Connect with us

Commentaries

Migrating from the lunatic fringe to cowboy towns

Published

13 years ago

on

Howard Lee /

In the aftermath of the general election, you would have seen continual efforts by the ruling People’s Action Party to discredit and cast suspicion on the intent and quality of the online media.

We should have guessed, then, that this would culminate in the National Day Rally being, once again, an opportunity for the Prime Minister to continue in the establishment’s “rage against the machine”. (For those who missed it, here is the segment in all is glory.)

But for those who thought it was no different from the rhetoric spewed out over the years, here’s some food for thought:

  1. PM specifically mentioned a no-mention, something not lost on Ng E-Jay (yes, no more mee siam mai hum)
  2. No shameless plugging for the “old-new” media channels or REACH, but there are now places online where things do make sense
  3. The lunatic fringe has become bona fide cowboy towns (trust me, it’s an upgrade)

Nevertheless, what has continued is the painting of a bunch of losers running loose online, doing verbal damage to the national narrative of productivity and progress, and generally making themselves a dismissible nuisance on the side of the authorities.

“I won’t repeat any, lest you believe it is true”

As Ng E-Jay has suggested, if there was such an obvious degree of untruth in any statement made online, shouldn’t the Rally audience, and also the wider television audience, be able to call the bluff immediately?

But let’s put to test two examples, one of which the PAP would claim to be a ridiculous untruth, the other a plausible half-truth:

  1. There are homeless people in Singapore who are living in tents on our beaches
  2. The inaugural Youth Olympic Games did not do justice to its supporters, nor to the budget it was supported with

Now, your views? Which do you think is the half-truth?

The point of this exercise is really to prove that much of our online ramblings, on TOC and beyond, are not about laying claims to facts. They are often opinion pieces, just as much as this article is. They are attempts at opening debates, with tones ranging from queries to harsh criticism, about the way things are and should be.

In many instances, netizens have made it a point – nay, their mission statement – to challenge the purported truths published by traditional media, which usually spew little more than cookie-cut approvals of politicians’ speeches and media releases. At times, traditional media makes the statement “the Elected President is a rubber stamp of the ruling party” look like a kindergarten essay topic.

Online media has served as the voice of the voiceless underdog, to flag out failings in policy to address the interests of the marginalised, to break from the national narrative about everything being okay. Sometimes, it seeks redress, but mostly, it seeks wider awareness.

To chastise online media without even acknowledging its diversity and purpose is to sound lazy at best, ignorant at worst. PM would have better credibility if he had simply said, “I can’t really pay attention to online media because… it’s too complicated.”

“Those who wish to engage the government online should, erm, stop the speculation and just drop us an email”

But it could have finally dawned on PM that previous efforts to ring-fence the online world have failed, particularly as a reflection of ground sentiment. Similarly, the recent relaxation of rules to allow online electioneering, and colonise more of cyberspace, has fallen flat on its face.

Put simply, the ruling party has lost the online momentum, and the constant changing of positions (I still remember another Rally when PM defined Facebook as the place where we put our photos online, and our photos make friends) has basically left it breathing the fumes of online platforms that have stayed true to their intent and causes they champion.

I have written many times that the online world, as much as any newspaper readership, is about honesty and building communities. We cannot build communities when the rules are not set by the collective that participates. We cannot associate with communities that constantly shift their interests and positions. And we cannot be honest with communities that always have something to sell, political ideologies included, more than a willingness to tune in to the conversation.

My guess is that the ruling party realises this, and even the mainstream media is hard-pressed to do something to salvage its own slowly disintegrating readership, most evident from their attempts to give more coverage to opposition parties during the general elections. The old fortresses within which the political elite can control the conversations are no longer tenable.

To some extent, PM seems reluctant to finally admit that there are pockets of cyberspace where “people recognise that these places are reliable, where you can have an open debate… and if you go there, you know that, well, to start off with, it will make some sense; whether it is right or wrong, you have to consider, but it is not rubbish.”

Where are these online oases? We might never hear again from PM about these, but to some extent, the segment gave the impression that it would not likely be the same controlled spaces that the PAP is used to.

More exasperating is PM encouraging the government to go into these channels and try to convince people about their policy positions. It sounds like a rally call for more Young PAP astroturfing activities. But it also suggests that the PAP has yet to learn from the general elections, and still thinks that online engagement is about convincing rather than listening.

“So tell me, are you feeling lucky, punk?”

In review, the ruling party can no longer claim to be the sole contributor of truth. It cannot control the online world, and the safe havens it has created can no longer provide shelter from the tirade that threatens to bring down every door. But to openly acknowledge that it is now open to the diversity of views online is to open an administrative can of worms that will take a few deep ministerial pay cuts to realise.

