In the past week, Prof Cherian George wrote several articles on his site criticising some developments in online politics in Singapore which he described as “worrying”. These articles, naturally, generated some backlash online online.
One of these article was a call for a code of online conduct for all political parties, published on 10 May. The other was on the inconsistencies of the government’s responses to online falsehoods and harassment which he said reveals a worrying level of partisanship. Specifically, this was about a pro-PAP Facebook group claiming that several Singaporeans of being China-agents working against Singapore, including PAP backbencher Inderjit Singh who had served as MP for the Ang Mo Kio GRC from 1996 to 2015.
In his latest post on 17 May titled “Notes from the Field“, Prof George said that engaging individuals online who have become worked up over his articles revealed a pattern of commenters trying to change the subject away from the matters he had raised in his articles instead of addressing them directly.
“No, this isn’t what ownself-check-ownself is supposed to look like,” Prof George called out.
He continued, “Rather than quickly deny, disown and limit the damage from what’s apparently a rogue skunkworks unit, the PAP seems content to perpetuate the impression that its radical fringes will be given free rein to police insiders who inch out of line.”
Pointing this out has infuriated PAP loyalists, said Prof George. These people then swarmed online to attack other non-PAP critics as well, all the while avoiding talking about Mr Singh.
Sharing a comment from Facebook by one Bhas Kunju, Prof George agreed that such smear campaigns are carried out to distract and immobilise critics, so they wouldn’t have the energy or time to focus on more meaningful issues.
The other lesson the professor said he learned from this exchange what about “just how toxically partisan” the political discourse here has become.
The Professor pointed out that while some amount of partisanship is inevitable in a multiparty democratic system like Singapore, it is a serious problem when citizens are only able to view debates through party-political lens.

Words and actions of a ruling party carry more weight than that of the opposition

Prof George went on to focus on what he calls the “nub of the hardcore PAP loyalist counter-arguments”. This argument is that pro-opposition trolls are as bad as pro-PAP ones. Prof George noted that a pro-PAP blogger has emailed him a sample of the “vulgar and xenophobic” messages he has received from anti-PAP sources.
The professor then responds to this in three ways.

The health of the ruling party should matter

First, he takes on the personal argument. He said, “ I have to point out reluctantly that I have a long history of calling out idiocy and abuse on the opposition side of cyberspace,” adding that he has been “trolled” by pro-opposition types far longer than pro-PAP types.
He then set out some examples of his calling out the opposition over the years including his focus in the past five years on how to improve the PAP.
“If we want a better Singapore, working for a better PAP must be part of our total strategy,” said the professor. He acknowledged that a stronger opposition is also important but that doesn’t mean that the health of the ruling party is of no consequence.
“We need to improve the PAP in case the opposition doesn’t develop into to a viable alternative,” he said.
Prof George explained that this was the premise of his 2017 book, Singapore, Incomplete: Reflections on a First World Nation’s Arrested Political Development.
However, he highlighted, “Hardcore opposition fans, naturally, do not like this way of thinking.” Citing his past experience with opposition trolls during the 2011 election where he criticised the misogynistic attacks on the PAP’s young new candidate, Tin Pei Ling and with TOC back in Dec 2011, after he pointed out that the site — previously helmed by Ravi Philemon — had unfairly triggered a witch-hunt against another PAP backbencher by misquoting him.

The ruling party is held to a higher standard

Moving on to the second point of a structural issue, Prof George said that in a democracy, “words and actions of a ruling party matter more than the words and actions of the opposition.” This is especially so in Singapore where it is unlikely that the opposition will come into power anytime soon, he added.
“It is correct that we demand higher standards from any ruling party, because that’s where real power resides,” said the professor.
“Our Constitution is based on this principle, that ruling parties have special obligations. Which why Lee Hsien Loong is answerable to Parliament in ways that Kenneth Jeyaretnam is not,” he explained.

