Ex-Straits Time Chief Editor : Is Singapore's Mainstream Media Dead?

Cheong Yip Seng is the former Editor-in-Chief of The Straits Times, Singapore’s flagship English daily, where he led the newsroom for over two decades.

Joining the paper as a young journalist, he rose through the ranks to shape its editorial direction during some of Singapore’s most pivotal years.
Under his leadership, The Straits Times navigated the complexities of reporting in a young nation, balancing journalistic integrity with national sensitivities.

He later chronicled his experiences in his memoir OB Markers: My Straits Times Story, offering a rare insider’s perspective on Singapore’s media–government relationship.

Beyond his work in Singapore, he has also been closely involved with media developments across Asia, including advisory roles on the transformation of the South China Morning Post.

He recently published his follow-up book, Ink and Influence, arguing that Singapore media can take a more international and geopolitical outlook.


TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Trailer
01:10 The Role of Print Media in Early Singapore
04:33 How LKY Shaped Singapore's Media
06:55 Why LKY Rejected Western Media
08:09 Sensitivities of Reporting on Race in Singapore
09:49 How Western Media Works
13:31 Why Not Make Straits Times A Government Paper?
17:38 How Yip Seng Managed The Government
25:09 LKY's Influence on Newsroom
32:54 Singapore Post Separation
35:46 How Straits Times Must Evolve
42:56 The Value Proposition of Legacy Media Like ST
43:36 Transforming the South China Morning Post
48:48 Lessons From Building SCMP
50:08 Covering The 2019 HK Protests
52:45 A 'Geopolitical Straits Times'
59:10 Advice For Fresh Graduates

This is the 51st episode of The Front Row Podcast.

Keith 00:00:00

The American concept of the marketplace of ideas, instead of producing harmonious enlightenment, has from time to time led to riots and bloodshed. Lee Kuan Yew hated the Western idea of press freedom. Small vulnerable states like Singapore could not afford sensationalist journalism. To him, we needed a strong and decisive government to bring us from third world to first. And the Western media was a threat to that dream.

This begs the question: would Singapore media be mere propaganda machines, echoing whatever he thought was right? To answer this question, we turn to Cheong Yip Seng. He was the former editor-in-chief of Singapore's oldest and most prestigious news publication, The Straits Times. He had a front-row seat to Lee Kuan Yew at his full powers, be it on his prolific international trips or in the back room where Lee Kuan Yew would reveal his strategic thinking on governance.

Beyond Straits Times, Yip Seng was crucial in revitalising the legacy media outfit South China Morning Post for the digital age, thereby helping the world better decode China. So if you want to understand the story of Singapore media and where the future of media in Asia is, this is the conversation for you.

So if you can take me back to the early independence era of Singapore, what does it actually mean to be a newspaper journalist then?

Yip Seng 00:01:20

In those days the print media enjoyed a privileged position because the internet had not been invented. Social media was not around. So people turned to the print media for news and information, and The Straits Times was able to flourish during those days.

In fact, at one stage the print circulation of The Straits Times peaked at over 400,000 copies a day, which is a tremendous amount of copies sold in a country the size of Singapore. Because of its predominance, it exercised enormous influence in Singapore. To be a journalist in those days conferred on them a position that no longer exists today because they now have got a lot of competition.

I was lucky enough to be working for The Straits Times at a period when the conditions for journalism were immense, and it exercised an influence that I don't think journalists today would enjoy.

Keith 00:02:36

Even today, the current duopoly of MediaCorp and Times might not be as relevant as it once was because now every... the competition for any media company is an influencer on social media, YouTube, Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus. Your competition for attention is everyone now. It's not just...

Yip Seng 00:02:54

Yes, competition has changed dramatically. You've got to find a way to maintain or increase your mind share. The attention span of many of your customers is going to get shorter and shorter because they've got so many outlets that they can turn to. You must come up with a value proposition that makes it worthwhile for people to spend time with you, and you can't keep doing the things that you've been doing because nobody will find you of any value.

For me, Singapore is now an independent country for the last 60 years in a world which has changed dramatically. The driving force of change is really geopolitics, and I find that is fertile ground for The Straits Times to evolve.

Keith 00:04:00

Can you elaborate on the idea of the influence that a journalist back then enjoyed? Because I don't live in that era, or most of us in the younger generation don't really understand what the pre-internet age was like. What kind of influence did journalists hold back then?

Yip Seng 00:04:17

First, you've got to understand what were the conditions in Singapore at that time. The predominant figure in Singapore was Lee Kuan Yew - he shaped the island. For him, he said to effectively run Singapore you need to have control over three things: one, the treasury; two, the army; and third, the media.

