TR EMERITUS

Ivan Lim If this is the best defence that Mr Ivan Lim can offer to the accusation that he is arrogant, self-centred and elitist, then his response is completely unimpressive and he should gracefully withdraw, or be withdrawn by the PAP. As things stand - he is a clear liability to the party on the issue of character - which the PAP has long emphasized as a fundamental part of its ethos. Why do I say this? 1. Mr Lim took three whole days to put out a reply to the press in writing. If he had a robust defence, he should have called an immediate public conference, addressed his critics and looked all the people of Singapore squarely in the eye and stood up for his own good name, and found people (colleagues, men etc.) willing to stand up for him. 2. Second, his press release brings in his mother - playing the sympathy card. Why drag his own mother into a criticism of himself? 3. He opens with a denial that he was involved in the bribery in Brazil. This is distraction because the essential heart of the accusation against Mr Lim is not corruption but defect of character. 4. He has not denied the basic factual foundation of what has been alleged against him (i.e. he hasn't said that the incidents were false and made up). 5. His response to the army incidents only deals with the matter of asking men to book in by 2200 hours. This is the easiest claim to respond to. He didn't for example respond to why an acting Bn RSM in his own unit described him as arrogant and elitist towards the officers and NCOs entering a Bn tentage - saying in effect to his officers and men of lower rank that you don't belong in my command post. He didn't respond to the allegation that he regularly flaunted his achievements and flashy car. He didn't respond to allegations that he kept his whole unit back when he went for drinks only to return to dismiss them half-sloshed. He didn't respond to the allegation that he called a turn-out in particular because it was his last duty (i.e. suggesting that he did it to show the "power" that he had to do so). He didn't respond to the claim that he looked constantly to find fault with and charge his men for minor infractions. 6. More generally, if you are the Commanding Officer of a unit, this is a senior position. Mr Lim should have been able to come out *strongly* and say : look, I care about my men, their interests come first to me, I look to build a bond of trust and respect with them so vital for a commander. I have upheld these values throughout my military service. He did not make any strong statement in his own defence of his own character as a senior commander, let alone bring forth men willing to stand up for him. 7. His defence of his record at Keppel seemed equally vague and lame. Basically, all he has said is that the shipping industry is tough and that some people have done well and been promoted under him. Totally general. He didn't respond at all to the claim of a colleague who said that he resigned and broke a bond because of Mr Lim, and had attended numerous exit interviews (including with named persons). Conclusion - hopeless defence. Mr Lim should go. Given Mr Lim's response, the PAP must ask itself - is this the kind of man you want to be your standard bearer? Do you want to bring him in under the coat-tails of a respected senior Minister?   Lian Chuan Yeoh   * Editor's note: Ivan Lim has resigned from the PAP and will no longer be fielded by the party in the upcoming pandemic GE 2020.      Read More →

In looking through my journal recently, I came across a summary of a passenger's rhetoric on Singapore Government under PAP. Here is the story in my journal. January 31, 2019 -- I picked up a sixty-something Chinese man in Jurong and drove him to the airport, a thirty-minute ride, at 4 a.m.  He told me he worked for many years as an accountant in various MNC and was leaving Singapore for good. He was joining his son in New Zealand and planned to work part-time or retire there. "Why are you leaving Singapore for good?," I asked him. "I love Singapore, my birthplace but I hate PAP....The f***k.*@%"x! party". I was shocked beyond words and almost fell off my driving seat. Before I could interrupt him in his sudden and long rhetoric that lasted the whole trip, he fished out his cellphone and asked me for my phone number. He wished to Whatsapp me a summary of his loathing of PAP and I obliged out of courtesy. I kept his interesting abomination of PAP till today and would like to share it with you now as 2020 G.E. is imminent. Quote: 50 reasons why I hate PAP. 1. PAP rigged the economy to favor the rich, powerful, and well-connected, thereby widening the income inequality gap between rich and poor Singaporeans. 2. With no minimum wage policy, there is negative real wage growth over the last 15 years. For political reasons, PAP prefers paying wage subsidies instead of implementing a minimum wage scheme. 