yaacobWhen the haze hit Singapore last year, it was the worst in years. Our city was shrouded in smog and being in public or open areas became a hazard.
The lack of preparation by the authorities for the situation added to the sense of anxiety and anger among Singaporeans. There was an inadequate number of face masks available, and those in shops were quickly sold out.
The Government promised and soon announced that more masks would be made available.
One member of the public, who is also a blogger, then posted on his Facebook page what a friend of his told him about the masks which he (the friend) had heard – that the masks were meant only for healthcare workers, and not for the general public.
When this came to the attention of the Minister of Communications and Information (MCI), Yaacob Ibrahim, he seemed to take rather great umbrage with the suggestion.
So incensed was Dr Yaacob that he found it fit to raise it in Parliament, no less, castigating the blogger for posting such a thing, and for “causing anxiety” among the public.
The Government mouthpiece media went into a tizzy and reported that the blogger’s post “went viral”.
The Facebook post was shared 23 times, and had 27 “likes”.
How does that cause “anxiety” or “went viral” in a population of more than 5 million?
It boggles the mind.
But still, even MPs went to extremes in their panic.
“In a national crisis, to put out false rumours is as severe as a bomb hoax: it can cause public panic,” said MP Zaqy Mohamad, chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee (GPC) for Communications and Information.
Fast forward one year to September 2014.
The tables seem to have been turned – with ministers (at least one) and MPs being the ones who spread an untruth.
Following the debacle at Hong Lim Park last Saturday, several of these public officials made allegations against the protesters, that they had “heckled” special needs children who were performing on stage.
As it has turned out, however, this does not appear to be true.
Indeed, none of the MPs have provided any shred of evidence to support their allegations.
And the rumour seems to have been started by a pro-Government website too. (Read here: “Yes, Roy should apologise but so too some MPs”.)
And just this week as well, a pro-PAP Facebook page had to apologise for publishing a deliberately misleading edited photo of an opposition politician after the politician filed a police report over it.
But notice the complete silence from the likes of Dr Yaacob on this.
It smacks of double-standards – that the government would slam others for the slightest infringements while turning a complete blind eye to shortcomings from its own side.
While the government may think this is inconsequential, it in fact is not – for over time it will drain public trust from the authorities who will increasingly be seen to be lacking integrity.
Such biased attitudes will also harm the government itself – its officers will start to think that they can get away with anything, even when they propagate falsehoods in the public domain.
Yet, the false allegations of the protesters “heckling” the children are not the first or only incident of false information from the authorities or from the government-controlled mainstream media.
There have been numerous examples of this – but all have been met with utter silence from ministers such as Dr Yaacob who, in other cases, would waste no time in jumping to condemn the perpetrator.
See these reports and judge for yourself:
When the mainstream media ‘cause anxiety by spreading rumours
Little India riot – mis-reporting, falsehoods and speculations
Read The Right Thing
The government must realise that it is impossible for anyone to be accurate or true all the time.
It is a standard which the authorities themselves are unable to fulfil.
Thus, when it sets such a standard and then fails to live up to it, while castigating others for the same, it becomes a question of hypocrisy which erodes public trust.
There are two things the government can do.
One, do not set such high and unrealistic standards.
Two, be fair to all.
These are really not that hard to do, for if one believes that falsehoods should not be propagated, then it should apply to one and all, and any failings should be treated the same way.
For example, if a blogger is arrested (literally, handcuffed) for conducting an online election poll, then the same should be done to reporters of mainstream media outlets who conducted an actual on-the-ground by-election poll as well.
trst
If a filmmaker is brought in for questioning by the police for publishing an interview with SMRT drivers while the case was before the courts, then the same should be done for the Straits Times reporter who conducted an interview with a bus driver involved in the Little India riot while the Commission of Inquiry was ongoing in the courts.
In fact, it was the chairman of the COI himself, a former judge, who slammed the Straits Times’ report for “plain contempt of court”.
lir
If netizens are arrested for posting racist content online, then the same must be done for members of the ruling party or establishment who do the same.
racist
If a blogger is slammed (in the media and in Parliament) for spreading falsehoods, then the same should be done for ministers and MPs who do the same.
Otherwise, the authorities should explain the apparent disparity in treatment.
If this is not addressed, how would the authorities claim moral authority to govern at all?
Over time, more people will lose faith in not just the officers of the Government, but in the system of governance itself.
And indeed, have not government ministers and academics been talking about a potential loss of public trust?
The blame for this is often pointed at others, especially critics of the government, but the truth is closer to home – that it is the government’s biased and unfair attitudes toward different sides that is lowering the standings of our public officials who, unfortunately, seem to have also become the sources and propagators of misinformation themselves.
And when found out, they pretend ignorance behind a wall of silence.
Not even an apology surfaces from them.
Dr Yaacob should be asking the MPs the same question he asked “prominent members of the online community” last year: “Were they helping to clarify and reject online rumours, or were they helping to spread them or even create them?”
Read also: “Yes, Roy should apologise but so too some MPs“.

Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Dr Wong Wee Nam: Why I intend to vote for Tan Jee Say

Dr Wong Wee Nam/ The following is an excerpt from an article…

陈清木号召有志之士入党 放眼前进党大捷打入国会

自本月3日圆满举行新加坡前进党推介仪式,该党在本周日(25日)于凯煌酒店举办国庆晚宴,获得400名嘉宾和支持者出席,当中有不少都是新近入党的党员。 新加坡前进党创党人暨秘书长陈清木,在该晚宴上致词时欣慰表示,在该党推介礼后注册党员人数“远远超过预期”,令他感到鼓舞,同时也号召更多有才能的有志之士加入该党。 他补充,党员中有好些是人在海外的新加坡人,他们都希望能为改变献上一份心力。 “新加坡前进党能取得踊跃支持,不胜惶恐,这也让我感受到,必须为大家加倍努力。我深知身上责任更重,必须比我预想的做得更多。” 他说,前进党能获得民间广泛的响应,显示国人认可该党提出必须为国家争取更好施政的诉求。 “他们认可在施政过程中,利用有更多的透明度、独立和问责原则。他们期许我们能将之落实,我们不能失败。我们必须确保为人民更加努力,打入国会,质询对的问题。” 敦促党员勤走基层争取选民支持 他也敦促前进党党员必须全力以赴,确保在来届选举能旗开得胜,打入国会。 他说,过去在亚逸拉惹选区也是尽心尽力服务,才能得到选民的认可,才得以高票当选。 故此,他呼吁前进党党员必须走进基层,与邻里街坊对话,把该党的政治理念和诉求传扬出去。 他也号召有能力的有志之士入党,认为需要有素质的人士在国会监督,并质询政府政策。 不过陈清木坦言他们可能仍有所顾虑,“所以我告诉他们,正是因为这份恐惧,你才必须站出来,因为你有道德责任,让你的下一代免受你所经历的恐惧困扰。”…

津贴、保险后医药费仍高 网友忧福利跟不上医疗通膨

一名网友分享友人郑瑞豪(译音)的住院经历,感叹老百姓虽然花钱买保险、还公积金保健储蓄(Medisave),然而真正需要时,获得赔偿额仍难以应付日益高涨的医药费。此事引起网民纷纷留言热议,认识到现有医疗津贴制和保险的局限。 该名网友以此事为例,认为在重度残障情况下,终身护保每月只赔600新元仍有不足,即使无病无痛,最后仍难以索回保费。特别是未来医疗费逐年调涨,我们的公积金、终身健保是否能减轻我们的负担? 郑瑞豪在2018年二月26日,突发心脏病和心脏骤停,在陈笃生医院接受治疗。有两天必须躺在加护病房,随后三天转到普通病房,并接受了气球血管扩张手术(PCI)和植入支架。 他说,政府只津贴1万4000元,终身健保则津贴了1万元,然而自己仅能从公积金保健储蓄(Medisave)提取4千073元,扣了上述数额,自己仍必须承担约1万3千元的医药费。 郑瑞豪在帖文中叹,自己的医药费并没有获得政府津贴65巴仙,医疗储蓄至少有5万2千积蓄,但在当下生死关头,却无用武之地。 一名网友还质疑此贴文的真伪,因为我国公民享用政府医院服务,不论住C级病房或手术,理应至少能得65巴仙津贴,不过郑瑞豪亲自解释,也将当时的医疗收据上载,给众网友评评理:他确确实实为整个治疗服了1万3千余元的医疗费。 郑瑞豪说,完整收据有6页,问题关键不在于每个单一事项,是否获65巴仙津贴,而是在总数额,能够获得多少津贴。“C级病房也没有电视、个人卫生用品和冷气等,我还要请家人带我的个人餐具和杯子。可是一晚住宿在津贴后,仍要价212元,即便是五星级酒店都没那么贵!” 网民Kumar则分享时事评论家Andrew Loh在2016年的境遇:接受血管造影侦测,和诊断是否适合进行血管扩张手术,医药费达1万0727新元。这笔费用或政府津贴6千767.90新元(约65巴仙),终身健保偿还720元,再扣除部分保健储蓄,Andrew先生只需付2千248新元。 至于Andrew的另一心脏绕道手术要价2万5千554新元,政府津贴高达80巴仙即2万0664元;Andrew再用终身健保偿还4千909元,剩余的380元只需用保健储蓄偿还,他根本不需再自掏腰包出一分钱。 (CGH=樟宜中央医院;KTPH=邱德拔医院;NHC=国家心脏中心;NTFGH=黄廷芳综合医院;NUH=国立大学医院;TTSH=陈笃生医院。图源来自卫生部官网) 政府提供基础安全网…

Grassroots leader wants to sell unit at double the price after demolishing illegal hidden floor

Last week (27 Sep), it was reported in the media that the…