Connect with us

Current Affairs

Mas Selamat Fiasco – the worst govt boo-boo of 2010

Published

14 years ago

on

by Joshua Chiang

A recent conversation among my friends and some new acquaintances was quite telling. I was explaining how the ‘indigenous’ people of Southeast Asia are genetically not too far apart. In fact, the early inhabitants who settled along the Mekong River were proto-Malays.

“So were they Muslims?” one of the acquaintances, a local Chinese, asked innocently.

“No, Islam came to this part of the world much later,” I replied.

“Wow,” the acquaintance remarked. “Luckily they weren’t Muslims.”

The Malay-Muslim friend among us immediately responded sternly, “What’s wrong with being a Muslim?”

There was a moment of silence. Then the Malay-Muslim broke into a smile. “I was just joking!”

The acquaintance was visibly relieved. “So you are not a Muslim?”

———————-

2010 has been a bumper year for Government mishaps and missteps. From the blunders of the Youth Olympic Games, to the handling of the flood in Orchard Road, to the fiasco over public transport, the Government’s response has been dismal.

But in my opinion, what constitutes the worst foul-up of 2010 must surely be the way the Government attempted to deflect responsibility for Mas Selamat’s escape by painting it as a racial-religious issue.

On 23 November, Singaporeans were greeted with the revelation that following his escape from Whitley Detention Centre, Mas Selamat received help from his immediate family. To the average Singaporean, the first question that comes to mind must surely be this: Why was the family not being monitored?

The public did not receive a satisfactory answer. What we got instead was a salvo of statements that said essentially the same thing: Don’t blame the Malay community.

Singapore’s Deputy Mufti Fatris Bakaram said the act of harbouring a known fugitive from the authorities is against Islamic principles. In a statement issued in response to media queries, Uztaz Fatris said this is a principle within the Islamic faith that must be upheld by every Muslim even though the fugitive is a family member or relative.

– “Habouring Fugitive un-Islamic: Deputy Mufti” (Channel Newsasia  23rd Nov 2010)

“It is an isolated case of one individual, of one family, doing something that is contrary to the interest of the rest of us. So all I hope is that we will not point a finger at the community, that we will take it in isolation and measure it on that basis.”

– President Nathan, “Don’t point finger at Malay-Muslim community over Mas Selamat case: President Nathan” (Channel Newsasia 24 Nov 2010)

“Given the fact that Mas Selamat did escape in a tudung, will the Ministry assure the Malay community that there won’t be unnecessary scrutiny on Malay women wearing tudung in security areas and when they seek appointments for jobs?”

– MP for Hong Kah GRC, Zaqy Mohamed “Hundreds probed after Mas Selamat escape” (Channel Newsasia 22 Nov 2010)

The same, tired narrative was replayed in a recent report in Channel Newsasia

Mr Yeo believes the general response of the Malay community showed they view Mas Selamat in the same way other communities do. He said: “Looking at it on a broader scale, all segments of the community have been very supportive of the anti-terrorist effort, and I think our confidence in that is well-founded.”

Singaporeans are not stupid. We all know that any right-minded person would view this case as an isolated incident of one family, “doing something that is contrary to the interest of the rest of us”.

Were they expected to do otherwise? Mas Selamat was after all, their immediate family, not some long-lost cousin.

In his article “Mas Selamat’s escape – It is about Govt incompetency, not race or religion”, TOC’s Andrew Loh raises similar questions. Why should the President, the Law Minister, and various other community leaders even mention the Malay-Muslim community? Are they implying that Singaporeans think it is somehow complicit in Mas Selamat’s escape, or that there is a potential of it being so?

Wielding the dangerous blame-thrower

The blamethrower: don't govern without it

Deflecting responsibility isn’t new. All governments do that. Some do it more often than others. In Singapore, our Government has turned it into an art form, albeit a rather crude one, like a really bad Michael Bay movie.

Nothing is spared from the blame-thrower – drain-choking leaves, citizens without spurs in their hides, even God.

But the latest round of blame-throwing takes the cake. Let’s blame the people who might blame the Malay community for the escape of Mas Selamat! Let’s just sidestep the issue of our own incompetence!

It might seem pretty harmless, taking on the role of the benevolent peacekeeper – “Hey, I know there’s a bad apple among the Malays, but let’s not blame all of them, ok?” – But it isn’t.

Now, imagine that you belong to a minority group in school. Each time someone in your group does something wrong, the teacher steps forward and tells the rest of the class the errant classmate’s action does not reflect on his group as a whole.

What happens when the individual action of a person is always mentioned in the same breath as the group to which he belongs? Over time, do people associate the bad behavior more to the individual or to the group?

The Government has always prided itself on being able to keep the peace between the various racial and religious communities in Singapore.

But racial and religious harmony is more than just a token group photo of the various races dressed in traditional ethnic clothing on Racial Harmony Day. It is more than just wielding a big fat stick at people who indulge in hate speech against people of other races and faiths.

Sure, we live in relative harmony here in Singapore. There are no racial clashes, no religious violence. But scratch the surface, and you’ll find that old stereotypes still exist. In fact, when TOC ran a series of stories on the homeless earlier this year, snide comments that the problems of poverty appeared to be confined to just one group of people (it was never obviously spelled out which) were not uncommon.

The government must ask itself whether it needs to rethink the way it views and handles issues relating to race and religion. It has to cease hiding behind the cover of stern but benign peacekeeper. It has to stop using the race card to further its own purpose. This is manipulative and threatens the very fabric of society it claims to protect.

If, as the government often claims, race and religion are fuses that can blow society apart if managed poorly, then the the Mas Selamat fiasco must surely be the worst foul-up of 2010. To me, it outranks even the overspending on the YOG, or the colossal losses from poor overseas investments. The impact might seem, on the surface, intangible. But the implications are real. It hurts the very foundation of a country – the unity of its people.

What do you think is the worst Government foul-up of 2010? Why? Do write in to us as [email protected]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

6 days ago

on

6 October 2024

By

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

1 week ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending