Connect with us

Civil Society

Is the Internet Brigade allegedly under PAP working OT to undermine alternative parties?

Published

4 years ago

on

A Workers’ Party (WP) candidate’s (Raeesah Khan) past tweets were reported to have borne the “(promotion) of enmity between different groups on grounds of religion or race” via two police reports filed over the weekend of 4 and 5 July.

The reports filed were against her over tweets she posted on Feb 2018 and 17 May 2020 which criticised preferential treatment of “rich Asians and white people” and discrimination against Muslim leaders in comparison with mega-church leaders who are Chinese. She has since apologised publicly for her past comments on 5 July. 

One wonders however, if the police reports and online attacks directed towards her the work of the “Internet Brigade (IB)”, allegedly formed by the People’s Action Party (PAP), accelerating in overdrive in the wake of the General Elections (GE) 2020?

According to a Straits Times’ (ST) news article on 3 Feb 2007, the PAP was allegedly “mounting a quiet counter-insurgency against its online critics (because) it was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment”. This was shared by Baey Yam Keng in the interview with ST then; Mr Baey is contesting in Tampines Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in the upcoming GE.   

The IB was formed after the 2006 GE, as part of a “new media” committee helmed by Ng Eng Hen, previous Minister of Defence, who will be contesting in the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC in the upcoming elections. 

It has two sub-committees: one strategies the campaigns, co-headed by then Minister of State (Education) Lui Tuck Yew (who has retired from politics in 2015) and member of Parliament (MP) Zaqy Mohamad (who will be contesting in Marsiling-Yew Tee in GE 2020). 

The other is led by Mr Baey and MP Josephine Teo (who will be contesting in Jalan Besar GRC in the GE 2020). Called the ‘new media capabilities group’, it executes the strategies. Besides politicians, there were 20 IT-savvy party activists who were involved in these committees.

Mr Baey said the committees “aim to observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape”. The question that drives the campaigns is “how do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?” he added. 

One of the techniques for execution is “activists (not being) too obvious about it,” he elaborated. 

“That’s the only way it can work, otherwise it comes across as “propaganda. The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.”

One of the activists shared that “when posting comments on online forums and the feedback boxes of blogs, he does not identify himself as a PAP member”. 

Under this broad principles framework, the IB’s modus operandi can be stretched as long as it achieves the agenda. 

The committees do not necessarily need to promote the PAP; they can also lower the status of alternative parties by undermining their reputation, image, or credibility and qualification of candidates. This strategy would automatically “elevate” the standing of the PAP just by comparison in the aftermath.

There was one post from a pro-PAP supporter, Abdul Malik Mohammed Ghazali, who claimed he was “one of the first to leak out and viral screenshotted (Raeesah’s twitter) account”. 

He added in his post that he hopes her “part in the GE comes to an abrupt end” and this would be “the PAP’s first walkover victory in GE 2020”. He also wondered out loud if the WP and her would get disqualified in contesting for Sengkang GRC because of her actions. 

He cautioned that it’s best for “Ms Raeesah to step down or (her father) would be next”. Her father is Farid Khan, another public figure who is the president of the Singapore Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry and an ex-presidential candidate in the 2017 presidential election. 

He ended by saying “thanks to the many unmanned sources (for) helping to provide the information as well”. At the bottom of his post he added hashtags “#RevengeforIvanLim” and “MajulahPAP”. 

In the ST’s news article, it wrote that according to an Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) study conducted in 2006, the members and supporters of WP were the most active “among the opposition parties, (and) post regularly on forums online”. Perhaps that’s why there is more opposing activity against them online by the PAP’s IB.  

What’s ironic to note is Mr Malik used to be against the PAP and joined the Singapore Democratic Party in 2011, wanted “Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and the PAP to “burn” in 2010 for their work in the Youth Olympic Games, and was previously jailed for insurance fraud.

But now in this supporter’s post, it reflects quite clearly that his actions were politically motivated in the hopes that it diminishes the chances and credibility of the WP, and somewhat a vendetta to equalise the crusade “debacle” that led to the withdrawal of Ivan Lim. 

His “internet vigilantism” is not a solo act: a few have made a name for themselves for being an active part of the PAP IB.

TOC has been accumulating and keeping receipts of some hardcore PAP supporters’ activity on social media. Mr Malik had been involved in at least two other IB social media activities in the past that were contentious.

