By Andrew Loh
lhlThere is one thing which struck me in the Prime Minister’s speech at the opening of the new Parliament, and the consul-general’s rebuttal of a report in the South China Morning Post (SCMP) to author Catherine Lim’s open letter to the PM.
Both PM Lee Hsien Loong and the Singapore consul-general in Hong Kong, Jacky Foo, cited some anecdotes and a study by foreigners to vindicate its performance and achievements.
This, to be sure, is nothing new – the PAP Government has always sought vindication outside of Singapore.
In his parliamentary speech on 28 May, PM Lee spoke of two foreigners – an Italian and a Dane – who had written to him and his father, Lee Kuan Yew, to express how happy and impressed they were with their time here in Singapore.
PM Lee related how the Italian lady “came back to Singapore last August (2013) and saw now that the Alexandra Park connection was completed.”
“Honestly I cried in seeing those places,” the lady supposedly wrote in her letter to Lee Kuan Yew. “I have missed them so much after leaving Singapore.”
She also apparently bemoaned the state of her country’s politics, which she supposedly said had been “ruined by bad politicians.”
“I think we would need someone like you to adjust everything,” she wrote in her letter, referring to Lee Kuan Yew.
“I hope to have the chance to meet you one day, just to shake your hand and tell you personally how great you are,” she added.
The second letter, to PM Lee himself, was written by a Danish man, who had come to Singapore as a student to study in INSEAD – the French MBA programme in Buona Vista – but has now returned to his home country.
“[We] often talked about our time in Singapore,” his letter to PM Lee said, “and when we reached the five-year mark for our departure (from Singapore) I took my boys back to visit (Singapore) for three weeks in 2010. And we met no disappointing issues, events or experiences – it was just like coming home.”
These two examples show that “our reputation is well justifiably good”, PM Lee said to Parliament.
Mr Foo, on the other hand, chose to cite an international study – by the United States-based public relations firm, Edelman Trust Barometer – to defend the level of trust Singaporeans have in the Government.
In her open letter to PM Lee, Ms Lim had said that there was “an unprecedented crisis of trust” between the Government and the people of Singapore.
Mr Foo, instead of rebutting Ms Lim’s claims directly, chose to do so with the SCMP after the Hong Kong-based paper reported on Ms Lim’s letter.
This itself says something – is it because Ms Lim is Singaporean and her views did not matter as long as it’s kept within our shores? Does the govt feel it is important to respond only if it affects what foreigners might think of it (the govt)? Something to think about.
Mr Foo said in letter to the SCMP: “For example, the Edelman Trust Barometer found only 37 per cent of respondents in the United States trusted their government. The UK scores 42 per cent, and Hong Kong 45 per cent.”
“Singapore scored a respectable 75 per cent,” he added.
But what Mr Foo did not say was that the Edelman Trust Barometer also found that “only 23 per cent of the Singaporeans polled said they trusted government leaders to tell the truth.” (See here.)
And one would argue that telling the truth in fact goes to the very heart of trusting someone.
This, as Ms Lim said, was best demonstrated during the general elections of 2011, where the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) saw its votes go down to its lowest ever, and losing a GRC for the first time, followed shortly with two consecutive defeats in two separate by-elections,
If there were any indication of a decreasing level of trust in the PAP Government, these would be it.
And this is perhaps why, post-GE 2011, many ministers, PAP Members of Parliament, academics and even the head of the Civil Service, have spoken of regaining or maintaining trust from the people.
So, it is rather curious why, despite all this, Mr Foo would go the length to cite a foreign publication or a study by a foreign firm to effectively deny any erosion of trust, or at least to imply that “trust remains high”.
The indisputable facts are these:
–       Since Mr Lee became Prime Minister and secretary general of the PAP, his party’s share of the votes has dropped considerably – by 15 per cent, in fact. When he took over Mr Goh Chok Tong, his party’s share was 75 per cent. In the last general elections in 2011, its share had come down to 60 per cent.
–       Under Mr Lee’s leadership, his party lost, for the first time, a GRC to an opposition party.
–       Under Mr Lee’s leadership, his party lost two consecutive by-elections – significantly, one was a new constituency, and the other was one where the PAP was incumbent.
–       Under Mr Lee’s leadership, an unprecedented number of ministers and PAP MPs, including Mr Lee himself, have had to make public apologies for shortcomings and policy failures.
All of this negative performance has led to questions of trust in the PAP Government – and this itself is also an undeniable fact.
Why else would so many speak of the issue in recent times?
So, instead of seeking vindication from foreigners and foreign publications, perhaps the Government should be humble, lay off its combative instinct at each criticism, and accept that it is failing in perhaps its most important task – maintaining and building on the trust which it had built up the last 50 years.
Citing anecdotes by foreigners and foreign publication is not going to convince Singaporeans one bit.
On the contrary, it may in fact prove Ms Lim’s assertion – why else would the Government seek foreign vindication, instead of a local one, if it claims Singaporeans still have a “high level” of trust in it?

