Uncategorized
In between the silence
Can there be real transparency and accountability in an authoritarian one-party state? By KJ.
KJ
Can there be real transparency and accountability in an authoritarian one-party state?
In popular banter, in coffeeshops, during taxi-rides, Singapore is often likened to a dynasty, a fiefdom, a monarchy. The benevolent emperor is aging, and the crown prince has ascended the throne. The new king of Singapore Inc., the sovereign and his wealth funds, the powerful little kingdom, its imperium across the continents. These are compelling images, revealing the people’s underlying pride and patriotism. They also reflect conventional sentiments of high office in absolute power. While people may partake in these jokes, their laughter nevertheless stem from a niggling discomfort, that this might indeed be a reality for them. The unease of the powerless. When the laughter dies down, there is always a furtive silence.
When the town councils’ investment losses came to light, there was a preceding silence, only broken three weeks later in parliament, broken by a question. Then the widespread unhappiness, and the queries raged. The fires fought by the foot soldiers – tarrying back and forth to douse and shield – only served to further spread the flames. The leaders stepped aback. They referred the residents to the town councils, the town councils deferred to the government, in between, the silence, and the people were left wondering where the leadership was.. It was a surreal time to be in Singapore, this hollowed, depoliticised bureaucracy, cruising on autopilot, gliding on invisible leadership.
Grace Fu was right. Our responses were knee-jerk reactions. The town councils are at no risk of going bust, and really, residents have not lost much money. The investment lessons to be learnt in this episode are not just one for the town councils, but for the financial world at large. Singapore, its institutions, and its people have merely, like the rest of the world, been sucked into this frenzied paradigm of greed. And in the coming time, the town councils will be more transparent, their charges delayed or not increased, more frequent maintenance and upgrading works, and it all will pass.
What will not pass, however, is the root of these anger that will find places to flourish no matter what. It is not about the town councils. It is about that goliath of an arrogance that the government has come to exemplify. Hence, each mis-step, mistake, or gaffe from them will invariably proliferate into a garden of dissatisfaction.
It is that classic affective divide again, recurring, widening, ever dividing. Except that since Catherine Lim’s public affair with the State, there have been fourteen more years of increasing contempt, conceit, and swagger of the leaders and their millionaire mandarins. Proceeding in tandem was a different world, a world that had been slowly transforming the Singaporean consciousness. The state propaganda machinery was continually unmasked and under siege. That great affective divide had ruptured into a colossal chasm: the Wee Shu Min affair with another Singaporean serf, the NKF and its peanuts, Yawning Bread and that photograph, the fixing of the opposition, Mr Brown’s rendezvous with Ms Bhavani, bak chor mee and PM Lee’s mee siam, Mas Selamat and our complacency, the rising costs of rising costs, the huge government salaries and their huge investment losses, all sprung from the fount of burgeoning hubris, further germinated by the Internet’s wind, hyperlinks, and solidarity.
Little Davids were incessantly whipped, stripped and paraded around in the public square, and the growing Sunday crowd was beginning to tire and feel uneasy. They wondered who would be called up next.
But this hubris is merely taking Singapore’s system of government to its logical conclusion. Total power is arrogant; it is corruptible, and it is begrudged too. The knee-jerk resentments are but symptoms of desperation: life savings, lives, and futures are at stake, in the hands of a government that is appearing not to be as sterling as they say. Or have we only now begun to see?
Hence the desperate calls for transparency, we do not want to be kept in the dark. But it will not come by itself. Hence the empty calls for a stronger opposition. But it will not allow one. Hence the feeble yells to liberalise. Give and take, a little tango, and it is still back to No, No, and No.
When the individuals lost their life-savings, there were desperate calls for help. It was a cudgel that the leaders should have taken up. Instead, they were chastised by Lee Kuan Yew that they had invested with their open eyes, so they had only themselves to blame. When the town council’s losses were exposed, presumably the bright ones had also invested with their bright eyes. But those were public coffers, and so the public roared.
Hence this wringing anger. The government cannot be, and the present system cannot hold. Life savings, lives, and futures are at stake. The people are losing sight of their savings, the government its duty; it is losing their money, and the people are on the losing side, corralled on an island, and nowhere to go.
