Commentaries
Honour in Singapore – About executive director Jason Wong
“Honour in Singapore” is a mini series by TOC following the recent formation of the Honour (Singapore) non-profit organisation, made up of distinguished individuals closely related to the government and a far-right Christian group. The series will explore some of their profiles, and bring to light what the group meant by “promoting a culture of honour and honouring” in Singapore.
By Ghui
When local non-profit organisation Honour (Singapore) was first announced, one of the key personnel identified was its executive director, Mr Jason Wong.
Wikipedia’s definition of executive director states that:
“The role of the Executive Director is to design, develop and implement strategic plans for the organization in a cost-effective and time-efficient manner. The Executive Director is also responsible for the day-to-day operation of the organisation. This includes managing committees and staff as well as developing business plans in collaboration with the board. In essence, the board grants the Executive Director the authority to run the organisation.”
This essentially means that Wong would be responsible for planning, overseeing, directing and executing the initiatives that Honour (Singapore), an organisation that claims to be for all of Singapore, deems in its charter to undertake.
TOC as also noted earlier that Wong was identified as an elder of Full Gospel Business (FGB) Gatekeepers Singapore’s Strategic Gatekeepers’ Family Gate. It is understood that Wong continues to be heavily involved in FGB Singapore, a group known for its religion-led perspectives for social development.
Wong has spoken openly about his convictions towards family values, which has been a key driver for the various initiatives he undertook at Focus on the Family. He has similarly expressed a desire for the nation to adopt a more concerted view on the family. He was also formerly a senior director with the Ministry of Social and Family Development. It is evident that the family constitutes a great part of Wong’s motivation and his work, and we should expect him to carry those same convictions to Honour (Singapore).
While Focus on the Family Singapore is run separately from its American counterpart, it remains associated to the American evangelical Christian organisation. For example, Focus on the Family Singapore received S$45,477 in grants from its American counterpart in 2009. On the assumption that funding is an indication of alliances and shared goals to a certain degree, I can safely guess that the two organisations have very similar objectives. Given the extremely conservative and draconian reputation Focus on the Family, America has, it would again be safe to assume that Focus on the Family Singapore will not be too different in agenda.
The mission of Focus on the Family Singapore as stated on its website is to “help families thrive at every stage and phase of life”, and it envisions “transformed families, communities and societies”. It has six guiding principles: the sanctity of life, the permanence of marriage, the importance of outreach, the value of children, the importance of social responsibility, and the value of male and female.
Notably, Focus on the Family has contributed positively to society through events and initiatives such as Dads for Life and the Yellow Ribbon Project. However, we need to be concerned about its very limited definitions of what constitutes “family” and how it insidiously discriminates against groups that do not fit into their idea of what society should be.
Arbitrarily making pronouncements on what constitutes a family can have a very polarising effect on a multi cultural and multi religious society. It can be tantamount to imposing its own beliefs on cultures that may not necessarily share their view. In some instances, this imposition has led to the break up of family units, which is ironical in the face of the organisation’s belief that family is the building block of society.
Singapore has no lack of stories about non-heterosexual individuals being turfed out of their homes because their families are unable to understand their sexual orientation. Websites such as that of Focus on the Family serve to deepen the chasm of misunderstanding. Many of these families, which had strong bonds before, are then torn asunder by ignorance.
To what extent will a prominent member of an organisation, well known for taking certain positions on the family, have an influence on another organisation that also wishes to focus on spreading “honour” by “starting with the individual, then family, then others in society”? Honour (Singapore) is also interested in engaging “a broad spectrum of Singapore society – schools, families, businesses, workplaces and community groups”. How might Wong’s personal convictions on the family influence the activities he will have an active hand in planning and executing for Honour (Singapore)?
Understandably, Focus on the Family and Honour (Singapore) are two separate organisations. But the fact that Wong is the executive director should suggest to us that Honour (Singapore), which now claims to speak on behalf of the nation, needs to be closely monitored for how it balances cultural relations, and if influences from Focus on the Family is seeping in through its executive director.
In its bid for a more inclusive Singapore, will Honour (Singapore) led by Wong result in a more excluding definition of family and society? Is the rest of the board of Honour (Singapore) going to be influenced by Wong’s Focus on the Family slant? In sitting on the same board, are the other board members giving their silent seal of approval to these narrow interpretations of family?
More worryingly, does Honour (Singapore) see the upholding of a traditional family unit as part of upholding honour in Singapore? Given that “honour” is a phrase that is so subjective and with scant information on the precise actions Honour (Singapore) will take to promote “honour”, one cannot help but wonder if this is an organisation whose aim is to “christianise” Singapore under the guise of a government endorsed organisation patronised by the elite of Singaporean society.
I certainly have nothing against Christian organisations. Singapore is a land of many religions and each has equal right to believe. But if you are a Christian organisation wanting to spread pro Christian values, be upfront about it, and be open about potential lines of influence. Does Honour (Singapore)’s silence on this issue, until uncovered by online media, give the public confidence that it really has no Christian agenda?
Top image – Honour (Singapore) website
The “Honour in Singapore” series includes:
- Part 1 – Defining honour, for what purpose?
- Part 2 – About chairman Lim Siong Guan
- Part 3 – About executive director Jason Wong
- Part 4 – Keepers of the “gates”
- Part 5 – Strong government endorsement warranted?
- Part 6 – Relooking objectives and funding
Like this article? Support us so that we can do more. Subscribe to TOC here.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
-
Comments2 weeks ago
Netizens question Ho Ching’s praise for Chee Hong Tat’s return from overseas trip for EWL disruption
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Lee Hsien Yang pays S$619,335 to Ministers Shanmugam and Balakrishnan in defamation suit to protect family home
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Train services between Jurong East and Buona Vista to remain disrupted until 1 Oct due to new cracks on East-West Line
-
Comments1 week ago
Netizens push back on Ho Ching’s 8-10 million population vision and call for more foreigners
-
Singapore2 weeks ago
Full-time NSF found unconscious in camp dies; MINDEF says death not training related
-
Singapore1 week ago
Commuters face service disruption on TEL due to train fault following 6-day EWL disruption
-
Comments1 week ago
Dr Chee Soon Juan criticises Ho Ching’s vision for 8-10 million population
-
Singapore1 week ago
PM Lawrence Wong reaffirms government’s commitment to integrity after ex-minister Iswaran’s jail sentence