So, the last trump card: Insinuate that the online world is still generally as criminal as it can possibly be, try not to draw further attention to the issue, and come up quickly for air.

Interestingly, the cowboy town metaphor is both a compliment to online media, and a shot in PM’s foot. Compliment, because we are finally acknowledged to be no longer a wilderness of vagabond voices, half-crazed and leprous. We have formed actual townships – lawless in relation to the status quo of ideology, always shooting from the hip, fearless of the authorities, but hey, we have group identities now!

Shot in the foot, because with such clear congregations of online communities, the ruling party still finds it difficult to monitor and engage?

“Want to contribute? Start a committee, submit a proposal!”

To build further on the lawless, anti-establishment-makes-you-destructive narrative, PM chose to clearly state examples where positive contributions to society do not take an online form. Proposals for the KTM railway and hardworking-boy-makes-good stories were included for good measure.

I have absolute respect for these people and what they have done. But I fear they have been used as political tools to show society in self-help, without fair recognition that many online rants are not demands for privilege, but indignations against policies that disadvantage some or all Singaporeans. A small representative voice that has reached their wit’s end about what they can do and are seeking what they feel is the ultimate stand to make things better – a change in policies.

Too easily, the ruling elite has once again forgotten, or chosen to forget, that the online world is made up of real people with real problems, who simply chose not to go to the much white-washed traditional media to voice their angst, or those of their fellow citizens. Scratch a little of each netizen, and you will find each a citizen no different from the people at face-to-face interactions, perhaps more opinionated, some volunteering for their special causes, but all believing in making this nation better. The tone online is never destructive – it only matters how much of this field of ideas the political elite wish to tap into to make them constructive and progressive.

At the same time, our country is facing extraordinary circumstances, both locally and globally. What we will need is the next breed of ideas to get us though the next crisis. PM has instead opted not to tap on the qualities of the online world – energy regardless of age, cross-pollination of ideas, flagging out small problems before they become big, and offering diversity in solutions, crazy as some might be. And by now, you would have read other articles that dissect the bread and butter issues of the Rally, adding value with each cut and criticism.

The way forward?

I have written excessively for such a small segment of the Rally. But I write this because continuing to marginalise online voices as noise will not make us go away. We form part of our nation’s narrative, possibly the most honest narrative of them all to date. It is also the voice that is closest to source – the citizens that we hope our elected representatives are genuine about serving.

So in the spirit of being constructive, I will share my views on a few key points on the lessons that should have been learnt from the general election about online engagement. If TOC is one such pocket of online reason PM suggested, I hope that some bright eye and listening ear will pick this up and do justice to Singapore netizens.

  • Forget about going online to explain policies that are long overdue for an overhaul, and in principle have failed to demonstrated a “Singaporeans first” outlook. Take stock, and be ready to kill sacred cows.
  • Do not listen to grassroots leaders and policy makers who tell you “it is all okay, we just have to explain it better”. It is NOT all okay, and the results of the elections should have told you so by now. You cannot believe those who prefer a status quo that does not benefit our people.
  • For every policy change or new policy implemented, go online, reach far and wide, and LISTEN, don’t TALK just yet. Understand that cyberspace cannot be ‘conquered’ by force or by power, but by ideas and the willingness to reason, be open and share.
  • All views, online or otherwise, anonymous or not, should be considered. Value the idea, not the person giving it. We do not have the universal authority on all ideas, but someone out there might just have the right one.

_____________________________

Images from TODAYdigital

_____________________________

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

Commentaries

Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.

He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.

Published

1 year ago

on

15 September 2023

By

SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.

The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.

The report detailed that:

  • The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
  • A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
  • Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
  • A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
  • Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.

Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs

Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.

Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.

The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.

The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.

“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”

The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.

Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report

In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.

He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.

In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.

“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”

Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.

“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”

“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”

He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.

Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs

In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.

He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.

Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.

He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.

Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.

Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices

Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.

“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”

Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.

“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.

“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”

Continue Reading

Commentaries

Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders

Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.

Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.

Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.

Published

1 year ago

on

5 September 2023

By

While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.

Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.

They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.

Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.

Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.

As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.

This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.

Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.

He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.

Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.

Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors

According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.

However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.

Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.

He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”

He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.

“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.

Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race

Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.

A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.

During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.

Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.

Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016

Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.

Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.

In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.

They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.

Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.

The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.

“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”

“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”

The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).

It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.

The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency

It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).

They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.

“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”

Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.

Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.

Continue Reading

Trending