He felt that unless you have control over these three things, you cannot effectively run Singapore. In taking that position, he has conferred on the media the importance he knows is necessary. He knows that the media enjoys a position that gives it enormous influence.

That is in those days. I'm not sure that things have changed very much. The media is still very important to the governance of Singapore. The fact that he sees media in that light tells me at least how important the media is to the governance of Singapore.

Keith 00:05:23

He sought to exert some control on media, Straits Times, but he didn't go down the route of maybe turning it full-on into a propaganda paper. Some might argue that it was very pro-establishment and maybe dictated by back then our Prime Minister Lee. Do you think there's some truth to that statement?

Yip Seng 00:05:42

I think the way he handled media shows the sophistication that he brings to the table. He knows that while he wants the media to be able to support fundamental policies of government, he also knows that it must enjoy a readership. And that readership requires the media or The Straits Times to provide more than news of the government. It must also reflect other voices in society - alternative voices, critical voices.

Unless you provide that as well, you will not be a credible newspaper. And he knows that credibility is very important to the newspaper. Otherwise, it is of little use. People will not give much attention, nor would they regard it as a serious product. So he knows that it's important that space must be provided to the media so that the paper will be able to offer a diversity of opinion in its pages.

Keith 00:06:47

It seems to me that if you were Western-educated or liberal like him, and the dominant force back then was tilted towards making the media as a fourth estate - they would check and balance the government - he obviously differed from that. Why do you think he thought that way? Why do you think he placed such preeminence on the role of media in shaping society?

Yip Seng 00:07:06

He was totally against the liberal way Western newspapers are run. That model in his view would not be in the best interest of Singapore. The Western media, having been established for a much longer time, emerged out of a culture which is very different from ours.

Look at the society that they serve, and you look at the Singapore situation. Singapore is a very unique state. It is a predominantly Chinese - ethnic Chinese country, 70-75%. Then you've got a substantial number of Malays and Indians. That is the environment in which you work. And it is very important for Singapore's future that there's a high degree of racial harmony.

To maintain that harmony requires sensitivity to the country that you operate in. And how do you cover the news with this background?

I'll just give you an example. When the government introduced the ethnic integration programme, which dictates how the racial composition in each district is permitted - the idea is to make sure that racial ghettos do not form in Singapore. But that policy, sensible though it may be, also exacted tremendous cost to some people. Many people were not able to sell their flats because of the quota.

Now, how do you approach a story like that in Singapore? On the one hand, you know that this policy makes eminent sense. On the other hand, you cannot be ignorant of the unintended ill consequences that follow. How do you cover it in such a way that you do not upset or undermine the policy, and yet at the same time not muzzle the voices of those people who are badly affected by it?

It requires a certain amount of restraint in covering the story to ensure that the racial harmony that is so important to Singapore is not disrupted. That seems to be fundamentally at odds with the Western media's approach towards covering issues - that is completely at the discretion of the journalist and maybe the editor, but not necessarily with the national interest.

Keith 00:09:50

The Western media, given the history of the country, believes very strongly in checks and balances and sees the media as a fourth estate. It is a position that Lee Kuan Yew at least will not support, and he has got an argument that is not easy to refute. He says that the political party that wins the election has a mandate from the people to rule as it sees fit. The media in Singapore does not enjoy the same benefit - they do not go for elections, they don't have to get re-elected.

So that's a difference in thinking. And there's another element - if privately run like what you see today, media dynamics is that you will reflect the views or the discretion of the owner of the paper or the outfit. Therefore, these people who are unelected get to maybe have a disproportionate influence in which public discourse is carried out.

Yip Seng 00:11:08

The owners of newspapers in Singapore cannot operate the way newspaper owners operate in the West. I'll just give you an example. Rupert Murdoch is a media tycoon that owns a lot of newspapers and TV stations around the world. In the case of the publications that he owns in the UK, for example, he will give the London Times, which he owns, a free hand in how they want to report politics. But he will personally make sure that he has control over another publication called The Sun. Why? Because The Sun has got more political influence than The Times. So he feels that he must have some control over the paper that has got the most powerful impact on the electorate.

If you have a similar kind of arrangement in Singapore where the owner decides how the newspaper should position itself, you will inevitably come into conflict with the government in Singapore. And that's why rules were introduced, regulations were introduced 20-30 years ago that determines the kind of ownership the Singapore media is allowed - all to ensure that this arrangement will be in the best interest of the political stability in Singapore.

