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）
我經(jīng)常出國(guó)和閱讀西方主要媒體的報(bào)道，它們給新加坡貼上的標(biāo)簽，例如新加坡是一個(gè)專制社會(huì)、沒(méi)有言論自由和其他民主社會(huì)應(yīng)該具備的條件，讓我感到非常難過(guò)。
它們更把對(duì)于新加坡的成就居功至偉的李光耀資政，描繪成仍舊以鐵腕方式管制新加坡的*者，無(wú)視于李資政多年前便主動(dòng)讓位給新一代領(lǐng)袖的事實(shí)。
這些西方媒體對(duì)新加坡公平嗎？它們的觀點(diǎn)是不是被它們的主觀意念左右，硬要新加坡跟著主流西方價(jià)值觀走？
多年來(lái)閱讀和分析西方媒體的評(píng)論和報(bào)道，我的看法是，除了少數(shù)例外的情形，因?yàn)樾录悠戮芙^受它們支配，它們便一直不公平的對(duì)待我們，刻意的歪曲新加坡的國(guó)際形象。
西方媒體應(yīng)該非常清楚，新加坡這個(gè)彈丸小國(guó)有不同的歷史、文化遺產(chǎn)、價(jià)值觀和自己所要追求的目標(biāo)。新加坡不可能成為一個(gè)翻版西方社會(huì)。
新加坡早期致力于在政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)上求存，經(jīng)過(guò)多年努力才進(jìn)入發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家行列。新加坡領(lǐng)袖和人民目前正努力確保新加坡社會(huì)繼續(xù)維持開(kāi)放、人民能夠?qū)φ恼甙l(fā)表意見(jiàn)、有更多的途徑讓人們公開(kāi)辯論和要求糾正對(duì)他們?cè)斐刹涣加绊懙恼摺?BR> 可惜西方媒體卻選擇對(duì)這一切視而不見(jiàn)，繼續(xù)把新加坡和一些真正的*政體混為一談。
它們希望看到的，是媒體享有不受約束的權(quán)力，利用公開(kāi)辯論的名義，嘲弄、譴責(zé)甚至詆毀國(guó)家領(lǐng)袖，美國(guó)的情形就是的例子。然而，這是新加坡和許多國(guó)家所不能接受的。
為什么西方媒體老愛(ài)跟新加坡過(guò)不去呢？我想原因有很多。
第一、新加坡向來(lái)堅(jiān)守原則，拒絕向西方壓力低頭。邁克菲事件便是個(gè)很好的例子。許多美國(guó)人贊成法庭判處的鞭打刑罰，一些美國(guó)媒體卻形容這是野蠻的行為，把事件和美國(guó)黑人奴隸被白人農(nóng)場(chǎng)主人殘酷對(duì)待相提并論。
第二、一些國(guó)際知名的西方媒體，過(guò)去曾因?yàn)檎u謗新加坡領(lǐng)袖，必須作出道歉和付出巨額賠償。最近的一個(gè)例子是彭博社。雖然是它們自取其辱，它們卻耿耿于懷，不忘尋找新的機(jī)會(huì)批評(píng)新加坡。
另外，新加坡領(lǐng)袖特別是李光耀資政，時(shí)常指出西方制度和價(jià)值觀的弊端。他極力提倡一些歷久不衰的亞洲價(jià)值觀，認(rèn)為它們比西方價(jià)值觀優(yōu)越，更加深方媒體對(duì)他的不友好態(tài)度。
具有深邃洞察力的英國(guó)作家吉卜林曾說(shuō)過(guò)：“沒(méi)有比用西方的準(zhǔn)則來(lái)評(píng)定東方更荒謬的事了?！比欢?，許多西方記者卻深信西方的民主觀念，包括對(duì)人權(quán)的詮釋，是放諸四海皆準(zhǔn)的觀念，因此執(zhí)意要把它們強(qiáng)加于其他國(guó)家。
許多非西方國(guó)家都對(duì)這種作法感到不滿。例如，美國(guó)幾乎每年都在聯(lián)合國(guó)提出議案譴責(zé)中國(guó)的人權(quán)記錄，但每一次都被多數(shù)成員國(guó)挫敗，這些成員國(guó)還包括一些西方國(guó)家。
西方媒體會(huì)不會(huì)逐漸改變對(duì)新加坡的偏見(jiàn)，我們惟有拭目以待。
