According to Cherian George in ‘Why RSF’s Press Freedom Index is flawed – and why it works’, the man argued that the organisation’s list of ranking by countries is methodologically and conceptually flawed.

First, he states that the survey lacks ‘inter-coder reliability’. He explains this means that RSF does not have a ‘common pool of rigorously trained assessors’ to rate on the perceived ranking. That is however an unjustified statement, at least on two grounds. First, according to the notes on the methodology, RSF states that the survey was handled out to ‘journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists’. Given that the respondents came from diverse fields who are most likely to have some first hand direct experience in the country that they were surveyed, their expertise must surely count for something. Moreover, contrary to George’s assertion, the questions were not based on ‘perceptions of the press’ but rather stating concrete cases of aspects of press freedom violations.

For example, in the first section, on ‘PHYSICAL ATTACKS, IMPRISONMENT AND DIRECT THREATS’, respondents were asked to answer

‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to questions such as whether there were any cases of journalists:

1. Being illegally detained (without an arrest warrant, for longer than the maximum period of police custody, without a court appearance etc)?
2.    Being tortured or ill-treated?
3.    Being kidnapped or disappearing?
4.    Fleeing the country as a result of harassment?
During this period, were there (Yes/No):
5.    Armed militias or secret organisations regularly targeting journalists?

6. Journalists who had to have bodyguards or use security measures (such wearing bulletproof jackets or using bulletproof vehicles) in the course of their work?

Out of the 40 questions in the survey, only 4 questions were posed to ask respondents to ‘rate’ their views on aspects of press freedom. Most of them were based on asking respondents to state very clear examples of press freedom violations. Therefore the argument that it is a ‘national perception of press freedom index’ or ‘national press freedom monitors’ perceptions of press freedom index’ is highly suspect.

Second, he argues that if respondents in Singapore were being asked where the country’s level of press freedom is, as compared to other countries, he estimates that Singapore would leapfrog to within the 50 to 100 range. Ironically, this is a clear contradiction of his first argument on inter-code reliability. By asking respondents in Singapore to rate other country’s press freedom (in relation to Singapore), he is assuming that these people are well-informed about the state of the press freedom in other countries. It would be interesting to question how he comes to have that assumption.

Third, he claims that the survey is ‘conceptually flawed’. In this case, RSF failed to disclose how they measure the different weights of indicators in their index. He makes a guess that ‘Singapore’s ranking must mean that RSF considers the Republic’s lack of alternative media and lawsuits against foreign media to be more serious than, say, torture and kidnapping of media workers and blocking of political websites’.

Short of having RSF publicly disclose how they reach their ranking, I have to concur that George’s guess is just a wild stab at the dark. Some rankings are clearly inconsistent with his evaluation. For example, Iraq ranks 145 (lower than Singapore) but yet sees 3 journalists being killed during the period. If his assertion is true (or at least have some validity), then Iraq would have ranked in a better position than Singapore.

Moreover, in his argument that there is no ‘objective’ measure between:

(a) killing a journalist to stop a single story? or (b) giving broadcast licences to only a small number of commercial broadcasters who pump out entertainment, leading to a long-term denial of the public’s need to be informed through news and current affairs?

he assumes that such indicators are at odds with each other since prioritising one indicator therefore means a relative de-emphasis on the other. While this appears to be true, it does not mean that a conceptual problem exists. In fact, the interpretation of the results of any survey conducted is dependent on many factors, including, how the organisation may award different (or sometimes the same) weights to different measures. The point is not that these indicators cannot have different weights as Cherian argues, but how to justify them. If we are to apply his benchmarks, then surveys including Singapore’s corruption ranking by the World Bank (rated very favourably) for example, would suffer from the same conceptual problem. The problem is therefore of bias but this is a problem that plagues every survey, not just the RSF press freedom index.

Given the intractable nature of the problem, Cherian argues that it is more advisable for organisations to publish ‘detailed reports on each country without attempting to make any international comparisons’. However, he concedes that despite the flaws, the rankings worked since it gained much media attention.

Again, this last criticism is unfounded since RSF does publish comments on each individual country pertaining to the media (albeit very short pieces. To date, the description of Singapore’s state of press freedom in 2009 is still a ‘work in progress’).

Certainly, every survey is bound to have its biases (including the RSF press freedom index). To however claim that the ranking is ‘flawed’, without explicitly knowing how the results are being derived, is a harsh judgement.