Keith 00:12:46

You referred to Lee Kuan Yew as the quality controller, which is a very unique perspective. Because if you look at it from the Western journalist's view, they will think that this guy is dictating policy maybe in the newsroom. In some cases, people see unfairly or fairly that SPH is really just a government paper. Can you further elaborate on what you mean actually when you say that he is the quality controller of SPH?

Yip Seng 00:13:20

This is the way he sees The Straits Times, and I mentioned this in the book. He likens The Straits Times to a porcelain bowl - an important institution. It has been around much longer than the PAP - 180 years this year - and it's an institution that in his view is worth preserving. It makes no sense for Singapore to crack that bowl.

So while he wants control, he also wants to ensure that this institution thrives. And how can this institution thrive? It can only thrive if it is a credible product. It's got to be credible, otherwise it will have little value. And I think he is a guy who is very conscious of the image that he projects.

If you have a Straits Times that is a pure propaganda sheet, people who come to Singapore will have a perception of Singapore which will not be desirable or good for Singapore. How can you have a major media outlet that is of that type of quality? It does not reflect well on Singapore. And I think he's always conscious of the reputation of Singapore. He wants to have institutions and products that are credible and that will be a credit to Singapore.

Keith 00:14:52

But there is a tension inherent in that, right? Which is that he will fundamentally maybe be at odds with the journalists in the newsroom. I think you've detailed a few incidents where he would appoint someone from the civil service to directly intervene in the newsroom. How did you have to navigate that tension of him simultaneously wanting to build a credible institution but at the same time you had journalists who are well-meaning and credible in their own right that wanted to pursue stories that he didn't think were beneficial for Singapore?

Yip Seng 00:15:26

I think he wanted to have what I call a monitor in the newsroom to assure himself that there aren't people in the newsroom that will actively undermine policy. But what has been the actual experience that we had with these two monitors? First we had Hassan, a senior civil servant, and later on we had Lim Kim San, who was a retired but heavyweight minister.

I can tell you from working with these two people that they had not interfered with the running of the newsroom. They had not interfered. So the results speak for themselves - that while he may have a monitor, it doesn't mean that the monitor acts as a censor. It would be an impossible job for the monitor - they'd be taking over the job of the editor, which would be totally undesirable.

His appointment of these monitors is more, as he must view it, as an assurance that there isn't someone quietly undermining the basic policies of government. But the experience speaks for itself that they had never interfered, at least during the time I was there.

In fact, there were times when the monitors would get feedback from him expressing unhappiness with certain journalists. But the matter ended there. My job was to defend our journalists. My job is to protect the talented journalists in the newsroom. We were critical of government, and they had not interfered with my choice of people and the work that they were allowed to do.

So I enjoyed a certain degree of freedom, knowing that whilst the government does want to have control, I also have agency. We have agency. What is the card that I have? The card I have is this: to be a good product, you need to have talent. But if you exert control, what will happen? You will drive talent away. Who wants to work for a paper that has got these chains, invisible chains around them?

And there were attempts to get some people removed from the newsroom. But I've stood firm and I got my way. I got my way because I know that they also know that it is not in the interest of Singapore or the paper to create a newsroom that will not attract good people to work for you. And good people who want to work for you, they must have a mind of their own, they must have views that they hold very strongly about, and they must be given space.

So that is the card that the newsroom - or at least I had - and that allows me to negotiate what I call the OB markers.

Keith 00:18:41

If you look at the term OB markers, right, it just means this is where the boundaries are. These are areas that you can't cross. What were the kind of OB markers that you had to navigate back then when you were in the newsroom?

Yip Seng 00:18:54

After I was appointed editor-in-chief in 1987, a few months after my appointment, I was confronted with my first mini crisis. A bunch of people in Singapore were arrested and they were called Marxists. You may remember that.

Now that story required careful handling - certain amount of restraint needed to be exercised. Two things had to be borne in mind. First, the newsroom is at a disadvantage. We don't have the information about them that the government has. So we have to rely on the government's narrative. That's one point.

The other point is many of these people who were detained were Catholics, and I'm Catholic. I know from my Catholic friends who know these people that actually they're not Marxists - they're actually social activists. So there are two versions. One version is that these people were so-called Marxists with the agenda of undermining government. That's the official version. But I also have the other version, which is that these people are social activists.

How do I deal with this story? I have to bear one thing in mind: that if this story is not handled correctly, it has the potential of bringing about conflict between the government and the Catholic Church. In fact, during this whole affair, Lee Kuan Yew summoned the Archbishop of Singapore to the Istana to assure him that this action that he's taking is not intended to target the church.