3. PAP had failed miserably in trying to solve the low productivity of the Singapore economy that still depends on cheap foreign labor. 4. PAP's many dismay social policies are the main cause of Singapore's Low Birth Rate, albeit started by LKY’s Stop @ 2 policy. 5. The sharp rise in the costs of living, housing, education, healthcare, and transport making Singapore the most expensive city to live in. GST to be raised to 9% between 2021 -2025. 6. (3), (4) and (5) resulted in a lower standard of living for Singaporeans. You can forget about GCT's Swiss Standard of Living and his FIFA World Cup goal. All BS! (P.S. (Lau Goh now retired to enjoy his Swiss Standard of Living.) 7. PAP initially kept secret its pro-foreign businesses and labor policies because it knew it was screwing Singaporeans 8. The CEDA 2005 trade agreement with India allows unlimited inflow of cheap professionals with dubious qualifications and experiences to easily work in Singapore, thereby inevitably depressing wages and stole jobs of local professionals (PMET) and forcing many of them to become Grab/Taxi drivers. In return, India allows only GLC (Govt. Linked Companies) to invest in big projects there with no benefits to local Singaporeans. 9. Foreigners taking jobs away from Singaporeans when these foreigners are willing to accept wages as low as $500/month with housing, transport, and food provided. Can a Singaporean family survive at this wage or even $1000/month with HDB mortgages, food, transport, utilities, children's education, and health care expenses?. 10. Foreign students taking away places in local schools and universities that could have gone to Singaporeans. 11. Do you know that all SAP and autonomous schools are required by MOE to recruit a certain number of China students as scholars each year? These China scholars' school fees and lodging are fully paid for and they do not have to serve any bonds. 12. 70% of Government scholars break their bond wasting taxpayers’ money. 13. Teachers leaving the profession as they felt overworked, overstressed, and underpaid. 14. PAP broke a promise to payout CPF on retirement at 55. With no CPF money in hand at retirement. elderly folks have to clean tables, collect cardboard & sweep roads (not for exercise) to survive in this most expensive city-state in the world. 15. PAP does not want to tell Singaporeans the actual cost of building HDB flats and selling land to its own citizens at market rates. HDB is, therefore, selling over-priced HDB flats (prices doubled over the last 5 years) and profiteering at the expense of Singaporeans. 16. GCT created a property bubble as part of its Asset Enhancement Scheme. In reality, after 99 yrs HDB flats have zero value. 17. CPF accounts depleted after paying for HDB flat. 18. Only in Singapore, people have to sell or downgrade their homes to retire or else work into the seventies of their life or death. 19. AIM scandal proved PAP is vicious and evil. 20. MBT (Moh Bow Tan) threw insults in Parliament instead of answering questions on the AIM Scandal. 21. PAP shamelessly encourages blatant double-standard routinely in policy enforcement like discriminately against low wage migrant workers compared to foreign talents and expatriates. PAP's MP broke C.B. rules go scotch free with no punishment while old uncle fined $300 for a similar offense. 22. A Singapore student is fined $400 for using an unmarked power outlet in MRT station but PAP grassroots leaders get free public parking coupons. 23. No conflict of interest when the Auditor General audit her husband's Defence Ministry while he is a Senior Minister of State there. 24. Adverse accounting rating for PA financial reports and yet its CEO is slated to stand for G.E. as a new PAP candidate. Where is the credibility of this PAP person?. 25. Lim “Zorro” Swee Say said “we (PAP) are deaf to all criticism”. 26. PAP divides Singaporean for its own political agenda. We have no say in many things they did like the walk-over President. Only the PAP decides and it didn't care as they are prepared to pay a political price. Rightly so as 70% endorsed them. Hubris!. 27. PAP's 10 million population White Paper is flawed in many aspects. It's primarily purpose is to boost GDP to enrich themselves as their salaries are pegged to GDP and also to provides more gambling chips for GIC and Temasek. 28. Many PAP MP abused their political positions to earns extra millions from directorships fee. The MP who has the most directorships in 2004 were Bukit Timah MP Wang Kai Yuen and Tampines GRC MP Ong Kian Min, each with 10 directorships. Most PAP MPs say no to cap on directorships. Why?. 29. To stay in power, PAP controls all trade unions, newspapers, radio, TV, People Association, Election Dept, and Presidency like in a dictatorship regime. 