> I appreciate the links.

Happy to share! :-)

> One thing you might clarify is how much reporting contradicts the very nature of the regime, government, and way the system works. [...] That's critical for reform.

I think this is one of those things where we run into one of those massive fundamental differences in perspective– about the value of contradiction and its role in reform.

I don't personally believe that "contradictory reporting -> reform". I surprise myself a little by saying that – in my teenage days I spent a lot of time writing blogposts that were deliberately critical of the media and the State. I got a lot of traffic to my blog, but I don't feel like I made much of a difference. I don't feel like I contributed towards reform. All I did was give people links that they could share on Facebook to argue with their friends about. I'm starting to share Obama's perspective on this– if you want real change, you have to get involved in the political process. And that doesn't actually require the sound-and-fury way of doing things.

I think INDEPENDENT THINKING is necessary for reform, and diverse, independent thought doesn't necessarily always emerge from A vs B. In fact, I've come to believe (from personal experience, mostly) that contrarian thinking tends to lead to very entrenched opposing camps, which leads to deadlock.

As another comment pointed out– Singapore is always constantly reforming, and a healthy, steady pace [1]. Our population sees no need for massive adjustments. I personally think in areas like legalizing gay marriage, removing the mandatory death penalty for drugs, etc we really ought to take some big leaps, but people are already making those arguments and progress is slow. But there is progress. And it's not the state that's holding the progress back– large portions of the population legitimately are indifferent or conservative or "if it ain't broke...".

So anyway– to answer your question– the media rarely contradicts the Govt or the system directly. But that doesn't necessarily mean what it seems. Criticisms exist, they're just subtly put.

Here's a very interesting article [2], from someone who's known to be a high-ranking journalist from a pro-establishment background:

> There is also the argument that a stronger opposition is good for Singapore's political development, not just as leverage against the PAP. Even some PAP ministers have said this.

> According to this view, a strong opposition provides checks and balances on the ruling party. It sets Singapore further along the path towards a two-party system, the dream of political liberals who do not buy the PAP's argument that Singapore is so tiny and so exceptional, it can only be governed by the PAP's pre-selected A-team of political leaders, and that it lacks the talent base for other parties to build up a credible alternative. Each election that sees capable individuals joining the opposition dents that argument.

> All that is needed next is for those capable individuals to coalesce around one or two serious political parties and their leaders, learn to compromise and work together, and win voters' support. Singapore can then become a "normal" country with a political system that remains stable even when parties alternate in power.

> It may undergo a period of turbulence in the transition, but settle into a stable equilibrium. Then, the biggest risk for Singapore - of having a system untested by alternation of political power - will be neutralised.

That might not seem like a big deal, but it was published by a "high-ranking" journalist in the national newspapers, legitimizing a non-PAP future for Singapore. It would've been unthinkable 10 years ago. And that's the kind of progress and reform we're proud of. A response to that might be "that's so tame, that's so mild!" – but we like it that way. Less blood and death. Nobody gets pepper-sprayed or tazed. It's more elegant.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11572889

[2] http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/singapolitics/is-a-stro...