I have to bear this in mind: that if I do not handle this story properly, a conflict between the government and the church would result, and that would be disastrous for Singapore. So that is an example of the kind of OB markers that I have to deal with.

Keith 00:21:15

What was the worst-case scenario that was playing in your mind then?

Yip Seng 00:21:15

Open conflict between the two sides, because there are Catholics in Singapore at that time who believed that they were not evil people - that they are actually social activists. But the government has got information from the intelligence agencies that they are not social activists - they are more than that.

Now, I'm not in a position to tell where the truth really is. I have to rely on what the government says, but I also got to be mindful of what friends of these people say as well. So I got two conflicting stories, two conflicting narratives. But my concern is that we must avoid the collision between the two sides because that would be very bad for Singapore.

So how do you square that circle? I had to avoid overplaying the reactions of the people who were upset by the arrest. I had to be restrained in the way I covered that part of the story.

Keith 00:22:19

Which is that for Straits Times to be credible, you have to constantly manage the tensions of supporting the government but at the same time serving the readers.

Yip Seng 00:22:25

Yes. That seems to be the constant tension throughout.

Keith 00:22:33

My question is: if you are a journalist then and a political leader comes to you and says that we want you to be credible but we also want to control - or we want to make sure that the paper remains credible - maybe the natural reaction would be to distrust that because it seems to the average person that the incentives are aligned for them to actually take full control of the paper.

Yip Seng 00:23:00

What are the facts in Singapore that I'm faced with? Number one, I'm personally convinced that we have a government that is competent, that is not corrupt. That's one point.

Number two, public sentiment. What has been the track record of the PAP in the last 60 years? The track record is that at every election they are returned with at least two-thirds of the vote, which means that the party is supported by the majority of people time and time again. And these two facts weigh heavily on how I manage the paper.

If you have a competent government, does it make sense for me to oppose it and undermine it? It doesn't make sense to me. So generally I'm supportive because we have a good government. But at the same time, we also know as a fact that no government is perfect. Nobody is perfect. So how do you ensure that some of these imperfections are also surfaced? Otherwise you have lost your credibility.

So that's the framework that I used in editing the paper.

Keith 00:24:30

Can you help me go back to your earlier days as a journalist as well? What were the kind of experiences or exposure to the leaders back then that influenced the framework in which you understood how to run Straits Times? Because you said a very important part - which is that you are convinced that they are competent and incorruptible, and I think till today many Singaporeans still believe that. But you also had a chance to be up close and personal with them when you covered him. What was the kind of influence he had on you in the case of LKY?

Yip Seng 00:24:58

I think his biggest influence on me was the way he approached the governance in Singapore. To a very large extent, he takes the big picture approach. He's very geopolitical. It is only when you're geopolitical that you understand the world, and that is how you position your country in this kind of world.

So geopolitics was a big thing for him that provided the big picture, and it is a good approach in my opinion in running a newspaper - taking the big picture approach. So that is one benefit that I got interacting with him.

And then with the successor like Goh Chok Tong, he understood the needs of a newspaper - the need for it to be credible - and he also understood that managing such a product requires a certain understanding of the newsroom.

I told him once that it is impossible for an editor or anybody to make the right political call all the time because journalists and editors work under enormous deadline pressure. You have to decide how to play up the story. Which angle do you take? Is the glass half empty or half full? You have to make a decision under pressure of deadline, because the way you handle the story - a major political story - can have an influence on public opinion. You cannot always make the right call. It is impossible.

And I'm happy that he accepted that argument and was prepared to accept a situation where so long as I don't make mistakes seven out of eight times, he will accept. That means he allowed me a margin of 30% error. That is an arrangement that gave me a lot of leeway so that I won't have to have sleepless nights worrying about how the story will be received the next day by the politicians. And that to me is a workable arrangement.

Keith 00:27:33

It's also in that environment when you can have that slack or that bandwidth which you can then perhaps attract talent as well because they have the ability to express themselves.

Yip Seng 00:27:39

Yes.

Keith 00:27:39

Then in your view, what do you think talent is?

Yip Seng 00:27:46

A talented journalist is one who has a clear mind, who is politically sensitive, and who writes clearly and well. They're not easy to find. Such people make up, in my opinion, the minority in the newsroom. And because they're so difficult to find, every effort must be made to make sure that we don't lose them.