30. Frequent breakdowns of MRT and commuters suffered helplessly while a paper army general enjoys his million pay with no repercussions. 31. Failed privatization of public transport requiring billions in bailout and re-nationalization from Govt. 32. Public transport makes tens of millions each year, has frequent breakdowns, and gets $2b bailout from Government yet fares are raised. 33. PAP is out of touch with reality (Nasi Padang: $2.50 and Bandung: $0.50). PAP is an elitist party...for the rich and well connected. Vastly different from LKY's era ministers who really cares for the poor and Singapore. PAP has lost its way. 34. Rampant corruption in the Civil Service – FAS, SCDF, MFA, NCB, MDA, NParks, CPIB but PAP swiped all accusations under the carpets. 35. Lack of foresight. In today's context, Covid19 virus in foreign workers' dormitories is unexpected. 36. Big dormitories owners and operators are mainly PAP's lackeys. They make millions of dollars annually with horrendous over-crowded living quarters and when they flouted rules governing their businesses, MOM closed their eyes. COVID 19 opened their cans of worms. 37. PROMA is used arbitrarily to silence PAP critics. 38. PM's wife's salary is a State Secret. 39. Instead of answering questions on CPF, LHL prefers to sue a commoner for defamation. 40. Minister Edwin Tong's salary of $1.3 is not enough to feed his family and GCT agreed that Ministers are not paid enough. He claimed that any person who earns less than a million annually is mediocre. 41. PAP MP guilty of overcharging client..no investigation nor reprimand. 42. Medishield Life: No subsidy for asset-rich, cash-poor Singaporeans. 43. No transparency. Nobody knows how much is in our National Reserve, how much losses in GIC & Temasek, GEO salary, etc... 44. Amend Constitution to deprive TCB of contesting, resulting in a walk-over President in a democratic country. Where is the legitimacy? Only a dictator could amend the constitution as he likes. 45. Abuse power to avoid demolishing 32 Oxley Road's house for political reasons and use parliament with 90% own party members to defend own self. 46. Ownself check Ownself. Ownself Pay Ownself. Legal corruption. 47. Employ all sorts of dirty tricks to fix the Opposition in all G.E. like gerrymandering electoral boundaries and dissolving constituencies if Opposition nearly won like Joo Chiat SMC in 2011 G.E. 48. Cleverly using citizens' money in Singapore's Reserve to give generous cash handouts in a pre-determined G.E. to buy votes but deceived the uninitiated that the handouts are PAP's sincere efforts to help them tie over the pandemic. 49. Give easy citizenship to foreigners to ensure 100% PAP's Parliament with this guaranteed New Citizens' votes. NS men still dying while FTs new citizens do not do NS. 50. Finally, PAP employs fear tactics to stay in power for decades. They say without PAP, Singapore will collapse. you'll lose your job, the value of your flat will drop, your sister and daughter will become a maid in other countries, your estate will become a slum, will sue you till your pant drops, label you a traitor, if you're a loving critic like Alfian Sa'at. I'm a loyal Singaporean in my twilight years. I love Singapore and yet NOT vote PAP but a credible opposition candidate. I think my single vote matter and hope you share my view.   James Lim * The author blogs regularly at Diary of a Singaporean Cabby.      Read More →

Ever since my last article contribution, “Why Singapore Seems Better than New York or London: Refuting PAP Propaganda”, I have been looking through Quora and as users of Quora would know, on topics concerning Singapore, many of the commentators there are pro-PAP. But it is important nonetheless that one reads through what they are saying as when the hustings hit full swing, one can expect their lines to be circulated around social media or WhatsApp/Telegram chats. And so, this is a piece containing rebuttals to some of the arguments that were raised by these PAP supporters in Quora, that one would expect to be found circulating around, that I could not cover in my last article contribution. 