Media Competition Revisited

I was really glad to hear Minister Mentor Lee Kaun Yew mention how the late Mr S. Rajaratnam, as associate editor of the Singapore Standard, “forced the pace on the Straits Times,” particularly over the postman’s strike of the early fifties. In this day of “Limited” media competition, it was heartening to hear one of our “founding fathers,” talk about the value of media competition and as someone who has written for TODAY, I was suddenly made aware of the social significance of a newspaper like TODAY.

Singaporeans have been told that the Singapore market is “Too Small,” for competition and this was indeed true from a certain financial perspective. During Singapore’s most recent bout with media competition, both SPH and MediaCorp bleed red ink as they engaged in a vicious spat of cutting advertising rates. The flow of red ink only stopped with the end of “destructive competition,” in 2004.

So, what could media competition possibly be responsible for? How can anything that was the cause of the loss of so much money and jobs be good for society?
The most important answer lies in the simple business rule that competition creates better products by forcing the market to stay relevant. Having a monopoly may benefit the monopoly holder but in the end harms the consumer.

Monopoly holders ignore their customers and lose sight of the value of product improvement and innovation. This is particularly important in the newspaper business as the product often takes the shape of news events and the monopoly player has powers to set the news agenda of the day.

Thanks to Mr Rajaratnam and the Singapore Standard, the postman’s strike was covered thus taking away the ability of the pro-British Straits Times to set the news agenda. This was undoubtedly a milestone in the formation of the independence movement in Singapore and Malaysia.

While we may lack the contentious political issues of the 1950s and 60s, the importance of ensuring no single player owns the news agenda is equally important. TODAY has helped raise social issues such as that of the “Abused Husband,” which might otherwise have been ignored by the other newspapers.

Media competition has also provided a voice for alternative ideas. Could the “Anti-colonial,” Rajaratnam have got the PAP’s message across if he could only express himself in the pro British Straits Times? It’s unlikely.

While political issues of the day may not capture the imagination the way it once did, the global economy is dominated by the importance of ideas. Singapore needs forums where ideas can be expressed and developed. TODAY has been innovative in its pursuit of free-lance commentary writers and the public, thus demonstrating a civic responsibility by encouraging people to offer their ideas to make Singapore a better society. Nobody can tell how many of the ideas suggested in the paper are taken up but at least they are expressed and are available to those who wish to use them.

Perhaps the best thing about media competition is the fact that in the long run, it benefits everyone. Did TODAY’s profitability hurt the Straits Times? It has not. Both newspapers compete and force each other to come up with innovate advertising solutions for their clients as well as news stories for their readers. But more importantly, readers have a choice and a chance to form their own opinions about the issues of the day.

Senior Minister, Goh Chok Tong says, “An unthinking press would be bad for Singapore.” Mr Rajaratnam showed that media competition stops that from happening and that can only be good for Singaporeans and Singapore.

Copyright: (C) Tang Li