A standard of self-regulation is crucial

The third argument he raised was on the question of values and ethic. Prof George said that the best organisations in every sector set their own standards and brand themselves by a set a values.
“They don’t benchmark against the average, let alone the lowest common denominator,” he said, stressing also that they don’t engage in “whataboutism”.
“When it’s pointed out to them that they are being associated with bad behaviour, they don’t say, “But what about our competitors? They are even worse.” No. If they are not responsible for that bad behaviour they disavow and clarify,” he said.
“If they are responsible, even indirectly, they accept responsibility and take swift remedial action.”
He used the example of football clubs rejecting and distancing themselves from fan who have behaved badly. He also noted that socially responsible media organisations do the same by turning off comments on topics that they know will bring out the worst in readers who might leave abusive and irrelevant comments that would “taint their brand”.
Prof George said, “Compared with football clubs and media organisations, it is much more important that political parties pay attention to the reputational damage caused by their hardcore but misguided fans and followers.”
“Political parties set the tone for our democratic life. The serious ones should be eager to clean up their act.”
Even so, Prof George noted that it is unsurprising that some people would be quick to say that calls for ethical behaviour is the same as censorship. He added that the worse objections are often from the worst abusers.
“Therefore, when I called for voluntary self-regulation about a decade ago, I was derided by anti-government forces. Now it’s the turn of the vocal, nutty minority of pro-PAP netizens,” said the professor.

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

学者回顾2018新加坡处多事之秋 形容“行动党在未知中险航”

放眼踏入2019年,约翰佳博大学政治经济助理教授碧洁薇丝,于去年12月31日在东亚论坛上,发表了题为《行动党在未知中险航》(Singapore’s PAP Managing Uncertainty),形容行动党跟前仍摆着不确定因素,提醒若行动党仍以过去保守行事作风回应,在国家面对更多阻力下,可能曝露在更大的风险中。 文中提及在应对国内诸多课题如贫富不均,行动党显得防御被动;在经济上的改革举措也乏善可陈,仍过度仰赖政府注资和亲移民的模式。至于新马关系恶化,也可能成为行动党政府的棘手负担之一。 碧洁薇丝在去年七月曾于《日经亚洲评论》撰写评论,认为马来西亚变天仿佛是新加坡的一面镜子,“新马来西亚”的崛起,致使新国政府失去了比较优势,反而相形见绌,显得新加坡仍留恋旧制。 以下为碧洁薇丝原文翻译: 2018年的新加坡处多事之秋。但是关键的事态进展,其实和这个城邦国家扮演的亚细安领头羊角色关系不大,反而较多地与执政党人民行动党(PAP),为了回应国内压力和区域发展多面不确定因素有关。 王瑞杰的考验:走出李氏家族阴影 行动党选择以他们熟悉的手段对应,也符合保守政府行事作风。但随着这个国家面对更多的阻力,此举也可能让他曝露在更大的风险中。 政治上新加坡正准备迎接选举。随着财政部长王瑞杰被宣布为总理人选,减少了对行动党第四代领导人的猜测,至少解答了谁将接任李显龙的问题。 王瑞杰是较为安全的选项。内阁称之为团队合作者、完善且经考验的行动党干部,加上也是新加坡最大挑战–经济领域方面的技术专家。…

Zouk 6水獭家族出意外 二伤一失踪

本月13日出现在中央商业区的安顺路(Anson Road),被称为Zouk 6的水獭家族最近却被发现族群中的“母亲”头部受创、昏昏欲睡,一只半成年的水獭掌部受伤,还有一只雌性水獭“失踪了”。 关爱水獭组织OtterWatch于24日办网在脸书发帖,表示有民众于23日早上,在武吉知马水道旁的岸边,发现疑似Zouk 6家族。 惟,当志工于下午赶抵现场观察后,发现原本由三只成年和三只半成年水獭组成的Zouk 6家族,在现场只有五只水獭,其中一只成年雌性水獭已经不知所踪。 当时其中一只成年水獭躺在水沟边,而剩余的四只水獭则在水中呼叫。 志工立即发现游在水中的其中一只半成年水獭,其前掌受伤了。 不仅如此,在水沟边的成年雌性水獭似乎晕晕乎乎地,不怎么动,头部有一片红红的,眼睛也有些睁不开。 随后志工透过雌性水獭的身体特征,认出了这是族群的母亲。 “它看似被什么东西达到了头部的左边,可能左肩也受伤了。其他的年轻水獭看到妈妈不适,就上岸将妈妈围住,似乎想要给予帮助。”…

Concentration of workers from certain nationality occurred under Lim Swee Say and Josephine Teo

In a media interview at Joo Chiat Community Club last Saturday (10…

Police officer jumps into Rochor Canal to save drunk suspect

The Ministry of Home Affairs posted a video on their Facebook page…