It was predictable that Khaw Boon Wan stepped in. He is an earnest man, his devotion to his religion appeals to the public, and he speaks with empathy. People’s anger are soothed somewhat. He can say that the town councils have absolute transparency, that there are no secrets, and still be credulous.
But complete openness, transparency, and accountability in the present Singapore are a contradiction, an impossibility and a false hope. These are hallmarks of a functioning democracy. They seldom accompany a king, God’s regent upon earth, governing by divine right. If change can only come from the ruling party, and that any countervailing opposition would be crushed, as PM Lee had intimated, illuminating his totalitarian impulses, how can those qualities prevail, how can this kingdom hold?
In Singapore, when they tell you there are no secrets, it might just be true. Secrets are contained in whispers, they thrive on rumours. But in Singapore, there is only silence, self-silence, enforced silence, the silenced all, killers of secrets. As long as you do not say a word or question too hard. . . Occasionally, there would be the averted eyes, hidden thoughts, and the willed amnesia. There would be the always present fear. But there are no secrets. The secret police take care of that. So the emperor’s new clothes can be admired in all its nakedness. They are transparent enough, they cannot be anymore transparent. Anymore, and the emperor would be no more.
The people’s question is hanging still. It is an old question, a perennial, a Roman one: In Absolute Singapore, who can guard the king and guardians? The emperor? How can this kingdom hold? Expectedly, the silence is cutting out in the deafening air, this furtive silence, the silenced, and all the silenced disquiet, silent testaments to that always present fear, raising this curious transparent glass of silence, waiting, yet to be broken by their king.
———
Headline picture from Straits Times’ report.
——–
Indonesia
Miss Universe cuts ties with Indonesia chapter after harassment allegations
The Miss Universe Organization severs ties with Indonesia franchise due to harassment claims. Malaysia edition canceled.
Women allege body checks before pageant. Investigation launched. Safety prioritized.
Indonesia winner to compete in November finale. Height requirement controversy.
WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES — The Miss Universe Organization has cut ties with its Indonesia franchise, it announced days after allegations of sexual harassment, and will cancel an upcoming Malaysia edition.
In the complaint, more than a half dozen women said all 30 finalists for Miss Universe Indonesia were unexpectedly asked to strip for a supposed body check for scars and cellulite two days before the pageant’s crowning ceremony in Jakarta.
Their lawyer said Tuesday that five of the women had their pictures taken.
“In light of what we have learned took place at Miss Universe Indonesia, it has become clear that this franchise has not lived up to our brand standards, ethics, or expectations,” the US-based Miss Universe Organization posted Saturday night on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter.
It said that it had “decided to terminate the relationship with its current franchise in Indonesia, PT Capella Swastika Karya, and its National Director, Poppy Capella.”
It thanked the contestants for their bravery in coming forward and added that “providing a safe place for women” was the organization’s priority.
Jakarta police spokesman Trunoyudo Wisnu Andiko said Tuesday that an investigation into the women’s complaint has been launched.
The Indonesia franchise also holds the license for Miss Universe Malaysia, where there will no longer be a competition this year, according to the New York-based parent organizer.
In a lengthy statement posted to Instagram, Indonesia franchise director Capella denied involvement in any body checks.
“I, as the National Director and as the owner of the Miss Universe Indonesia license, was not involved at all and have never known, ordered, requested or allowed anyone who played a role and participated in the process of organizing Miss Universe Indonesia 2023 to commit violence or sexual harassment through body checking,” she wrote.
She added that she is against “any form of violence or sexual harassment.”
The Jakarta competition was held from 29 July to 3 August to choose Indonesia’s representative to the 2023 Miss Universe contest, and was won by Fabienne Nicole Groeneveld.
Miss Universe said it would make arrangements for her to compete in the finale, scheduled for November in El Salvador.
This year’s Indonesia pageant also came under fire for announcing a “significant change in this (year’s) competition guidelines” with the elimination of its minimum height requirement after it had crowned a winner.
In its statement, the Miss Universe Organization said it wanted to “make it extremely clear that there are no measurements such as height, weight, or body dimensions required to join a Miss Universe pageant worldwide.”
— AFP
Malaysia
A Perodua service centre in Kuantan, Malaysia went viral for its strict dress code, Perodua responds
A dress code for vehicle servicing? A Malaysian car brand’s service centre dress code signage has puzzled netizens, raising queries about the need for attire rules during a routine service.
