Connect with us

Commentaries

The Gloves are off and The Net is cast

Published

12 years ago

on

By Jen –

The double whammy news announcements of the major cabinet reshuffle and the setting up of the Media Literacy Council in Singapore has caught many people off guard and gotten everyone buzzing. I am not going to go into an academic and detailed dissection of the two announcements as these have been covered by other online platforms and some bloggers.

Instead, I will like to share my views on the implications of these moves. Amidst the noise, many of the more forgiving souls would have been hit by an epiphany  today – that for all the ‘nice’ overtures made by our government to try to persuade us into thinking they are listening and changing to be a kinder, better government, the truth appears to be that nothing much has really changed.

To project a softer image, we have, over the past year,  been inundated with numerous pix in the media of smiling/laughing ministers hanging out with the grassroots residents (especially Mr Kee Chiu);  the sudden proliferation of ministers’ Facebook pages (including our PM);  and many ministerial comments and speeches peppered with well crafted words like Singaporeans first, caring, understanding, engaging and listening to the people. Hopes were raised and even among the cynical, some were cautiously optimistic that a more democratic society with more civil liberties will emerge.

The reassuring clucking noises and highly public outreach gestures are now all looking like mere sugar-coatings to mask real intentions.  Despite all that has happened post GE 2011, the signs point to one thing – that beneath the velvet gloves rules the iron fist still.  Indeed, there were signs that showed this, such as when certain ministers like Khaw Boon Wan and Chan Chun Sing would assert now and then it is not so much that the government’s policies are wrong but it is about stepping up the government’s “engagement of the people to communicate” the need and reasons for their policies (read it’s not them who are wrong but it’s us who are dense and who need to understand).

The latest announcements of restructuring some of the ministries, especially setting up the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) and the Media Literacy Council (MLC) is the strongest signal yet that while its outward approach and style may have softened a tad,  nothing much has changed in this government’s mindset and attitude. It is clear that its intention is not to loosen but to tighten and expand its iron grip on the people who have become increasingly vocal and assertive (horrors – the sheep are awakening and exercising critical thinking!).

And to think just a couple of months back, I had commented that the government was trying to be ‘nicer’ with its bottom-up approach in asking the internet community to set an Internet Code of Conduct (CoC) instead of taking the usual ‘ban this and that’ approach. And just a few days ago, MCI’s minister Yaacob Ibrahim was still talking CoC at a student dialogue. And while this is CoC proposal is still very much in the air….tada….we get hit by the Media Literacy Council (which sounds like some fancy title for a council to rule the online universe)

On the MLC, anyone who has worked on a committee knows just how long it takes to form one and to get it going, let alone an important national council involving many public leaders. On this basis, we can conclude the MLC was not born overnight. It would have taken many months to form this council, set its agenda and stage the public announcement.

So what does this mean? That while the government was making nice by publicly inviting the internet community to self govern and set its own CoC, the official machinery was quietly cranking up ways to tighten the noose on the internet behind the scenes?  War strategist Sun Tzu would certainly have approved of this “catching the enemy by surprise”  manuever.  So much for sincerity to make nice.

CoC, as I see it now, was not meant to be the nice solution to promote civility online. Instead, if successfully implemented, CoC would have been part of a powerful tactic used in tandem with the MLC to constrain and control the growing potency of the online voices. Squeeze bottom-up and from top-down. Clever.

But CoC and MLC are just two ways to maintain control. The other way is through propaganda and moulding of people’s thinking.  On this, the government should get A++ for their efforts. The mind-shaping activities have been going on for years but of late they have been getting more aggressive. There appears to be more student dialogues, many more pro-government websites and FB pages have surfaced to push the government’s messages and there are more new national and community schemes reaching out their tentacles to “educate” the young and old to be more “discerning” of what they read online and of views critical of the government and policies

There’s even a “good character” award (with cash rewards) introduced at the schools this year by the Ministry of Education. The interesting thing is what the education minister said at the launch of this award – that this scheme is not just for character building among the young but it is to “ultimately, prepare them for a world of unknowns…It is more about how to process information, discern truths from untruths, connect seemingly disparate dots and create knowledge even as the context changes…”.

The national education and social education and so-called character building programmes and activities reach out to the very young from the time they are in primary schools (or is it from preschool these days?) and some of what they teach is questionable and one-sided. Some lessons are clearly biased towards MIW, they do not give the full story and they do not encourage critical thinking.

As an observer, the velvet gloves are surely coming off to reveal the omnipresent knucklebuster below. The battle for the people’s minds (and votes) has gone up a few notches with the forming of the MLC and the restructuring of three ministries.  Speculation is rife among citizens and netizens on the restructuring agenda. Some of the aims may be to fast-track its three golden boys to become full ministers one day, which is fair enough, and some of the changes may benefit the community which is good.  But the more pertinent question is how much of the restructuring is driven by the motive to support the MIW-controlled government and their policies, to muzzle dissent and to strengthen their power base?

Take for example the creation of MCI which used to be Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts. In setting up a more focused MCI, Prime Minister Lee said: “MCI will oversee our efforts to improve public communications and engagement, which are more important in the age of social media and a more active citizenry.” This makes it clear that MCI’s priority is to help the government improve its communications and engagement with the people and, more than likely, to run a tighter ship in managing the people and the public’s views of the government.

Sure, some would say it is fair game when you are in power to use that power to do things your way and to your benefit to some extent.  But the question then is how far do you go with this especially when one has absolute power? As the saying goes  “Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Anyway, a cold wind is blowing and I am starting to feel a chill both in the online and offline realms.  The invisible net has been cast and the screws are tightening.

But is it too late to clamp down as the Pandora’s Box has been opened? People everywhere are becoming more informed, more aware and more vocal and also more active in causes in an increasingly open and engaged world.  Singapore is no exception.

Even here, in this tightly controlled little red dot, we can see the changes and sense the spirit growing – that passionate spirit to stand up and do something for what we strongly believe in.   I am hopeful that this spirit will keep us straining at the leash and striving for a better and more democratic future for Singapore.

It is hard to tame the spontaneous spirit of cyberspace and, I believe,  it will be even harder to tame the spirit of the people.

“Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.”

Abraham Lincoln

 

TOC thanks Jen for her contribution, this article first appeared on Jentrified Citizen.

 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

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