Connect with us

Current Affairs

The significance of Lim Boon Heng’s tears

Published

13 years ago

on

Ng E-Jay /

On Monday, during a 90-minute press conference to introduce three new PAP candidates, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Mr Lim Boon Heng broke down when addressing a question about groupthink in the PAP. During the same press conference, Mr Lim had earlier announced his decision to retire from politics.

A reporter had directed a question at the new PAP candidates, asking them if they had a counter argument to the worry about the potential for groupthink amongst policymakers, and also their opinion on younger Singaporeans wanting more diverse and robust debate in Parliament.

Mr Lim was quick to speak up on behalf of the candidates. At first, he appeared jovial, emphasizing that he was not standing for elections but wanted to give a quick response. Then he became serious, saying that there was no groupthink on the casino issue, and that the cabinet had been quite divided on the issue. He said that it had been a difficult process for him accepting casinos, and that he almost could not make his speech in Parliament.

That was when Mr Lim became overwhelmed with emotion. He had to pause for around 15 seconds while cameras snapped away. Then he said, “So if you think there is groupthink, that is one example you can quote – there is no groupthink.”

It is not clear whether the casino issue had been earlier raised in the same press conference, but given Mr Lim’s sudden tears, it is obvious that issue meant a lot to him both then and now. It is also clear that the speculation of groupthink within the PAP roused in him very strong feelings, even though the question had originally been posed to the candidates rather than to him.

Then Mr Lim went on to give another example, about the concern the trade union had for the lower income, and the impact of globalization on them, with wages stagnating and even falling. Mr Lim broke down a second time, before finally stating that the trade union pressured the government to do something for the working poor, the end result of which was the implementation of the Workface Income Supplement scheme.

In between tears, Mr Lim then repeated emphatically, “So, there is no groupthink.”

Mr Lim’s strong emotional reaction to the question of groupthink and his raising of the examples of the casinos and the poor is significant because it provides hints that there are deep rifts within the ruling party concerning key policies. It is probably not too far off the mark to imagine that Mr Lim had disagreed strongly on certain policies such as the opening of casinos in Singapore, but had the painful and unenviable task of having to toe the party line when the final decision was made.

Besides Mr Lim, Dr Lily Neo has also been known to actively champion the needs of the poor, only to frequently find her pleas falling on deaf and uncaring ears. Once, Dr Neo was so frustrated with the lack of progress in Parliament concerning assistance for the poor and underprivileged that she felt compelled to raise her voice in Parliament.

Is such a state of affairs good for Singapore? What benefit is there to citizens if supposedly independent minded PAP MPs find that they have to toe the party line even concerning issues on which they have strong objection? If absolute power resides in the cabinet and there are no voices to credibly challenge the cabinet and hold it accountable to Singaporeans, is this healthy for our nation?

Mr Lim’s tears are like a canary in the coal mine, pointing to cracks that might be forming in the PAP leadership. In recent memory, no PAP minister or MP has resigned in protest or proceeded to openly challenge the PAP soon after stepping down. The PAP party discipline is still very strong. But if this party discipline only serves to mask growing discontent within the PAP ranks, the PAP could be in for a period of volatility in the years ahead.

This takes us back to the question of whether a one party system or multi-party system is better for Singapore.

When Mr Lim tearfully emphasized that there is no groupthink in the PAP, he most likely meant it as a positive for the PAP, indicating that PAP members are capable of exercising independent judgment and are not bound by dogma.

On the other hand, would there be a need to defend the PAP from speculation of groupthink if there is multi-party democracy in Singapore, where diverse voices can be heard without fear of persecution, and where there is active political participation from every corner of society?

The interest of Singaporeans would be better served if the ruling party constantly has to earn its mandate through free and fair elections, if Singapore’s political leaders have their feet constantly put to the fire through robust multi-party debate and activism, if there is a credible opposition in Parliament to challenge bad policies and devise good alternatives.

Mr Lim’s emotional reaction during the press conference is the sign of fatigue and strain that a one-party system imposes on itself. The party whip can hold Mr Lim’s tongue, but it cannot stop his tears. A one-party state creates the illusion of consensus and stability, but it serves Singaporeans less and less.

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

2 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

4 days 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