How would you describe the role of the news media in Singapore and do you see it changing in the near future?

In the early years, it was a very close alliance, based on the national pride. We are now at a point were we have a lot of sources, and the media feel that they would also like to have a say in what is being discussed.

Our view is you report facts and events for all things. For the Government or against the Government, you have to report it because if you don't report it, you lose credibility, and then we lose credibility.

And, anyway, you can't keep anything out of the picture because it will turn up somewhere else on the Internet or in another magazine or newspaper overseas.

However, when it goes beyond, with campaign agendas, when you are really looking for an agenda or trying to set an agenda, we think that is not a good idea.

Somebody has to take responsibility and lead the country in one direction, and so if you push one way and things go wrong, who is to answer for it?

People will get confused, but if you look at the examples or if I put examples on the record, others will get mad anyway, but if you look at Hongkong or Taiwan or Thailand, they all have media which generally describe themselves as freer than ours; but that has not led either to greater transparency or more transparency or greater performance.

We have a model that works and it is an honorable role for the media to play.

It is an evolving one because the journalists want to have a say in not just presenting the news but setting what is being discussed, and this is the instinct in investigative journalism and reporting the story and highlighting the angle and pursuing it.

We have to address that because we can't say, don't do that, because then no one will read the newspaper and no one will want to work at a newspaper but, at the same time, there have to be some limits.

It varies from area to area and if you are talking about foreign policy, then it is very sensitive because you can almost start a war if the media reports the wrong thing.

If it is a matter of national importance and the media takes a certain line, then we have to come up strongly and register our view to the contrary if we disagree with it - which from time to time we have done.

For example, over the last two to three years, the media has been carrying a series of articles on how the police have been exceeding what the media thought were the limits in investigating people and searching houses and so on.

They did not have all the facts quite right, so eventually the Minister had to come out and state what actually happened and justify and explain why what we were doing was right and what we have to continue to do.

We had to put the facts out in order to put it on the record and stand to be challenged and the media accepted it and moved on.

From your perspective, what would be one good thing about an American-style newspaper and what would be one bad thing?

The good thing is that you have very capable people working for you. You have top-quality writers and reporters who are capable people applying themselves and understanding the news and interpreting the events.

The negative part comes when you are so influential that the politicians look to what the media is sponsoring in order to see where they stand on points and that should not be. The White House and Clinton were very wary concerning The New York Times.

Source: The Sunday Times Interactive, Singapore. 05 August 2001.