In the list, Jason Chua Chin Seng, whose Facebook page “Fabrications Against PAP” was recently taken down by Facebook on 28 June, is another such activist. His page was taken down because the account was found to “violate Facebook’s policies based on its behaviour,” its spokesperson said. FAP was known for its strong pro-PAP posts and sentiments, and speaking out against alternative parties and their supporters too. Mr Chua was also issued a warning by the police in 2017 when he violated Cooling-Day rules and posted politically-motivated messages in the Bukit Batok by-election. 

Joseph Tan and Ed Sim, two other activists in PAP’s IB on the list, have also been tracked to zero in on alternative parties on their Facebook.

Joseph Tan and Ed Sim at a PAP convention

Recently, a Facebook user by the name of Surya Kumar threatened a citizen, Bryant Wong, for publicly speaking out in disfavour of Ivan Lim, accusing Mr Wong for “causing severe pain and distress to Ivan’s family”. Turns out, Mr Kumar has been active as a member of PAP IB for a while.  

These handful individuals may make up a minority of the PAP’s supporters, and those who flagged out Ms Raeesah’s tweets. Some of them who have criticised her tweets may be supporters of the WP, but unrelatedly had an issue with her words. Case in point is her tweets did harbour seeds that had the potential to grow into a hotbed of racial and religious tension among Singaporeans. And secondly, contesting candidates who step into politics have to be and will be held accountable for their past actions and comments, as similar to what happened to Mr Lim. 

Objectively and fairly, therefore the same can be said of the actions of the “internet brigade” surrounding the “Ivan Lim fiasco”, of whom most likely were supporters of alternative parties; although some, who has had real-life experiences with Mr Lim, may support the PAP and genuinely do not want this person to be a standing candidate in an election, and perhaps in a party they support.  

The contrast between these two IBs therefore is: does PAP have an organised and systemic brigade managed by smart politicians with resources and financial means, while the alternative parties’ IB may be just alternative parties and strangers coming online to counter the PAP, but with no structure or leadership, and coordination and facilitation depend solely on initiatives going viral? 

It definitely is effective, as evident by many movements that originated from social media taking flight. It is supported by the IPS study which “found that younger and better-educated Singaporeans relied on information from the Internet when shaping their voting choices at the GE 2006”. Social media has vastly advanced and expanded in the last 14 years; it would be logical to believe that it has enhanced exponential influence on the way information is consumed and spread among people. 

But – the PAP’s IB has a digital weapon that the non-PAP IB doesn’t- the POFMA.

To date, since coming into effect on 2 Oct 2019, 35 POFMA orders have been issued from then to 5 July 2020. Most of which were given to dissenting voices and alternative online platforms and political parties. It has not once been used on a statutory board, government agency, or PAP members of parliament. It may seem this goes for PAP supporters as well. 

With the POFMA guarded under the sole jurisdiction of the government, an alternative voice can be suppressed and censored. But, an online proponent of PAP may not warrant the same possibility of receiving a POFMA since they are targeting critics and defending the PAP. Therefore, the PAP’s IB may be more bold in their comments, and spirited in their online behaviour without fear of consequence.

Some of the things the PAP IB claims and states as facts, are falsehoods against alternative voices and opinions. Some of the things the IB claims about PAP, may also be falsehoods, bordering on defamation. Why were no POFMA issued in these instances and to these groups of individuals? Isn’t the purpose of POFMA to protect against online “fake news”? Or is it just protection against “fake news” about PAP?

If the PAP does have an IB, are they more advantageous and efficient in its campaign execution for the GE 2020 due to its resources and privilege? But judging by the inherent tools and characteristics of social media that can be capitalised on, perhaps it is a fair-playing ground to alternative parties too; but perhaps the PAP will always have a leg up because they capitalise on the same social media too, on top of their added advantages.  

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
15 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
15 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Civil Society

29 organisations demand criminal prosecution of law-breaking police in Malaysia

A coalition of 29 organisations is demanding that Malaysia end the perception of shielding law enforcement officers from prosecution when involved in serious violations like torture and killings. Highlighting cases such as the disappearances of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, they call for accountability through criminal charges.

Published

2 days ago

on

3 October 2024

By

Activist Amri Che Mat and Pastor Raymond Koh

A coalition of 29 organisations is calling for an end to what they describe as a “policy” or perception in Malaysia that shields police and law enforcement officers from criminal prosecution, even when they are involved in serious violations such as death, torture, or human rights abuses.

These groups argue that law enforcement officers who break the law should be subject to the same criminal prosecution and sentencing as ordinary citizens.