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

申请法援挑战政府假消息裁定 人权律师质疑可行度

政府将在下月于国会寻求通过《防止网络假消息和网络操纵法案》。然而该法被指赋予部长过多的权力、制衡机制不足,也引起公民社会的质疑和忧虑。 在上周四(4月3日)律政部兼卫生部高级政务部长唐振辉出席管理大学对话会。针对一名与会者质疑若假消息来自政府又如何处置,对此他打包票指出,政府并不会凌驾于法律体系之外,完全不受到监督。 反假消息法也被指透过法律刑责,来制造寒蝉效应,造成民众因担忧招惹官司而被高昂诉讼费缠身,而不敢再批评政府政策。 对于官司费的担忧,唐振辉认为,目前国内已有充足的经济和法律援助供有需要者申请,对部长的更正指示作出上诉。 不过,人权律师M拉维就在脸书发文,质疑上述申请法律援助来上诉的实际可行性。 “老实说,我不曾听闻有人申请法律援助来挑战政府的决定。就算可以,还有大部分人都不符合申请法律援助条件,没办法这么做。” 在新起草的防假消息法案下,部长若判断某消息为假消息并可能威胁公共利益,就可下达指示要求更正或撤下。 然而,令拉维感到不安的是,假设政府本身,涉及借用官方媒体散播假消息,有关法案却没有明确途径让公民挑战政府。在该法案第61条文下,部长还能发出“免死金牌”给特定人物或机构,比如说,可以发出指示,豁免某部门或官方媒体,不受法案的对付。 他质疑,普通老百姓怎么可能负担得起动辄至少八万元的诉讼费,到高庭去挑战部长对假新闻的裁定有误。 去年担任蓄意散播假消息特选委员会主席的张有福曾指出,若对政府的裁定有不满,应有足够的管道,且上诉过程不会太繁琐。 他在昨日也接受《联合早报》采访,认为尽管新法案赋予部长权利,迅速采取措施以维护国家利益,但高庭可对其决定进行审核,而不是由政府全权定夺。 他同意,应允许不满者尽快做出申诉,而不是让他们耗费数年和上千元庭费来打官司。“既然部长有权迅速介入,要求个人或网络平台更正或撤下信息,那另一方上诉时也理应获得加速审理,以确保公平。”…

港特首林郑月娥办首场社区对话会,民吁成立独立调查委会

香港特首林郑月娥于昨日(26日)晚间举办首场社区对话会,试图走进民间,解决反修例引起的风波。近150人出席昨晚在伊利沙伯体育馆举行的“小区对话”,当中30人获抽中发言。市民炮火猛烈,当中三分二人提到警察暴力问题,其中大部分促请政府成立独立调查委员会 。 近三个月以来,示威浪潮未曾平息,反而加剧严重,尤其防暴警察被指过度镇压示威者,引起市民极度不满,警民关系紧张。 据各大港媒与香港01报道,首次的社区对话会已吸引超过2万人报名,港府从中随机抽出150人,再作随机抽样让现场人士发言,每人三分钟,官员之后再作响应。 独立调查委员会与一国两制课题成对话会重点 市民相继发言,其内容主要围绕着警方涉嫌滥权、滥捕甚至滥暴,要求成立独立调查委员会的民意。尽管林郑多次强调会聆听大家的声音,但同时也强调要依法,并表示“应该将工作交给监警会”,同时又表明已邀请海外专家参与工作6个月内会公开调查报告。 “已有1300份数据,涉及逾2万影像、信息交予监警会,是否应予监警会数月完成工作,才摆在眼前看看是否大家可接受的事实?  ”,她说。 另外,林郑月娥承认近月政府与警方信任度均暴跌,但也认为在此时信任度极低的当下,更应不断沟通对话,冀加深市民谅解,在欠缺信任下找出路  。 她表示,“近日对香港政府和警察的信任下跌,在这个信任度不高的情况下更加要对话,从而找到出路。 ”…

Singapore a prisoner of its own success

Singapore’s future depends on an economic miracle.

Netizens criticise the government for cancelling Watain’s concert at the last minute, despite its initial approval

On 9 March (Saturday), Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam revealed that he…