked to compile cases of police officer abuse for a story in The Straits Times (ST), Singapore’s daily broadsheet. One of the most compelling anecdotes detailed how an Indian officer had been targeted with racist remarks from his higher-ups. I filed the story’s first cut. My supervisor cut the anecdote.
In the local newsroom, an invisible ax looms over every journalist’s head: The “OB” or “Out-of-Bounds” markers — unofficial yet pervasive restrictions on topics that can be covered by Singapore journalists. Borne from the government’s belief that discourse on sensitive issues can trigger societal divide, potentially controversial topics like race, religion, or even “glamorizing gay lifestyles” have unspoken limits.
“More extreme or widespread” cases of racism are avoided unless there is absolutely sound video or other evidence to back it up, said Ng Wei Kai, a reporter on ST’s Education beat. For instance, a story about how one’s race relates to their educational outcomes would definitely not run. “We handle stories related to racist incidents with a great deal of caution. Often this means the story will have to run through not just copy editors but senior editors and even the editor of The Straits Times,” said Jean Iau, a crime correspondent who has covered several racist incidents for the paper in recent years, including the 2021 case of a woman who hurled racist insults and profanities at another woman on a public bus.
The unofficial and ambiguous nature of OB markers on racism means they can even shift with public interest; if interest is high, the OB marker becomes more lenient, as was the case in 2021 when a series of high-profile racist incidents shook Singapore. This leaves journalists engaging in a culture of self-censorship out of fear of breaching an invisible, seemingly arbitrary barrier, limiting their writing to “safe” topics to avoid getting in trouble, or even fired.
The Singapore government’s fixation upon preserving racial harmony via media restrictions has denied progress in journalistic integrity, and crucially, public discourse on racial issues in Singapore. Our pledge declares a “united people '', “regardless of race, language, or religion”. But glance at the water we swim in and you’ll see racism undeniably exists, especially against the two racial minorities of Malays and Indians, who make up 14 and 9 percent of the population respectively.
We see this mostly first-hand or on social media: Casual racist comments uttered by a Chinese supervisor in the Police Force. Indians getting denied rental housing on the basis of their race. ‘Chinese only’ jobs posted with no justification. About 56.2 percent of locals polled by the Institute of Policy Studies in 2021 think that racism remains an important problem, an increase from the 46.3 percent of respondents who felt this way in a 2016 edition of the survey. Today, there is no denying the existence of racial inequality in Singapore. The press’s current aversion to deep discussion does a disservice to the minorities and their pressing struggles, to the majority Chinese and their lacking civic awareness, and to the already faltering credibility of local journalism.
Singaporean politics today are still dominated by the ideals of founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who at the 1971 International Press Institute General Assembly in Helsinki, famously declared: “Freedom of the news media must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore… The government will from time to time have to take firm measures to ensure that, despite divisive forces of different cultural values and lifestyles, there is enough unity of purpose to carry the people of Singapore forward to higher standards of life.” Ashok Mirpuri, Singapore’s ambassador to the United States, echoed the ‘for-peace’ sentiment in a 2019 letter to the New York Times. “Countries around the world are searching for solutions to the problem of fake news. Our law is designed for our own multiracial and multireligious context,” he wrote.
The OB Markers do not promote interracial understanding and equality in the long term. Conflating every form of racism-related press coverage with the issue of national security has curbed civil discussions and debates about racism, censoring them before they are even written, regardless of the truth in them. We never actually get to have a proper dialogue about race, racism and what multiracial harmony means to us. Without press coverage, discussions are limited to directionless banter in social media comment sections. As long as this continues, minorities’ issues will not be given the platform they deserve; they will continue to face microaggressions in their day to day life, potentially subject to extreme cases of verbal and physical abuse. This must not continue.
50 years have passed since Mr Lee spoke at the Helsinki General Assembly. Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, next in line for the role of Prime Minister, has the opportunity to redefine existing press policies so that they effectively serve as tools of racial harmony. A new generation of Singaporeans has grown up educated with the importance of racial harmony, a generation who has already witnessed racism rear its visceral head on social media. The press must be allowed to start meaningful public dialogues about racist behavior affecting the lives of racial minorities. OB markers have to clearly define anti-racism media laws so they can do what they are meant to — prevent hate speech, identity politics, and racial strife – while still keeping people in touch with the water they swim in. Measured, rigorously fact-checked coverage in a highly visible news outlet will increase a wider audience’s openness to previously “uncomfortable” discussions on race, igniting change in their social awareness and racial attitudes.
It is the duty of the Singapore government and its authoritative media to educate its readership with a comprehensive political picture. Our journalists should not be hesitating to speak the truth and fulfill the moral purpose of the media — to be a representative informant on current civic issues.
Mr Wong, help people to look around at the water we swim in, or we will drown.
