A talk with P.N. Balji, author of the coming book “Reluctant Editor: The Singapore Media As Seen Through The Eyes Of A Veteran Journalist”
BY SCOTT DUKE HARRIS
“Journalism,” George Orwell once said, “is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations.”
The peril grows whenever that “someone else” possesses great power.
Today, amid rising authoritarianism around the globe, two Pulitzer Prize-winners incarcerated in Myanmar for 511 days, while on the opposite side of the world, the White House press corps fends off hard questioning as coming from “the enemy of the people.” The danger is often lethal, even far from war zones. Journalists are keenly attuned to efforts to stifle their work.
But the struggle is not new, as P.N. Balji attests in “The Reluctant Editor.” His new memoir spans his 40-plus years of journalism, starting as a rookie reporter at the Malay Mail to principal editing and leadership roles at the Singapore Times, The New Paper and TODAY. Balji’s work sometimes rankled the powerful Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, regarded as the nation’s “founding father.”
After leaving the profession in 2003, Balji worked as media consultant and in crisis communications. He helped start the Media Studies Unit in Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs and was the inaugural director of the Asia Journalism Fellowship, which brought in about 15 foreign journalists to familiarize them with Singapore and assist on projects of interest.
Recently, Balji discussed his experiences in journalism with N3 Magazine.
Q: Why did you decide to write your memoirs, and what do you hope to accomplish in sharing your experiences and perspective?
A: Reluctant Editor has been inside me since I retired from journalism in 2003. Journalists of my generation have gone through hell and high water, especially with the government’s efforts to control media. And many of that generation had tried to do a responsible and professional job, sometimes going against Lee Kuan Yew’s edicts at a time when he brooked no nonsense with those, including journalists, who questioned his narrative. Some survived, some paid a heavy price.
I wanted to tell the story of this brand of journalism. Sixteen years later, the story is out in Reluctant Editor.
Singapore journalists are a reticent lot; they carry their stories to their graves. The former editor in chief of ST, Cheong Yip Seng, broke that self-imposed taboo with his book, OB Markers My Straits Times Story, in 2012. For the first time, a senior editor broke that taboo by relating in vivid detail what went on between government and media, even the times when ST pushed back against LKY’s orders. That gave me the added impetus to write Reluctant Editor
Q: Your chapter titles suggest that, initially, you did not want to be a writer and perhaps did not anticipate the career you had. Yet your long and varied career perhaps suggests that you came to regard journalism as a calling. Is that a fair statement?
A: I do say in Reluctant Editor that journalism was my interest in school days. My father was a poet. Watching him write poems with a lighted cigarette in one hand and a pen in the other late into the night sparked my interest. From an early age, I started reading The Straits Times. I was a hopeless introvert, so interviewing people for stories was a torture. A couple of years later, I was charged with bribing a group of firemen. I wanted the scoops from them and they were reluctant to give us tip-offs. So I paid them. I was caught in the act in a coffeeshop and had to pay a fine of $1,000 exclusives. That was a dark period of my early years as a journalist. But it was also a blessing. I asked to be made a sub-editor. My editor agreed and I found the space in the newsroom that fitted my introverted personality.
Q: One chapter emphasizes the practice of “Western-style journalism.” Can you elaborate on the evolution of journalistic values and practices in Malaysia and Singapore under their cultures and governments?
A: My generation was very influenced by Fleet Street journalism. From The Sun to The Times, we read those papers religiously. The language, the headlines and the investigative spirit appealed to many of us. Over time, we also got somewhat disappointed with what the western press was doing to chase circulation figures. So many of us felt that Singapore needed to develop its own brand of journalism. We wanted to be professional yet responsible. Reluctant Editor has many examples of how we did that, sometimes successfully many times unsuccessfully.
Q: Many veteran journalists who have witnessed the technological revolution — especially the impact of the internet and social media — bemoan the impact on the public’s trust in the journalism profession, and even the value placed on knowledge and truth. What is your perspective?
A: I believe this kind of disruption cannot be stopped. I also believe that well-researched and well-written articles with the right balance have a place in our society. My generation will have to learn to embrace technology to get across this form of journalism.
Q: The term “fake news” has become a cudgel used by critics of the media. Now many civil libertarians are concerned about Singapore’s plans to implement a law that would impose penalties on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter for the distribution of falsehoods. What is your perspective on these efforts?
A: No responsible and sensible person can support fake news. But the devil, as always, is in the details. Singapore has just introduced a bill on this. Some, including academics, are uncomfortable with its sweeping powers. Like the power to be given to ANY minister to issue take-down orders to online websites and the definition of fake news and public interest. The final and ideal solution is to get society to separate the wheat from the chaff and identify and call out fake news. That is the long-term goal that should be taken seriously.
Q: The blurb of your book recalls the dangers that journalists faced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: “Some lost their jobs, some had to leave the country, and some decided to give in and live to fight another day.” You had your own dealings with a dominant national leader in the late Lee Kuan Yew. Are there lessons from your experience that might help embattled journalists today?
A: Lee was a master politician. He oppressed the opposition or anyone who was against his narrative. At the same time, he made sure that population saw the benefits of a controlled society. The material signs are all over the place. Also, he had laws that controlled media. A strict application of the libel laws made the media second guess its boundaries all the time. As though that was not enough, former top civil servants were made CEOs and Chairmen of Singapore Press Holdings. But the technological disruption in the form of the internet is putting the pressure on such forms of control. The lesson, if there is one, is to fight the internet stories with the government’s narrative. Let the people decide which is the version they want to believe. A bit idealistic, perhaps. But it is something that needs to be done.
Q: What are your own habits regarding Facebook, Twitter and other platforms? What is your advice for journalists who have come of age with the internet. What advantages and pitfalls do you see?
A: I get most of my information from the Net. I use it to access the world media. I read articles that my friends share. This is an uplifting exercise. At the same time we have to have a skeptical attitude. Can this be true? There seems to be contradictions in this report. Should I check it out? To the newer journalists, I say check and double check your facts. They owe their society a huge responsibility to try and get across the truth or at least some of the truths.
Q: Was it difficult to leave journalism and take on the role of a media consultant? What was it like to be on the other side of the story?
A: I joined journalism in 1970. I edited two newspapers, The New Paper and TODAY. Both did well. It was time to go. So I quit in 2003. I went to do PR. I didn’t find the transition difficult as I realized there was a need for those in the business to get a clearer understanding of media. I realized I could do that.
Q: When you look back on your career, do you have any regrets that you wish to share?
A: Hardly any. Some mistakes have been made. The profession of journalism has made me a better person. It was my university of life. It taught be communication skills and to sift out the truth from the false, to detect the con man. And it helped me to break out of my cocoon.🗨
Scott Duke Harris is a Hong Kong-based journalist.