Keith 00:28:10

I wanted to circle back on this point about LKY's influence on you because I thought it was important to revisit. You talk about LKY's influence on you was his sense of geopolitics, his sense of the world. And I think that if we look at Singapore's success stories, actually a huge part of it was contingent on us reading the geopolitics correctly. For example, choosing to take the advice of Albert Winsemius to integrate with the Western economies - that was a huge geopolitical decision that you had to get right because if you didn't choose that, then you would have lost the entire growth of globalisation and technological advancement during that period.

Do you have any kind of stories in which the way he saw geopolitics fundamentally influenced you?

Yip Seng 00:28:59

One story that remains vivid in my mind is this story that he told about his struggle with the Barisan Sosialis. You must know that in the early years of the PAP, there were two wings in the party. One is a left-wing, largely Chinese-educated. The other one is English-educated minority. Eventually the Chinese wing broke away from the PAP and started the Barisan Sosialis, and the Barisan Sosialis had enormous reach. They controlled most of the party branches - numerically they were superior.

One day a member of that wing, a guy called James Puthucheary, who was one of the founders of the PAP by the way, came and told him, "Harry, your side cannot win. We have all the advantages. Come over and join us."

How did he react? He says that might well be true, but I take a different view of the situation. I take the geopolitical view. What's the geopolitical picture that I see? I see our differences as a reflection of what was prevailing in the world in those days. On the one hand, you got the Soviet Union, their model of development, their model of government. And on the other hand, you've got the Western way of running governments. And in his view, the Western way will produce better results for the people than the left-wing way.

And because he was so convinced of that, he was prepared to take the risk and not join the numerically superior faction of the party. That story tells me that he looks at things in geopolitical terms, and it has brought a lot of benefits to Singapore.

Keith 00:31:04

Even if the Barisan was to win, his view was that they would fundamentally fail in the long run because the economic output or the kind of production will be poor.

Yip Seng 00:31:13

And I'll tell you this story - how this was borne out. Goh Chok Tong approached me and asked whether The Straits Times would publish a book on the history of the PAP, and we produced a book called "Men in White". You may be aware of that. We launched that book in Old Parliament House, and among the guests at that launch was a former Barisan leader.

I engaged him and he told me something which was very candid, which totally surprised me - or maybe it wasn't such a surprise. He said that if we, the Barisan, had won, we would not have been able to do for Singapore what the PAP did. We would not have been able to do the job. We would not succeed as well as the PAP did. So that is affirmation that the capitalist system produced better results than the communist system.

Keith 00:32:14

It was also early in opening up to China in the '70s. Everyone knows of the famous trip that Deng Xiaoping came to Singapore, and that was a huge inspiration or at least a huge consideration factor which led to his subsequent Deng Xiaoping's reforming of China's economy because he saw that Singapore could by adopting a capitalist system enjoy growth and improvement instead of living...

Yip Seng 00:32:40

When we left Malaysia, the PAP was in this situation. They had convinced the people of Singapore that survival is only possible with merger. It took them a lot of effort, years of persuading the people that without Malaysia, we have no future. But after we left Malaysia, what did the PAP do? The PAP had to convince the people that the opposite is true - that Singapore can survive without Malaysia.

That's a remarkable change of thinking, and they were able to persuade the people that the opposite was true. And as a result, Singapore flourished.

Now what did Singapore do? Singapore decided that if the hinterland of Malaysia is not available to us - and that's one reason why we had to leave Malaysia, because the hinterland which was promised was not available to us - so the PAP took another approach, which is to use the world as a hinterland. And the policy at that time is that - in fact, in the language, some graphic language that I heard - the PAP government would trade with the devil to ensure Singapore's survival.

So they traded with communist countries - Cuba, North Korea, communist China. So as far as economics and trade are concerned, ideologies don't come into the picture. More important is what can you get out of all these countries. If you want to use the world as a hinterland, you have to accept the world as it is - whether it's communist, non-communist or socialist. Only then can you maximise your chances of growing your economic base.

It is this keen sense of geopolitics that I think enabled them to make the right decisions. And I think that's something that remains underrated today. Because what you said - actually when I spoke to Ambassador Chan, she said that she even went as far as to say that the merger, the push for merger which PAP invested so much time, effort, energy, political capital in, was one of their greatest strategic mistakes. But their ability to take themselves out of that post-independence was something that was equally remarkable as well. So I think she echoed your sentiments.

Keith 00:35:25

There is a tangent there that is worth exploring, which is: if that keen sense of geopolitics was necessary for Singapore's survival in its early years, it is also equally crucial today. And at the same time, if you look at the way the internet has evolved, the kind of privileged access that Straits Times could afford once in the past just by being the largest player in Singapore is pretty much gone and eroded. Everyone has access to information everywhere now, which means that the playing field is much more level. Competition in some ways is a little more meritocratic.