The coalition points to several high-profile cases where police officers allegedly committed serious crimes, yet no action was taken to prosecute those responsible.

They argue that merely subjecting officers to internal disciplinary actions does not fulfil the public’s demand for justice. Instead, such officers must be charged and tried in open courts, allowing for transparency in the administration of justice.

Enforced Disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat

One prominent case cited is the enforced disappearance of Pastor Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat. In 2019, the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) concluded, following a public inquiry, that both men were likely victims of enforced disappearance carried out by police officers from the Special Branch.

The government formed a Special Task Force to investigate SUHAKAM’s findings, but when the report was completed, it was classified as an “Official Secret” and was not disclosed to the public.

Recently, during a civil trial initiated by the families of the victims, parts of the report were revealed.

These findings supported SUHAKAM’s conclusions, asserting that the officers involved were rogue individuals acting independently. However, despite this revelation, no criminal charges have been filed against the responsible officers.

The delay in prosecuting these officers, even after clear findings, further bolsters the perception that Malaysia protects its law enforcement officers from the full extent of the law.

Assault on Ong Ing Keong

In another case, Ong Ing Keong, a deaf and mute e-hailing driver, was allegedly assaulted on 28 May 2024 by a police officer escorting a VIP.

Despite video evidence supporting Ong’s claims, no charges have been brought against the officer involved. This case has raised further questions about the government’s willingness to hold law enforcement accountable.

Failures in Investigating Police-Related Deaths

The coalition also highlights multiple cases involving deaths caused by police officers, where no significant legal action has been taken.

A coroner’s court ruling on 31 May 2023 determined that the fatal shooting of three men by police officers was not justified as an act of self-defence. Despite this finding, the officers involved have not been charged.

Similarly, in a separate incident, the High Court ruled on 1 February 2024 that the death of a man in Sitiawan, Perak, at the hands of police was homicide, yet no charges have been filed.

The coalition argues that these incidents contribute to a widespread loss of public confidence in Malaysia’s criminal justice system, particularly when it comes to cases involving law enforcement officers.

They stress that the government must act decisively to ensure that justice is seen to be done, by investigating, charging, and prosecuting officers found responsible for these crimes.

Concerns About Torture and Deaths in Custody

There are growing concerns over allegations of torture and deaths in police custody, with many cases seemingly underreported due to victims’ fear or lack of faith in the system.

The groups worry that if the public continues to perceive that justice is inaccessible, it may lead to increased incidents of violence or retaliation against police officers.

The Need for Clearer Laws and Specific Offences

The coalition believes that existing Malaysian laws, such as the Federal Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, clearly outline the legal obligations of police officers.

However, they argue that there is a need for additional specific laws to address violations committed by law enforcement officers, particularly in cases involving torture, illegal searches, or denial of legal rights.

They propose enacting special criminal offences targeting police misconduct to ensure greater accountability.

They further highlight the challenge posed by the fact that police misconduct often occurs in the presence of fellow officers, who may be reluctant to report their colleagues. This creates a culture of impunity within the force, making it difficult for victims to seek justice.

Recommendations for Reform

The coalition’s demands include the immediate investigation, charging, and trial of the officers responsible for the enforced disappearance of Raymond Koh and Amri Che Mat, as well as the disclosure of their whereabouts.

They also call for the prosecution of officers involved in the disappearance of Joshua Hilmy and Ruth Sitepu, based on findings from SUHAKAM’s public inquiry.

Moreover, the group advocates for the prosecution of the officers involved in the assault of Ong Ing Keong and those found guilty of homicide in recent court decisions.

They also call for the implementation of new laws to address police misconduct and for the government to take active steps to discard the perception that law enforcement officers are immune from prosecution.

The coalition urges the Malaysian government to demonstrate its commitment to justice by ensuring that all law enforcement officers who break the law are charged and tried in open courts.

This transparency, they argue, is critical to restoring public faith in the country’s criminal justice system.