1. The Opposition as Complainers As Singaporeans, most of us would have grown up reciting the national pledge every day in school, and the national pledge contains the line “to build a democratic society”. Whilst I agree that some Opposition politicians have indeed made a fool of themselves, such as Choong Hon Meng’s “boo to PAP” and some have behaved in (from a perspective of political strategy) foolhardy ways, such as openly supporting Amos Yee, especially when he chose to insult the late LKY at a time when many Singaporeans won’t be open to such behaviour. But at the same time, the Opposition does have good policies too. For instance, the NSP, in the last election cycle, proposed a blacklist for the relatives of the CPF withdrawee to put their (the CPF withdrawee in question) name on if the CPF withdrawal in question is a known gambling addict. This would do away with the need for the minimum sum, which was set up on such a basis, and is in line with the current policy on the 2 casinos. Similarly, the SDP proposed on setting up a database with the names of Singaporean candidates for employers to choose from for PMET positions, of which the employer could subsequently hire a foreigner if they can’t find a Singaporean with the capacity to fill that a position. The WP’s policy of nationalising the public transport system, which was initially criticised by the PAP, was implemented by them. The line that the Opposition are a group of complainers with no/bad policies also ignores that, the PAP also has its fair share of bad policies. Firstly, on food security. While former YPAP member and (former) NMP Calvin Cheng claimed that MTI did a good work in sourcing for Ukrainian eggs amidst the tightening of global supply chains, which indeed the people at MTI deserve praise for, it also raises key questions on how we got to this state where we could be so easily held hostage to global supply chains. And how we got to this state was a result of the PAP’s haste in urbanising Singapore and this resulted in clearing away of pig and poultry farms and vegetable gardens in Punggol and Hougang, and based on accounts, these clearing outs were done so at what can be said to be at the snap of a finger. The PAP’s claim was that these farms were unhygienic and pose issues to the cleaning up of the Singapore River. However, this problem, which is real, does not necessitate the wholesale clearing out of these farms and could have been solved through the introduction of new technology and training in sanitary farming means. Yes, there is a need for increased space for public housing. But ironically, there is a huge space of land between Yio Chu Kang and Khatib MRT stations, which was slated for a proposed Disneyland that never took off, that to this day stands undeveloped. Similarly, there could be a plausible reclaimed offshore island for HDB flats, connected to the mainland a causeway, on Singapore’s southeast coast, that would allow for the retention of the pig and poultry farms in Hougang and Punggol, allowing them to contribute to our food security instead of cutting off that source completely altogether. Unfortunately, these farms all had to go for the sake of Lee Kuan Yew’s desire to show that he could turn Singapore into a city. And while the PAP often boasts of its success in its HDB policy, there is a potential flip side to this policy which could easily put us in a highly vulnerable position in terms of our food security, and this has shown itself in this current coronavirus pandemic. The second bad policy is that of using taxpayers’ money to sponsor scholarships to foreign students to study in our own public universities, competing for university admission space with our local students. I am not calling for lower admission standards into our public universities, but as a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for polytechnic graduates with good grades, e.g. those having a cGPA of more that 3.5 having to go to Australia or New Zealand or a private institution to further their studies even if that same course is offered in our public unis. And this rigs the game against them – some of these polytechnic graduates come from families who can’t afford to send them to Australia, and this means that they start work at a lower starting pay, only to spend the bulk of these savings from their working on their studies, while a foreign student, at the same life stage as the poly grad from the poor family, comes on taxpayers’ money, to get an education in our public university and thereafter swiftly start work in a local company/organisation here, draw a university graduate’s pay and after the end of his/her contract, uproots himself/herself and settles in another land. Or, if the poly grad has to make do with a private university, in spite of having a cGPA at least or above 3.5, he/she has to face the tendency for employers to discriminate against graduates from private universities (LINK). There may have been stories of Singaporeans who beat the rigged system and built a success story of their own. But it is still a matter of the principle of fairness that Singaporeans should not be made to pay taxes which would in turn rig the game of the system against them. Education Minister Ong Ye Kung said that these scholarships, amounting to $238 million, are necessary to foster ties in a globalised world (LINK). But the need to do so can be better done by using these $238 million to send as many of our students