Then if you look at an outfit like Straits Times - it's 180 years old now - how can it survive for the next 180 years?

Yip Seng 00:36:23

I believe that Straits Times can continue to thrive if it's clear-sighted as to what is its value proposition to the reader. What is its value proposition? You are now faced with an array of competitors. Not only are the competitors many, but the attention span of many of your young readers have shrunk. So in an environment like that, you have to think hard: what is it that will make you valued? What is it that you can offer that will induce a customer to pay for your product? Or advertise with you?

You have to determine - this is your environment - what is your value proposition? And I believe that if you can come up with an answer, you will continue to thrive.

Don't forget The Straits Times has got many things going for it. Number one, the brand name. There are very few products in Singapore that has lasted 180 years. It has lasted 180 years. It has got goodwill, brand name. You can write on that. And don't forget Singapore enjoys a very sophisticated education system. What does it mean? It means that the talent is there for you to tap. If you have talented people, if you can come up with a value proposition, you will survive.

Amidst this noisy social media environment and with a customer base that with a very short attention span, you must come out with something of great value. And there are many examples of newspapers that have got great value. Every day - at least I read apart from Straits Times, CNA - I read the Financial Times and the New York Times, and I can see the value proposition that they have. They cover the world in a way that illuminates me. I have a better understanding of the world reading them.

There's nothing to prevent The Straits Times from reading the world, reading Singapore in a way that people will find value. So if you can come up with the formula and you can attract talent, you have a combination that can only lead to success. You may not have the same reach as you used to have before, but you have sufficient reach.

And you have got one other important card in your bag. The government regards you as important enough to shell out millions of dollars each year to support you. You know this scheme where the government is putting aside $900 million over five years. So what does that commitment mean? It must mean that you have value. So you should take advantage of that and you should not make any apologies for receiving this funding because in the internet world, many newspapers in the world enjoy this benefit from government.

There's a French newspaper called Le Monde. You know how the French government subsidises them? Because the French government believes that if they lose media outlets like Le Monde, they would in effect be destroying democracy. So to protect its future, if you buy a copy of Le Monde, you get a tax credit. And because Le Monde is distributed by post throughout France, they enjoy special postal rates. So government funding for papers is a public good. We should not make apologies for government funding for Straits Times.

Keith 00:40:40

I actually agree with you. But from my perspective as a Singaporean, young Singaporeans today - if you look at Straits Times today, it's still paywall even though it currently gets generous government funding. My view is that why not make it free for Singaporeans to read? Now you have technology today - you can integrate your SingPass in the backend, you can log in to identify your Singaporean. If we view this as a public good, shouldn't it be equitable access for all Singaporeans? Couldn't there be a case made with that?

Yip Seng 00:41:08

I have left the newsroom for 19 years, so I'm not familiar with what are the internal considerations that they have for having a paywall. You may very well be right. But I cannot adequately answer your question because I'm not in the loop, so to speak.

But to me, that is not the major thing. The major thing is that you've got to look at your global environment and come up with a value proposition that makes sense. You have got cards to play - public funding, good brand name, long history. It's an institution. The Straits Times in my opinion is an institution worth preserving. But that does not mean that Straits Times must not also step up and see where its future actually lies.

You must come up with a value. You've got to be able to justify the funding that the public is giving you. So they must find a way of justifying that funding. And the only way you can justify that is to be able to maintain your readership as much as you can. And that confers on you a certain amount of influence.

Keith 00:42:26

I asked that also because I think when you talk about value proposition, you also have a unique perspective in helping set up South China Morning Post under two different owners - or at least you helped manage that transition under Robert Kuok and under Alibaba. And South China Post maybe can act as a case study in which it has reinvented itself as a legacy publication and also a credible source on China from a different perspective.

So what I'd like to maybe ask you to indulge me is: help me understand - SCMP was previously much more critical of the central Chinese government, and with your guidance it has morphed into something that's a bit more independent, more neutral, but a lot more credible than it was in the past. How do you understand that process?

Yip Seng 00:43:19

If you look at the history of the South China Morning Post, for the longest time editorial control was in the hands of expatriates, and they saw Hong Kong, they saw China with Western lenses, which may not be desirable for Hong Kong as far as the owners are concerned.

People like Robert Kuok, they know China very well. They do know China. Having been invested in China for many, many years, they know China. Alibaba is a Chinese company. They have a different lens, which you can argue is a more accurate lens for reading China.

