Thanks to all for your input regarding the "hypothetical problem". Just thought I'd post excerpts from an email I received from a reader -- and now new-found friend -- from Canada:

" This has to do with the culture of bureaucracy, which I suspect is the same in Singapore as in Vancouver. When someone's in charge of an organization ( whether it's a single department of a college, or a whole healthcare system), they resent public embarrassment-- mostly because it looks as if they're bowing to outside pressure rather than following policy, but also
because it looks as if their policies haven't been good ones. (Why else would the Chinese have been so stupid about SARS?)

A smart bureaucracy, however, tries to create a culture in which everyone feels free to complain at least within the organization. This helps to identify real problems and solutions, forestalling public embarrassment. If the troops are alienated and frustrated, they'll take it out on their bosses, even if it means some long-term harm to the organization.

A smart bureaucracy also maintains good media relations as a form of fire insurance. You're not a big fan of the Singapore media, I know, but the media in general are so used to being lied to that they automatically assume the worst when a scandal breaks. Even if you're telling them the truth, they think you're lying because they don't know you --so you're a target."

And here's an interesting article in The Globe And Mail, which dwells on the same topic.

First of all, I'm aware that the problem we're discussing isn't isolated to Singapore, or the type of organization in question. In pro-free-speech-and-asserting-your-rights America, 2002 saw 3 high-profile scandals involving Enron, WorldCom and the FBI, where 3 whistle-blowers ( all women, mind you ) exposed the corrupt inner workings of their departments. Although their memos were meant only for internal circulation, the press got their hands on them, and the 3 ladies became ( albeit reluctantly ) household names.

However, note also that judicial proceedings were immediately set in motion, and the guilty parties punished accordingly. Best of all, Time magazine subsequently put these 3 protagonists on the cover for People Of The Year 2002, and wrote glowing articles praising their immense courage and integrity.

Which brings me to the local situation...
Man, how many of you are shaking your heads here? :)

Okay, I don't have much respect for the local media. But I also try to understand their limitations, given the kind of "environment" they work in. But let's face it, if someone called them and provided a reliable tip on a scandal involving, say, the government, which they could verify, would they print it? Sure, many eons ago, there was a story on some "discounts" given to our top politicians during the purchase of some private property, but I was really young then, and didn't follow up on the outcome. Don't recall any major hoo-hah there. Not surprising.

So with regards to this "hypothetical dilemma" ( and if any reporters read this, perhaps he/she can answer on the media's behalf ):
1) If you have a source who knows the true story, and provides information for an expose, will you print the story? ( compulsory criterion being: it involves politicians )
2) If the article creates an uproar in the political arena, will the media cave and surrender this source to be devoured by the lions?

We can debate the role of journalism all we want, but ultimately, action always speaks louder than words, and this action is almost always directed against those who have little or no power to fight back -- ie. ordinary Singaporean citizens. My opinion is that the media's decision to run a story is mostly governed by its assessment of how powerful the people involved are. If it's a high-ranking official or someone who has wide-reaching connections or pots of money stored away for the explicit purpose of launching lawsuits against reporters, there is no doubt in my mind that no matter how newsworthy that story is, it will not be printed.

This is just my opinion, of course. Detractors are most welcome to dispute that.