on exchange and learning trips, over spending them on foreigners who in turn compete with deserving students in our ranks for already limited public university places. It is to be noted that the issue of foreign students on taxpayer funded scholarships, that come and compete with our local students for public universities, forcing local students to make do with private or overseas university options, is an issue that former WP NCMP Yee Jenn Jong raised (LINK), is a point which to date the PAP has yet to issue a refutation on at this point of writing or called out as a falsehood, which indicates that there could be huge element of truth to this issue and question, though WP’s Yee acknowledged that due to the uproar in GE 2011, the amount of taxpayers’ money spent on scholarships for foreign students has been reduced from an initial amount of around $400 million. The third policy mistake is that of the foreign worker dormitories during the coronavirus crisis. When super clusters started appearing there in end-March/early-April, the PAP government should have quarantined all foreign worker dorms by the first 3-4 days of April while sorting out accommodation later, especially in view of the cultural norms of these foreign workers to aggregate in large numbers with others from other dormitories, in common areas, such as Little India, which meant that their presence in the local community in the period from end-March to mid-April would have kept our community cases high. But the PAP government waited until mid-April to finally quarantine the dormitories. They claimed that it was a hindsight issue, but I disagree – 1) there was already growing pressure on CNA’s and ST’s Facebook pages for the government to quarantine all the dorms, with some even telling the PAP government that these foreign workers are still mingling in large numbers and flirting with foreign domestic workers, in violation of “circuit breaker” rules, all in good faith, but all these petitions got stonewalled until past mid-April. 2) There was a law passed by then manpower minister Tan Chuan-Jin that dealt with the issue of the conditions in the dormitories in 2015, (LINK), just before he left for MSF, but that law wasn’t enforced by his successors, as shown by revelations of the conditions in the dormitories, one of which is shared in this article by Mothership here (LINK). The spin to the issue of foreign worker dorms and the high coronavirus numbers would be that the coronavirus cases are high because the PAP government is stepping up testing among the residents in the dormitories. But would there be a need to do so if all the dormitories were swiftly quarantined in end-March/early April, preventing an even larger super-cluster from appearing there? That was something Lee Kuan Yew and the first generation of PAP leaders would most probably have done. The failure to quarantine all the dorms until mid-April only meant a longer circuit breaker with a huge economic cost to many businesses in the services sector. DPM Heng can claim that retrenchments in this period are low and the government has helped these businesses through these payouts which drew on the reserves. But the retrenchment rates could have been even lower and less handout money would need to be doled out to keep these businesses afloat, which would be recuperated in all probability with a huge tax bill, with a shorter “circuit breaker”, if those dorms had been quarantined earlier. So, the point is, bad policy is not just a “uniquely Opposition” thing – the PAP has their share of them too. Also, even if the Opposition does not have policies, it is part of building a democratic society to ask the tough questions on and critiquing the policies of the government of the day and that shouldn’t be seen as “complaining”, though I would agree to an extent that the quality of some of the critiques of the PAP’s policies by the Opposition needs to be improved over mere “bomb throwing”. In fact, it would be dangerous if the policies of sitting government of the day are not even questioned or critiqued. 2. Importing Foreign Talent is “Necessary” for PMET Positions are Necessary as the Quality and Attitudes of Singaporean PMET Workers are Found Wanting Admittedly, to an extent, there is a reasonable element of truth to this line. However, part of the problem lies in what was told and taught to Singaporeans, especially those born in the 1980s and 1990s, in some part from the government, and in large part in most of the schools, especially government-run schools in Singapore. As a person born in the 1990s, I can say that many of my counterparts were put through a challenging and demanding education system, that brooked no room for failure or deviance and where we were constantly slave driven in our studies, literally or figuratively, at the end of