The list of the 29 organisations in the coalition

  1. ALIRAN
  2. MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)
  3. Teoh Beng Hock Association for Democratic Advancement
  4. Association of Home and Maquila Workers (ATRAHDOM), Guatemala
  5. Banglar Manabadhikar Suraksha Mancha (MASUM), India
  6. Center for Orang Asli Concerns (COAC)
  7. Greenpeace Malaysia
  8. Global Women’s Strike, UK
  9. Haiti Action Committee
  10. KLSCAH Civil Rights Committee (KLSCAH CRC)
  11. Legal Action for Women, UK
  12. Migrant Care, Indonesia
  13. National Garment Workers Federation, Bangladesh
  14. North South Initiative, Malaysia
  15. National Union of Transport Equipment & Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW), West Malaysia
  16. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM)
  17. PAYDAY Men’s Network (UK/US)
  18. Persatuan Amal Progresif Malaysia
  19. Persatuan Sahabat Wanita Selangor (PSWS)
  20. Programme Against Custodial Torture & Impunity (PACTI), India
  21. Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU)
  22. Sarawak Dayak Iban Association (SADIA)
  23. Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM)
  24. Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
  25. The Workers’ Assistance Center, Inc. (WAC), Philippines
  26. Union of Domestic, Maquila, Nexas and Related Workers (SITRADOM), Guatemala
  27. WH4C (Workers Hub for Change)
  28. Black Women for Wages for Housework, US
  29. Women of Color/Global Women’s Strike, US/UK
Continue Reading

Civil Society

WMP: The Dyson lay-offs is a test of how useful PAP’s relationship with unions is for workers

In response to Dyson’s recent layoffs, Workers Make Possible (WMP) questioned whether The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), an NTUC affiliate, will fight for workers’ livelihoods or accept defeat. WMP highlighted that many PAP leaders, including SM Teo Chee Hean and MP Patrick Tay, lead UWEEI’s Council of Advisors, raising concerns about its effectiveness.

Published

3 days ago

on

2 October 2024

By

The recent lay-off decision by UK-based tech giant Dyson in Singapore has raised significant questions about the effectiveness of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP)’s relationship with unions, according to local civil society group Workers Make Possible (WMP).

In an Instagram post, WMP shared two screenshots of news articles, highlighting the irony of British billionaire James Dyson receiving the Public Service Star (Distinguished Friends of Singapore) award in July 2023 for his contributions to the Singaporean economy.

However, fast forward to recently, Dyson’s unexpected round of layoffs left many employees in shock and morale at an all-time low, with only a day’s notice given to The United Workers of Electronics and Electrical Industries (UWEEI), an affiliate of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC).

 

According to Channel News Asia, the layoffs come just three months after Dyson had assured staff that its Singapore operations, which serve as its global headquarters, would be unaffected by a global restructuring that had cut 1,000 jobs in Britain.

Employees reported that the retrenchment process was conducted discreetly, with affected workers receiving email notifications for private “one-on-one” meetings.

During these meetings, attended by human resources representatives, employees were informed that their roles had been rendered redundant.

A Dyson spokesperson responded to media inquiries by stating that the company was adjusting its team composition to ensure it had the right skills in place for future growth.

“Our ambitions in Singapore remain unchanged, and we expect to continue growing here in the medium term,” the spokesperson said.

Dyson did not, however, disclose the number of employees laid off or provide specifics on how the company plans to support the affected staff.

UWEEI expressed disappointment over the layoffs, revealing that it was informed only a day before the retrenchment, which left little room for meaningful discussions.

The union has since escalated the matter to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) for further review.

While the union acknowledged that the affected employees fell outside its scope of representation under its agreement with Dyson, it pledged to support the laid-off workers in collaboration with NTUC’s Employment and Employability Institute (e2i).

UWEEI and e2i will assist with job searches, career coaching, and retraining. The union also called on companies to adhere to NTUC’s Fair Retrenchment Framework, emphasizing the need to protect local workers and ensure that adequate support is given during layoffs.

WMP Calls on UWEEI to Act Decisively Amidst Dyson Layoffs, Questioning PAP’s Commitment to Worker Advocacy

Commenting on UWEEI’s response to the recent Dyson layoffs, WMP noted that many PAP members are part of its Council of Advisors, with Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean serving as Chairman and PAP MP Patrick Tay as secretary.

WMP also pointed out that during a parliamentary sitting last month, PAP MPs fervently defended the importance of involvement in trade unions to protect workers.

“Critics should pause their judgement and see what the UWEEI can do in this moment of crisis for the laid-off workers,” WMP remarked.

The group questioned the effectiveness of UWEEI’s actions, suggesting that if PAP MPs are correct in their assertions, then UWEEI should not remain passive.

“It surely cannot be the case that all the UWEEI is able to advertise up-skilling programs to laid-off workers?”

WMP questioned what UWEEI’s next steps will be and whether they will accept defeat or fight for workers’ livelihoods.

 

Continue Reading

Trending