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）
我經(jīng)常出國(guó)和閱讀西方主要媒體的報(bào)道，它們給新加坡貼上的標(biāo)簽，例如新加坡是一個(gè)專制社會(huì)、沒(méi)有言論自由和其他民主社會(huì)應(yīng)該具備的條件，讓我感到非常難過(guò)。
它們更把對(duì)于新加坡的成就居功至偉的李光耀資政，描繪成仍舊以鐵腕方式管制新加坡的*者，無(wú)視于李資政多年前便主動(dòng)讓位給新一代領(lǐng)袖的事實(shí)。
這些西方媒體對(duì)新加坡公平嗎？它們的觀點(diǎn)是不是被它們的主觀意念左右，硬要新加坡跟著主流西方價(jià)值觀走？
多年來(lái)閱讀和分析西方媒體的評(píng)論和報(bào)道，我的看法是，除了少數(shù)例外的情形，因?yàn)樾录悠戮芙^受它們支配，它們便一直不公平的對(duì)待我們，刻意的歪曲新加坡的國(guó)際形象。
西方媒體應(yīng)該非常清楚，新加坡這個(gè)彈丸小國(guó)有不同的歷史、文化遺產(chǎn)、價(jià)值觀和自己所要追求的目標(biāo)。新加坡不可能成為一個(gè)翻版西方社會(huì)。
新加坡早期致力于在政治和經(jīng)濟(jì)上求存，經(jīng)過(guò)多年努力才進(jìn)入發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家行列。新加坡領(lǐng)袖和人民目前正努力確保新加坡社會(huì)繼續(xù)維持開(kāi)放、人民能夠?qū)φ恼甙l(fā)表意見(jiàn)、有更多的途徑讓人們公開(kāi)辯論和要求糾正對(duì)他們?cè)斐刹涣加绊懙恼摺?BR> 可惜西方媒體卻選擇對(duì)這一切視而不見(jiàn)，繼續(xù)把新加坡和一些真正的*政體混為一談。
它們希望看到的，是媒體享有不受約束的權(quán)力，利用公開(kāi)辯論的名義，嘲弄、譴責(zé)甚至詆毀國(guó)家領(lǐng)袖，美國(guó)的情形就是的例子。然而，這是新加坡和許多國(guó)家所不能接受的。
為什么西方媒體老愛(ài)跟新加坡過(guò)不去呢？我想原因有很多。
第一、新加坡向來(lái)堅(jiān)守原則，拒絕向西方壓力低頭。邁克菲事件便是個(gè)很好的例子。許多美國(guó)人贊成法庭判處的鞭打刑罰，一些美國(guó)媒體卻形容這是野蠻的行為，把事件和美國(guó)黑人奴隸被白人農(nóng)場(chǎng)主人殘酷對(duì)待相提并論。
第二、一些國(guó)際知名的西方媒體，過(guò)去曾因?yàn)檎u謗新加坡領(lǐng)袖，必須作出道歉和付出巨額賠償。最近的一個(gè)例子是彭博社。雖然是它們自取其辱，它們卻耿耿于懷，不忘尋找新的機(jī)會(huì)批評(píng)新加坡。
另外，新加坡領(lǐng)袖特別是李光耀資政，時(shí)常指出西方制度和價(jià)值觀的弊端。他極力提倡一些歷久不衰的亞洲價(jià)值觀，認(rèn)為它們比西方價(jià)值觀優(yōu)越，更加深方媒體對(duì)他的不友好態(tài)度。
具有深邃洞察力的英國(guó)作家吉卜林曾說(shuō)過(guò)：“沒(méi)有比用西方的準(zhǔn)則來(lái)評(píng)定東方更荒謬的事了?！比欢?，許多西方記者卻深信西方的民主觀念，包括對(duì)人權(quán)的詮釋，是放諸四海皆準(zhǔn)的觀念，因此執(zhí)意要把它們強(qiáng)加于其他國(guó)家。
許多非西方國(guó)家都對(duì)這種作法感到不滿。例如，美國(guó)幾乎每年都在聯(lián)合國(guó)提出議案譴責(zé)中國(guó)的人權(quán)記錄，但每一次都被多數(shù)成員國(guó)挫敗，這些成員國(guó)還包括一些西方國(guó)家。
西方媒體會(huì)不會(huì)逐漸改變對(duì)新加坡的偏見(jiàn)，我們惟有拭目以待。