a whip, figuratively speaking, for at least 10 of our good growing years, and we bit our teeth to go through these in the name of a false bill of goods sold to us – that if we work hard in these 10 years, we would have a good life once these 10 years of hell in school are over, with a big house, a nice car, yearly faraway holidays and a comfortable, happily-ever lifestyle over that of frying char kuay teow or working as a construction worker or a rubbish dump cleaner or a clerk who earns only $1000 per month. Unfortunately, this is a largely false bill of goods, a distortion and misrepresentation of what the working world is like and sets up many Gen Ys and millennials for problems once they step into the working world. Is there any wonder why many people of my age enter the workforce expecting good perks, work-life balance, renumeration or other entitlements or go around looking for the “ideal job” when that is what we were told to expect at the end as we were going through the 10 years of hell in the school system? I think this reflects a wider problem that has largely existed in our education system – schooling has become a reductionist thing where it is all about the performance ranking of schools and subsequently students and this in part explains the need to squeeze every drop from students to make the school look good and on the students’ part, to avoid falling through the cracks and into the garbage heap of society at all costs. And that is how this narrative of a “good life after the hell of 10-12 or more years in school” came about and became imbued into the psyches of many millennials and Gen Ys. The problem in our school system is not that of rote learning. It is much bigger, and the problem came from the reductionist purpose of education in the schools here, which solely defines a student based on the number of their scores, their ability to conform to the “t” and try to factory produce cohorts of compliant people who would serve the political agenda of the PAP, through indoctrination via social studies in a largely harsh, regimental and inherently authoritarian school environment. The beauty of education in polytechnics is that the curriculum places less emphasis on one’s academic performance, but rather, is designed to give students a realistic understanding of what the real world and the working world is and prepare them in as realistic a manner as possible and perhaps this is the mentality needed for the curriculums in primary schools, secondary schools and junior colleges over one that seeks to squeeze out the scores and overemphasises academic performances. To the MOE’s credit, they are doing away with emphasis on scores and bandings, but I think the damage has been done to the people of my generation and it shows in the way some have approached the working world. And I think PAP supporters, using the line of poor working attitudes among Singapore PMETs to justify the PAP government’s “foreign talent” policy should also consider how the PAP government’s approaches/policies have played a contributing factor to this, in one way or another, and how these PAP supporters can work about this imbued psyche of a good life after the hell of the schooling years among millennials and Gen Ys in managing them. 3. The PAP’s Illiberal laws, Especially Those that seek to Disadvantage the Opposition, are Necessary to Enable Singapore to Survive and curb Hate Speech This argument is deeply flawed, especially if one were to consider that there are other First World countries, which are in environments more volatile and neighbourhoods more hostile than ours, such as Israel, Taiwan and South Korea, that did not have to resort to illiberal laws and policies to skew the electoral battleground against the Opposition of the day in the manner and of the nature that the PAP does. Similarly, cities such as Hong Kong, before the 2019 protests, was able to thrive as an “Asian tiger” without any of the PAP’s illiberal laws too, despite having little natural resources. Also, the mentality that the PAP’s illiberalism and curtailing of the Opposition is a necessary that PAP supporters would gladly accept, raises a bigger and broader issue and problem – that of the mentality that it is alright to step on and use the sharp end of the stick on others in the name and for the cause of the “greater good”. And so, the question is, would that be the society that we want, a society marked by stepping on others and wielding the stick, especially its sharp end, in the name of the “greater good”? Unfortunately, this does not stop at macro-level. It permeates into the micro-level (school, home settings) and perhaps the question is, could that be one of the reasons why 1 in 7 Singaporeans have been reported to have mental illness (LINK)? That was what I experienced growing up in my