TR EMERITUS

Google has banned political advertising in Singapore following the SDP's attempt to purchase ads on its platforms. SDP's Chairman Paul Tambyah wrote to the company to enquire about its shocking policy. In his email to Google CEO Mr Sundar Pichai, Dr Tambyah said that such ads ensure that "Singaporean voters are not deprived of information as they make their choices in the coming election." This is particularly salient as the print and broadcast media are controlled by the ruling party. In his reply, Google Vice-President Mr Ted Osius cited the Singapore Government's Code of Practice related to the recently passed Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) in instituting the ban. Dr Tambyah then responded that it was Google Singapore that had invited the SDP to its office (in June this year) to explain the company's services in election campaigns. We made public our visit to the organisation. When we subsequently tried to follow up with Google on the matter, we were suddenly told that the office was reviewing its policy. Shortly thereafter, we received information that Google had banned political advertising in Singapore. "What happened in between?" Dr Tambyah enquired in his email to Mr Osius. Below is the correspondence between SDP and Google. 22 November 2019 Sundar Pichai CEO Google Dear Mr Sundar My name is Dr Paul Ananth Tambyah, I am Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party and also a Professor at a University in Singapore. As you may know, the mainstream media in Singapore are severely constrained in what they can report or discuss. These restrictions were well documented by former editor in chief of Singapore's largest media group Mr Cheong Yip Seng in a book I reviewed. In recent years, the internet has been comparatively more open although there have been several attempts to rein in free speech on the internet in Singapore through various draconian laws. Some of these were highlighted by Professor Cherian George, a local academic now based in Hong Kong At the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), we have been highly dependent on social media and the internet to get our message across to the people of Singapore. As such, we were very disturbed to hear from one of our partners that Google was introducing a new "political content policy" for Singapore which would take effect from 2 Dec 2019. The policy is particularly alarming as it apparently blocks all political advertisements which include anything that "influences or seeks to influence public opinion on a matter which in Singapore is a matter of public interest or public controversy with key examples being those related to race, religion" This is particularly problematic for Singapore as the Prime Minister has made the controversial racially based selection of our elected President (a largely ceremonial post with some constitutional powers) a key campaign issue. Any criticism of the selective application of racial quotas in an advertisement would potentially be classified as a political ad and banned under the proposed policy. Furthermore, in an election with the media totally dominated by the state, alternative parties would have no ability to educate and inform the voters of Singapore in the run up to the elections if we are not able to use Google's advertising platforms in the first place. We had a constructive session with Google Singapore recently. Thus, this new policy is alarming and very disappointing. All political donations and advertising in Singapore are already strictly regulated by the state and all alternative parties provide detailed lists of expenditures to the elections department every election. These are open to be scrutinized by the mainstream media and thus there is a very low risk of foreign interference or any other malevolent manipulation of online political advertising given Singapore's tightly controlled environment. The internet has been a breath of fresh air for Singaporeans who want to know more about the richness and diversity of our country and its people. I do hope that Google LLC could step in to help eliminate this draconian policy to ensure that Singaporean voters are not deprived of information as they make their choices in the coming election. I hope that you will not mind if we make this letter public as it is in the public interest. Looking forward to a good discussion on this matter. Thank you very much and best wishes for the rest of the Deepavali season. Sincerely, Paul A. Tambyah, MD Chairman Singapore Democratic Party Google's reply| 3 December 2019 Dear Mr Tambyah, I would like to thank you for your informative note to our CEO about the situation in Singapore. As a company, we support political advertising consistent with our policies and also work hard to ensure that we meet applicable legal requirements around online political advertisements. Each country has its own legislation when it comes to political advertising. Where applicable, we support political advertising consistent with our policies. However, in the case of Singapore, we decided we will not accept advertising regulated by the Code of Practice for Transparency of Online Political Advertisements. This was not an easy decision to make as Google is committed to delivering useful and relevant election-related information to users around the world. We had made similar decisions elsewhere, such as in Canada and Taiwan. We will continue to look into how we can support democratic processes around the world, including in Singapore. We have been focused on supporting Singaporeans through media literacy and connecting people to useful information. I hope this has helped to shed some light behind the decision we have taken for Singapore. Sincerely, Ted Osius, Ambassador (ret.) Vice President Government Affairs and Public Policy, APAC Google SDP's response 3 December 2019 Dear Mr Osius, It is with great disappointment that I read your reply which is not very helpful. I hope Google will answer/explain the following questions: 1. "Each country has its own legislation when it comes to political advertising." What legislation in Singapore bans online political advertising? 2. "Where applicable, we support political advertising consistent with our policies. However, in the case of Singapore, we decided we will not accept advertising..." What sort of political advertising is inconsistent with Google's policies? Has Google seen a preview of the SDP's ads? 3. "We had made similar decisions elsewhere, such as in Canada and Taiwan." Canada and Taiwan are very different societies to Singapore and their relevance to Singapore is not clear. Google's has long been proud of its stated core beliefs: "Democracy on the web works" and "You can make money without doing evil". First, how does democracy work on the web when you ban freedom of speech through curtailing online political advertisements? Second, evil is often perpetrated by people and organisations who, wittingly or otherwise, ban freedom of speech. Also, Google's mission is "To organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." How is this possible if bona fide information about and from an opposition party in Singapore is banned by Google? Google's actions are even more incomprehensible considering that it was your Singapore office that invited the SDP to its office to explain your company's services. It was shortly thereafter that we received information that Google had banned political advertisements in Singapore. What happened in between? I hope you will give a more transparent account of Google's position on this matter. As this is of public interest, I will make our correspondence available to the public as mentioned in my original email. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Paul Tambyah Singapore Democrats  Read More →