So when they took over, they decided that the Western lens that was used to look at China is no longer appropriate. So they changed course. The greatest value of the South China Morning Post is the coverage of China. I read it occasionally, and I can tell you that there are very few media outlets that can compete with the South China Morning Post on what is happening in China.

I had the privilege of being in the newsroom and listening to the editors talk about China. I can tell you, Keith, their knowledge of China is far superior to the knowledge of China that other newspapers have. In fact, the former editor-in-chief of the South China Morning Post called Wang Xiangwei - I regard him as the best-informed journalist on China, and he still writes a column for South China Morning Post.

So South China Morning Post's value proposition is China. In the case of Singapore Straits Times, I do not think that we can ever match the South China Morning Post in terms of understanding China. What is our value proposition? Our value proposition for Straits Times is ASEAN.

ASEAN is a major player on the global stage, and if we can interpret and report ASEAN authoritatively, The Straits Times has a place in the world. I remember when I was there, two things happened. We invested a lot in regional coverage, and I was very happy when one day Goh Chok Tong told me that your paper is being read by the leaders of ASEAN. That means they find value in what we report on ASEAN.

On another occasion, Lee Kuan Yew asked me, "Can I meet some of your journalists from KL and Indonesia?" For a man who is very well-informed about what's going on in our neighbours, it is a compliment to the quality of the reporting by our reporters in Jakarta and Indonesia and Malaysia. That tells you more than anything else that The Straits Times has value in reporting ASEAN - that we are read because of the reporting of ASEAN.

Don't get me wrong - I don't mean that Straits Times should be an entirely ASEAN paper. No, it is a Singapore paper. It must report Singapore. But it has got this special feature which not many outlets can compete with, and that is our reporting of ASEAN. So that's our niche. China Post, the niche is China. Straits Times...

Keith 00:47:10

You've shown that it's possible to change course and possible to modernise and refresh yourself in SCMP. And then the question would be: what were the steps or what was the framework that you took that helped South China make that pivot?

Yip Seng 00:47:34

I would not want to overestimate my role in the South China Morning Post. I think the credit must largely go to the people who are working there themselves. My contribution is to help them attract talent, because I believe that whatever you do, success depends on the talent you can bring into the organisation. If you get the right talent - the people who are professionally competent, who've got a worldview that is aligned with what the paper wants - you have a successful product. So my contribution is to help build a leadership team at the South China Morning Post.

Keith 00:48:30

I remember there was the reporting on the 2019 Hong Kong protests. There was a lot of conflicting coverage. You look at the Western media lionising the protesters. In Singapore we don't have that kind of close vantage point, so it wasn't that big a feature. But SCMP was on the ground, and there was a lot of tensions that they managed because SCMP was making that transition into a much more Chinese lens, if I might use the word, or a much more independent lens as opposed to its previous era of the Western lens. How did they manage that tension of making that transition whilst reporting as best as they could on those 2019 demonstrations?

Yip Seng 00:49:21

The newsroom that I saw at that time was that many of the reporters were conflicted. They couldn't understand why the demonstrators were doing what they did. They wanted to protect the system that they enjoyed - One Country, Two Systems. They saw the actions that were being taken by the Chinese government in Hong Kong as a threat to the system, and the protests were the protests.

So whilst you have journalists in the newsroom who were sympathetic to the protesters, there's also another point of view that you have to take into account, which is law and order. You cannot accept a situation whereby demonstrators are allowed to smash up public infrastructure, disrupt train services, vandalise buildings. So law and order has to be preserved.

On the other hand, there's some sympathy for the political goals of the protesters. So how do you manage these two tensions? And that was a challenge for the newsroom. Fortunately, the South China Morning Post had an editorial leadership team that were able to navigate the OB markers, and they did what I thought was an outstanding job - while giving space to articulate the views of the demonstrators, they also took care to ensure that law and order is not subverted.

And I think maybe that would be an example of how it is possible to stay relevant but at the same time stay disciplined. And that I think is SCMP's value proposition to anyone who wants to understand Hong Kong and China. And if you are from the English-speaking world, SCMP is the default source.

Keith 00:51:30

And you made the case that Singapore should take ASEAN as one of its core focuses and we should be a much more, as you put it, a geopolitical Straits Times. Maybe some people would disagree with you and say that's too optimistic or maybe they would think that's impractical - we're fundamentally a Singaporean paper. My question for you is: why do you think that we have that capability within Singapore? What are the sources of evidence that you think Singapore Straits Times can punch above its weight?