own “micro settings” – you did not have to be “naughty” or be a maverick. You only needed one misstep or just be unable to conform to a standard or deviate even slightly from it (e.g. in mannerisms, even if you are polite, or having points of view or thinking are not in line with the authority figure in question, or just being a little noisy or restless), without being a troublemaker, to be subjected to harsh, arbitrary punishment or to be picked on, or live in constant fear of falling foul, all in the name of the “greater good”. All the psychological and emotional effects of all these can still be felt even today. And at the end of the day, is this the kind of Singapore we want? The second aspect of the justification of the PAP’s illiberalism is the need to control hate speech. But the problem is, there are no specific perimeters to what hate speech is and leaving it to the authority figure of the day to define and police hate speech, especially given its fluid definitions, only leads to abuse. For instance, when conservative activists argue that gender is biological and not a “social construct”, or that women shouldn’t be allowed to abort babies unless if keeping the baby poses a medical safety issue to the mother, as the baby in the womb is a living being, that is coined hate speech, especially by Leftists. Similarly, as the West frequently bears the brunt of terrorist attacks by certain adherents of a religion from the Eastern Mediterranean, there are some in the West who definitely would seek to find out about the ideology behind that religion in question that fuels these acts of violence, through looking at its religious texts, and subsequently point out the role some of these texts play in the ideology behind the violence and terrorist attacks, and how as such there should be certain restrictions in place to immigration to the West by peoples from the Eastern Mediterranean or enhanced vetting for them. However, such acts are coined “hate speech”, especially by many on the Left, which is ridiculous, as many would try to find the root and nature of the evilness of Nazism through reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Unfortunately, many of these PAP supporters who justify the PAP’s illiberalism do so based on the definition of what “hate speech” is by liberal/Left-wing media outlets such as The New York Times, CNN or The Washington Post, which they accept, often wholesale and unquestioningly. The exploiting of the fluid boundaries defining “hate speech” and how this can lead to issues and even abuses in its policing, is also seen in the way the PAP policed “hate speech” and more broadly, fake news. Amos Yee was swiftly arrested and prosecuted within days after he uploaded a video insulting the late LKY, a few hours after the state funeral, because he made a passing insult on Christianity, which as a Christian, I found it to be a nuisance at worst. But, when former PAP youth wing member Jason Neo, posted a meme of a higher inflammatory potential on a certain religious group in Singapore, he was not even prosecuted. Also, when the PAP’s Dr Tan Wu Meng published an op-ed on the PAP’s website, accusing WP Sec-Gen and MP Pritam Singh by insinuation, of expressing support for Alfian Sa’at and hence acting in a manner that is anti-Singapore and pro-Malaysia, he got away scot free, even though Dr Tan Wu Meng admitted in the op-ed that Pritam did not mention Alfian Sa’at by name, Pritam’s speech, in context as read in the Hansard, was never intended to express support of any form for Alfian Sa’at, and Dr Tan Wu Meng connected the “loving critics” line in Pritam’s speech to his support for Alfian Sa’at without annotation or explanation on how they are connected. That, in every way, constitutes defamation, libel and fake news, and if an Opposition politician/activist published an op-ed of nature against a PAP MP/minister, he/she could expect to be POFMA-ed or sued for defamation. But to this day, a correction notice has yet to be issued against Dr Tan Wu Meng, while TOC got POFMA-ed for sharing a video from a Taiwan news, with its anchor suggesting that Ho Ching’s (PM Lee’s wife) pay is close to $90 million, even though the video was less a propagation of news but more of a hyperbolic jab at Ho Ching as can be seen by the exaggerated and hyperbolic expressions of the news anchors. Some PAP supporters will argue that such unfair enforcements of laws are necessary as it is necessary to keep the Opposition weak and a lid on free speech to ensure Singapore’s long term security and survival. But again the question is, is this what we want of Singapore, a society where we step and trample on each other, in the name of the “greater good” or one marked by honour, mutual respect and treatment with mutual dignity for one another?   N Chan      Read More →