by Howard Lee

It seems almost deliberate. The announcement of the revised electoral boundaries came right smack in the heat of the budget debate.

What’s the big deal, you might ask. On the surface, nothing much, until you start examining the news. The printed conversation seems to keep the budget debate strictly in Parliament, while coverage on the opposition parties focused on the two-day pow-wow to sort out potential three-cornered fights in the pending general elections.

Read the papers often, and you might get the impression that our opposition parties are missing out on the budget debate, and are instead spending their time picking up the scraps of the revised electoral boundaries.

Perhaps it is really coincidental, and the fact that our opposition parties are eager to start campaigning is not really helping their public image as a worthy adversary to the ruling party in taking on the big issues. Or maybe the budget is not really that significant after all, in the general scheme of things – budgets happen every year, anyway. But if the opposition parties do not publicly challenge the ruling party on the budget now, they will likely be accused of dredging it up come campaigning week or in the next five years or so.

Articles like Eugene Tan’s “Deep fissures behind Opposition bravado” (Today, 7 March, p12) are doing little to discourage that from happening. Personally, I felt compelled to tear apart every argument put forth by Tan in this piece, full of portholes and misguided views as it is, but let’s stay focused on the larger picture for the moment.

In general, our traditional media is not doing citizens a favour through this skewed reporting, which seems to mostly ignore what our opposition parties, save those already in Parliament, have to say about how our country is run, and similarly have their inputs on the budget. By not putting this line of question to them, traditional media has so far prevented a level playing field of knowledge, making their readership less informed. This is a bane to democracy and choice based on complete knowledge.

But traditional media is wont to do that – news is more interesting (and I dare say less complex and messy) when we can (or are led to believe we can) easily differentiate the professional parliamentarians from the pot-shot salvagers.

Fortunately for us, the online world is less bounded by such limitations of news worthiness. And we also know a very different story – that our opposition parties do have inputs on the budget, one having already come up with a shadow budget of their own.

So for the record, the following is a brief run-down of the online literature – most of it, I believe. Browse as you like, and forward it to your friends who are interested or curious. I hope that it will give you more information to make an informed decision on which party will serve you best, come the general elections, the next financial year, and possibly the years beyond.

National Solidarity Party – The party secretary general posted a response to the budget two days after its announcement.

People’s Action Party – The main Finance run down is on the party website, and there are also snippets by other MPs. You can also find the other speeches on the official government budget website. Pretty factual, on-the-record stuff.

Reform Party – The secretary-general posted a video response the day after the budget was announced, which was followed by a dissection with suggestions for improvement. And if you are feeling up to it, browse through Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s blog, which carries his views on some other economic matters.

Singapore Democratic Party – The only opposition party that announced a shadow budget even before the official budget. In addition, the party kept a regular check on the debate and contributed its own take on various policies.

Socialist Front – Party chairman issued a news statement calling it Singapore’s Pork Barrel Budget.

Singapore People’s Party – One of the two opposition parties currently represented in Parliament, the secretary-general’s speeches during budget debate are carried on the party website.

Workers’ Party – The other opposition party in Parliament, they have offered up some interesting points, although proposals such as reducing the GST have been summarily refuted. These speechs are carried on their party website.

The writer is indifferent towards party politics, but please don’t get him started on just how badly our traditional media needs to start writing for the citizens.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Ong Ye Kung remains silence on questions raised by the public regarding POFMA, despite promising to do it

On Monday (29 April), a recently-well-known political activist Brad Bowyer took to…

A notice to our readers – moderation and banning of commenters on our website

Dear readers of TOC, Several commenters on the discussion threads on our…

Three new cases of COVID-19 confirmed; All three cases linked to previous cases

On Sunday, the Ministry of Health (MOH) has confirmed three new cases…

印尼民间团队联手打假新闻 比法律更见成效

邻国印度尼西亚在本周三(17日),举办全球最大规模的单日选举,逾1.92亿合资格选民在票站开站的8小时内完成投票。选举后,寻求连任的总统佐科维和前将领普拉博沃,都宣布胜选,不过正式选举结果,5月22日才揭晓。 至于民调显示,佐科维的得票超过55巴仙,稍高于对手。不过,两位候选人在选举期间可没少受假新闻影响选情,其中西爪哇的警察逮捕了三名女子,他们涉嫌在二月份谣传佐科维蝉联后,将废除呼唤穆斯林祷告的唤礼声(azan)以及禁止妇女包头巾。 三名女子据称来自普拉博沃竞选团队,不过该团队发言人安德雷(Andre Rosiade),已否认他们涉及参与上述三名女子的“抹黑”行为。 他们过去也否认雇用新闻工作者撰写“正面或负面的内容”,“尤其不实新闻”。 印尼记者:法律打假消息治标不治本 印尼媒体人沙弥多在本月13日,接受《今日报》采访时就指出,立法打击假新闻,只能算是即时的解决方案,但不会是打击网络假消息的上策,并质疑法律制裁的威慑能力有限。 “抓了一个人,就有10甚至100人准备好接手(制造假新新闻)。”他补充“法律打假治标不治本,关键是要教育人民懂得分辨假消息,并用适当手段抗衡之。” 沙弥多也是印尼民间“核查事实”(Cekfakta)组织中40多位记者之一。Cekfakta是由印尼24家媒体组成。 这批记者也获得谷歌谷歌新闻室的支援,在选举时进行即时的事实查证工作。 各领域专才协助查核数据 除了记者们的努力外,来自教育和经济界等各领域的专才和非政府组织,也团结一块为核实真相而努力。例如当某位候选人公布某项数据,他们就针对有关课题分析并查核事实或数据的真伪。…