Yip Seng 00:52:06

I think first of all I have faith that our education system would develop people with the talent and the skills to do this job. But you've got to spend a lot of time headhunting, looking for talent. During my time I spent one-third of my time looking for talent, because when you find the talent, you get the job done. So whatever the positioning of Straits Times, the starting point is always: find the talent who can do that.

I'm confident that we have the ability to attract talent not only from within but also from without. You have to bring in people from outside to supplement the local team, and it is possible to do so.

Secondly, Singapore - I've always regarded Singapore news this way. I see no distinction between foreign news and local news because we are a global city. Whatever happens outside Singapore matters to Singapore. So I don't see this distinction - foreign news is foreign news boxed in, local news is local news. No, for me a foreign news story is as local as a local story.

The line dividing the two is blurred because we are a global city. The policies that Trump is pursuing - the tariff policy - is a foreign story, and it indeed it is, but to me the tariff policy is a local story because it has got immense local ramifications. The business people will tell you that they have to make adjustments to what the Americans are doing - supply chains. And the fact that the old global economic system that is largely American-built and created, the WTO, that system is vanishing.

So that foreign story is to me also a local story because of local ramifications. So for a long time I've never classified the news in two separate categories. I saw it as an integrated story - that a foreign story is as much a local story as a local story.

Keith 00:54:36

Are there people that you think can represent us Singapore on the international stage that can provide credible vantage point perspective that you think Singaporeans should pay attention to - to really give them a taste of what a geopolitical Straits Times or much more internationally-oriented Straits Times would look like?

Yip Seng 00:54:59

We have been doing this for a very long time. I'm talking about Singapore, not Straits Times. Singapore has been doing it all the time for a very long time. You've got prominent voices. Lee Kuan Yew was the best of them all. When he speaks on the international stage, he's listened to. Then you've got others - the younger political leaders, people like Tharman, people like Bilahari, Kishore Mahbubani, Chan Heng Chee, Tommy Koh - they're all geopolitical animals, and their voices are valued and people do want to hear them. So they get invited to speak at forums, international forums.

So we do have a track record in Singapore of delivering this type of work, and it's much sought after. You might have seen them. If you go to YouTube, you can find... I mean, I was listening to your interview with Chan Heng Chee. You did one recently with her. What she said is of relevance to people outside Singapore. The way Singapore sees the world - I think Singapore is regarded as a thought leader within ASEAN because we are so global. The world is much more global. The way information is being transmitted is much more global. The moment you put it on the web, it's literally for the world to see. You put it on YouTube, everyone in the world can watch it.

Keith 00:56:23

Absolutely. The nagging question that's always at the back of my head is: these people are of an older generation, and they seem to have stumbled or they seem to have a kind of recipe or formula that has allowed them to be that way. The question is: can Singapore sustain that? What do you think are the elements that allow Singapore to sustain that kind of people?

Yip Seng 00:56:51

The incentive to do that is the future and survival of Singapore. Unless Singapore is able to continue to operate in this mode, its prospects are going to be very dim. But I believe that we have a track record. We have the proven capability of continuing to do that because that's the only way we can find survival. The world has got to be our hinterland. We've got to trade with the world. Take the world as it is.

And Singapore is small. It confers on it a certain advantage with nimbleness, and it has one other huge advantage: political stability. I mean, I was listening to the leader of the opposition Pritam Singh. He did a broadcast podcast with a Malaysian outlet. He's virtuous. The position that he takes - what does it mean to me? I see it as a huge endorsement. This is a huge contribution to political stability in Singapore.

He has no ambition of taking over the government. He concedes that to the PAP. Can you imagine? Can you think of any other country elsewhere in the world where the strongest opposition party concedes that the government should be in the hands of another party? It means enormous political stability.

In fact, in Singapore, you have a situation which you do not find elsewhere. Even before the last vote is counted, you know who is going to be in government. Even before the election campaign begins, you know who is going to be in government. That's an enormous advantage - political stability plus nimbleness that will put Singapore in the sweet spot to navigate this very turbulent world. And the more sensitive you are to the geopolitics, then that will add to your nimbleness and that will ensure Singapore's survival.

Keith 00:59:02

Let's keep it short and sweet. If you had one piece of advice for a graduating student entering the working world today, what would it be?

Yip Seng 00:59:08

Know the world and your place in it. The world is going to be much more competitive. I was recently in China. I was amazed at the drive of the Chinese - the drive of the Chinese, the way they're growing the economy. This is the kind of world that you're going to have to contend with. Know the world. Know where your place is in the world, and position yourself accordingly.

Keith 00:59:33

With that, Yip Seng, thank you for coming on.

Yip Seng 00:59:33

Thank you, Keith, for the opportunity.