Extract from Get-Up – Australia & asylum seekers: The myths and the facts. Some facts on asylum-seeking for those who are still wedded to the idea that it is a form of illegal immigration…

Myth 5 – Boats are bringing terrorists to our shores

Some opposition backbenchers have recently stated that arrivals of boats are likely to be a perfect cover for terrorists entering Australia.20 In reality, the threat of terrorists entering the country in this way has been described by counter-terrorism experts as ʻinfinitesimally smallʼ. Asylum seekers arriving by boat may face years of delay before gaining entry into Australia – as opposed to those arriving by air.

All asylum seekers arriving in Australia undergo thorough security checks from ASIO in conjunction with Indonesia. Comparisons with the US found that those involved in the terrorist activities of September 11 arrived on valid US visas.

Myth 6 – Asylum seekers are ʻillegal immigrantsʼ

Under the Refugee Convention, which Australia has signed, all people have the right to seek asylum in Australia. They may be found to be genuine refugees, and they may not – but seeking asylum is not illegal under Australian law or international law. The term ʻillegal immigrantʼ, just like the term ʻqueue jumperʼ, is designed to make asylum seekers seem alien and unworthy of sympathy.

Source: Amnesty International Canada

Singapore: Canadian support for Dr. Chee and colleagues facing charges
Posted: 28 October 2008

SINGAPORE: Singapore opposition politician Chee Soon Juan (centre) stands along with supporters at a Singapore park designated by the government as a free-speech area in Singapore, 18 September 2006. Chee had entered the third day of a standoff with police after he was prevented from marching to the venue of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank meetings in Singapore 16 September. Any protest of more than four people is deemed an illegal assembly in Singapore, a prosperous Asian financial hub that maintains strict controls on freedom of expression. Source: OSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/Getty Images.

Government critics and human rights defenders, led by opposition leader Dr Chee Soon Juan, are facing criminal charges for participating in peaceful anti-poverty rallies. But important support for Dr Chee grows, as Canada’s National Post calls the Singapore government “a bully” and former Canadian High Commissioner to Singapore Michael Berry follows up with a letter commenting on the “relentless harassment of Dr Chee…aided by an accommodating judiciary”. And Canadian lawyer Robert Amsterdam is setting up an international group of lawyers to focus on Dr Chee.

The ruling People’s Action Party, in power for half a century, has increasingly brought ruinous defamation and other suits against critics who call for human rights and democracy. Dr Chee has been repeatedly imprisoned. He and others have been bankrupted, thus barring them from seeking parliamentary seats and from leaving the country without approval. Their party, the Singapore Democratic Party, faces possible closure.

Four trials are currently scheduled against the anti-poverty campaigners, including Dr Chee and his sister,Chee Siok Chin. All are charged with assembly and procession without a permit. Permits are required for public gatherings of more than four people. Eighteen people facing the first trial stated that they would walk into court “with our heads held high…It is a fight that all who wish to see democracy and freedom in Singapore must undertake”. Canadian lawyer Robert Amsterdam is providing legal advice from abroad. Singapore’s lawyers rarely defend the opposition, and foreign defence lawyers for government critics have found it difficult to gain entry into Singapore.

Amnesty International has repeatedly called on the Singapore government to stop using restrictive laws and civil defamation suits to muzzle critics. Such actions impose restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly that violate international standards. The result is a climate of political intimidation and self-censorship in Singapore. Dr Chee Soon Juan and his colleagues resolutely state their determination to continue their campaign for human rights and democracy – at whatever the personal cost.

TAKE ACTION:

Please write to the President of Singapore
•    Call for an end to the use of restrictive laws and civil defamation suits against critics;
•    State that the stifling of criticism and debate is a clear violation of international law and standards on freedom of expression;
•    Express your understanding that the government has claimed to be building an ” open society” and ask the reason therefore for the continuing use of restrictive laws against peaceful critics and human rights defenders.

WRITE TO:

President S R Nathan
Office of the President of Singapore
Orchard Road
Singapore 238823
Fax: 011 65 6737 5522
Email: s_r_nathan@istana.gov.sg
Salutation: Dear President

COPIES TO:

His Excellency Mr Vanu Gopala Menon
High Commissioner for Singapore and Permanent Representative of Singapore to the UN
231 East 51st Street
New York, NY 10022, USA
Fax: +1 212 826 2964
Salutation: Your Excellency

Please Send Messages of Support to:

Dr Chee Soon Juan and colleagues
2A Jalan Gelenggang
Singapore 578187
Email: speakup@singaporedemocrat.org