Singapore has done it again by securing 2nd place in Pisa. It means we are still operating at the top level (China was 1st, Macau was 3rd, HK 4th in some subjects) when it comes to excelling in Maths, Science and Reading. Also, at the last three occasions (beginning at 2009), we were top. Mind you, Pisa is a gruelling assessment. The benchmark is against 600,000 students from 79 countries and economies. We had sent at random 6,676 teens, most of whom were in Secondary 4. It is a reliable gauge of how far we have come and what we have done right to hone our future generation’s critical thinking skills and personal resilience. Mr Sng Chern Wei, MOE’s deputy director-general said: “We are pretty happy with the 2018 Pisa findings because they show that our students are equipped with the critical skills and the resilience to cope with the challenges of a rapidly changing world.” In an article today by Sandra Davie, entitled “It’s OK to be No. 2 in academics, but aim to top student well-being”, she raised a few champagne toasts to our educators for the results. She noted that we are heading in the right direction when it comes to critical thinking. “Remembering formulas or chunks of content won’t do. Pisa’s questions require students to use their knowledge and skills to solve problems in unfamiliar contexts.” You can also say that we have come a long way from the culturally biased and strict IQ tests to Pisa, where students are given an all-rounded assessment from Maths to Science and to Reading. But we can’t rest on our laurels yet. With one good result, there is always another that requires diligent balancing. I have learned that when you find a solution (in this case, the way we do education on the meritocracy track), we have to watch out for how that solution can be pursued in such a way that we become blindsided to its other less than glowing results. At times, these less-than-glowing results can backfire big time to wipe away all the positive goals achieved. Meritocracy can breed aristocratic elitism. Democracy can breed mob instinct and chaos. And economic growth can breed income and social inequalities. Need I say more? Here, Pisa’s unintended consequence is spelt out in this observation: “Students in Singapore are more afraid of failure compared with their 15-year-old counterparts overseas...The Republic had one of the highest proportions of students - more than 70 per cent - who expressed concern about failure in a questionnaire that was part of the latest Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa),” MOE identified as much when it said: “...an excessive fear of failing could be “disabling” and that it is making changes to dial back the obsession with grades.” I guess that’s the side effect of the pursuit of grades in a meritocratic bubble. All our kids see is the mirror of their self-worth in the form of academic results. The parental and societal expectations have ossified to demand and define success arising only from the result slips they have in their hand. Let me preface that we are heading in the right direction when it comes to education, that is, submitting our kids to some form of assessment. But as with excessive assessment based on grades comes excessive fear of failing based on one-track expectation. There is a German word for that, “Fachidiot” - that is, “one-track specialist who takes a single-minded, inflexible approach to a multifaceted problem.” That pretty much says it all in the way we define success, especially the success for our kids. Because of this excessive fear of failure, which can be crippling to the child, we turn them into miniature adults, or accelerated maturity, expecting them to always do well, have a stellar track record of good grades, and by our body language, send them unequivocal signals of grave disappointment when they fail us with one or two red splashes in their report card. When we as parents turn failure as a dread to be avoided, like Ebola, and are laser-focused on the short term dream of expecting them to jump bigger hoops each time they just completed the last smaller hoop, we turn goals into obsession, achievements into bragging rights and success into avoiding failure at all costs. The only thing wrong with such “parent-o-cracy” is that it is more about us than it was ever about them. The irony is that some of us have a million dreams for them, yet not one they are able to identify as their own. And if there is a new meaning on what success for our kids is in this age of hyper-competition and materialism, then, it is about allowing them to grow from experiences, however good or bad, and the only way to grow is to assure them that neither their failure nor success defines them. But what defines them is the love that is shared in our bonding with them. And the only score your child will get in such a bond of love and hope is one that is always positive, always encouraging, and always overcoming.   Michael Han      Read More →

The politics of Singapore should be decided by Singaporeans alone. The Government of the day must ensure that Singapore does not fall prey to foreign interference and state-sponsored disinformation campaigns which threaten our national security. But before enacting new laws, the Government must convince Singaporeans why existing laws are insufficient to negate such threats. The Government should also explain to Singaporeans if its immigration and manpower policies have made Singapore more vulnerable to foreign interference. Last month, a Hong Kong restaurant owner, Alex Yeung, who organised an illegal public gathering in Singapore to discuss the ongoing Hong Kong protests was given a stern warning by the police, and was repatriated. A Singaporean real estate businessman, Philip Chan, was also warned for facilitating the gathering. It is reported that Mr Chan is a new citizen and runs an organisation which helps new immigrants integrate into Singapore society . The report added that Mr Yeung and Mr Chan met for the first time in the Chinese Embassy, where they met with an embassy official. Mr Chan declined to comment why he went to the embassy, but pressure was put on the Singapore Police Force (probably by a foreign entity) to act in a certain manner in the case. This is very worrying! New citizens like Mr Chan - who do they owe their allegiance to? To Singapore or to the country he hails from? How and what kind of influence does he have on the new citizens he has access to? Incidents such as this makes Singaporeans question how foreigners are assessed before citizenship or permanent residency are granted to them. Unless the Government of Singapore adopts a more stringent assessment criteria to accept foreigners as citizens or permanent residents, it will put Singapore and Singaporeans at a disadvantage to be unfairly influenced by foreign powers.   Ravi Philemon    Read More →