The manufacturer responded with an official statement after a flurry of comments, seeking to clarify and apologize.
MALAYSIA: A dress code signage positioned at a service centre belonging to a prominent Malaysian car brand has sparked bewilderment among Malaysian netizens, who question the necessity of adhering to attire guidelines for a simple vehicle servicing.
The signage explicitly delineates clothing items that are deemed unsuitable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, abbreviated pants, and distressed jeans.
The car manufacturer swiftly found itself flooded with comments from both inquisitive and irked Malaysian netizens. This surge in online activity prompted the company to issue an official statement aimed at clarifying the situation and extending an apology.
In a post that gained significant traction on the social media platform, politician Quek Tai Seong of Pahang State, Malaysia, shared an image to Facebook on Monday (7 Aug).
The image showcased a dress code sign prominently displayed at a Perodua Service Centre in Kuantan. Within the post, Quek posed the question: “Is this dress code applicable nationwide, or is it specific to this branch?”
The signage reads, “All customers dealing with Perodua Service Kuantan 1, Semambu, are requested to dress modestly and appropriately.”
Adding visual clarity to these guidelines, the sign features illustrative graphics that explicitly outline clothing items deemed unacceptable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, short pants, and ripped jeans.
Delineating the specifics of the dress code, the signage stipulates that male visitors are expected to don shirts accompanied by neckties, opt for long pants, and wear closed shoes.
Conversely, female visitors are advised to don long-sleeved shirts, full-length skirts, and closed-toe footwear.
Perodua’s dress code sparks online uproar
Following the rapid spread of the post, Perodua’s official Facebook page found itself inundated with comments from both intrigued and frustrated Malaysian netizens, all seeking clarifications about the newly surfaced dress code policy.
Amidst the flurry of comments, numerous incensed netizens posed pointed questions such as, “What is the rationale behind the introduction of such regulations by the management? We demand an explanation.”
Another netizen expressed their dissatisfaction, arguing against the necessity of the rule and urging Perodua to take inspiration from the practices of other 4S (Sales, Service, Spare Parts, and Survey) automotive dealerships.
A concerned Facebook user chimed in, advocating for a more lenient stance, asserting that attempting to dictate customers’ clothing choices might not be in the company’s best interest.
Someone also commented in an angry tone, “Oi what is this? Going there for car service, not interview or working, right.”
As the discourse unfolded, it became evident that while some inquiries carried genuine weight, others chose to inject humor into the situation, playfully remarking, “If I wanted to buy a Myvi, I should buy or rent a formal attire first.”
“I sell economy rice at a hawker centre, I have never worn a long sleeve shirt and a tie… I guess I will not buy a Perodua car then.”
“I guess they will not serve those who wear short pants.”
Perodua addresses dress code controversy
As reported by Chinese media outlet Sin Chew Daily News, the manager of Kuantan’s Perodua Service Centre had acknowledged that the images on the dress code signage were misleading.
In response, the manager divulged that discussions had transpired with the head office, leading to the prompt removal of the signage to prevent any further misconceptions.
The manager clarifies, “We do encourage visitors to adhere to the dress etiquette, but we won’t go to the extent of restricting their choice of attire.”
He also revealed that currently, no complaints have been directly received from the public.
However, feedback from certain customers was relayed through Perodua’s agents.
Perodua also released an official statement by chief operating officer JK Rozman Jaffar on Wednesday (9 Aug) regarding the dress code on their official Facebook page.
The statement stated the dress code etiquette is not aligned with their official guidelines and they are currently conducting an official investigation on the matter followed by corrective measures to avoid the same incident from happening.
Perodua also extends its apologies for any inconvenience caused.
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens push back on Ho Ching’s 8-10 million population vision and call for more foreigners
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Commuters face service disruption on TEL due to train fault following 6-day EWL disruption
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population
-
Singapore1 week ago
PM Lawrence Wong reaffirms government’s commitment to integrity after ex-minister Iswaran’s jail sentence
-
Singapore4 days ago
Media presence at Lee Wei Ling’s funeral contradicts family’s request for privacy
-
Opinion2 weeks ago
SMRT privatization: Shielding information or strategic restructuring?
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens express skepticism over Ho Ching’s story of reluctance to accept Temasek CEO role