TR EMERITUS

East Coast GRC MP Dr Maliki Osman: "I would like to believe that behind many of the grouses and criticisms lie concerned people. Many of them, and I would like to think the majority of them, are well-intentioned." (Photo CNA). During the Parliament debate on the President's address in the past week, some moderate PAP MPs have come forward to ask the government not to ignore online comments by Singaporean netizens. In the past, the hawkish MPs and Ministers have tried to discredit and ignore the online noises. The Hawks PM Lee himself once said, "Satisfied people don't have time to go onto the Internet. Unhappy people often go there." He also doesn't trust the online social community and wants to control the Singapore cyberspace. He made the following comments soon after the loss of Punggl East SMC to opposition in a by-election last year: “We don’t believe the community in the social space, especially online, moderates itself. It doesn’t happen anywhere in the world.” “You have views going to extremes and when people respond to their views, they may respond in an extreme way, and when people decide to disapprove of something which was inappropriate, the disapproval can also happen in an extreme way.” “It’s in the nature of the medium, the way the interactions work and that’s the reason why we think it cannot be completely left by itself.” Another Minister, Chan Chun Sing, even ascribed a derogatory term, "lunatic fringe", to netizens trying to discredit them. And during the Parliament debate this week, Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Zainudin Nordin, told the House on Tuesday (27 May) that while many Singaporeans are still gracious, there is a segment of society that is “loud, more demanding and less willing to accommodate changes”. This segment, Mr Zainudin said, is usually seen online. They frequently make arguments against foreigners, as well as stoke distrust and hatred. He added that these people spread "bizarre allegations" and "insidious untruths" online. Mr Zainudin said, “In other instances, some people have gone about questioning government policies by running so-called exposés and articles. There are more bizarre allegations that are made online. It all makes for very interesting reading, but if you ask me, it belongs in the realm of pulp fiction novels, rather than for any serious consideration.” “It is time that the government made efforts in explaining its policies and mount a robust challenge to dispel these insidious untruths. Even as we strive to make personal aspirations and achievements, we must not ignore the well-being of the people around us,” he said. The Doves On Wednesday (28 May), Tangjong Pagar GRC MP Lily Neo asked the government to set realistic public expectations, track and prioritise them, and communicate better. Doing this would help mitigate rising public expectations, especially in an age when unhappy citizens can vent online, she said. Dr Neo realised that the unhappy voices being made online can be tapped to help the government to formulate its policies. In an age where unhappy citizens are able to vent online, more research should be done, including tracking public values and determining citizens' priorities, she added. Yesterday (30 May), East Coast GRC MP Dr Maliki Osman even asked the government to trust its citizens by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Dr Maliki stressed that citizens should be engaged before they are judged. He recounted how a student at a recent dialogue had raised concerns about the unhappiness and criticism seen on social media, and how this may be detrimental to society if unchecked. While he shared the concerns of the student, he said there is also more to learn about the online space, including how and why people use it to interact. "I would like to believe that behind many of the grouses and criticisms lie concerned people. Many of them, and I would like to think the majority of them, are well-intentioned," he said. "Perhaps they want to do something, they want to advocate, but they don't know how best to do so." These "well-meaning voices" should be engaged with, he believed. "In the course of engagement, even as we seek to explain and convince, we too must be prepared to have our own views scrutinised, challenged, and where appropriate we are prepared to change them," noted Dr Maliki, "This is the spirit of two-way engagement. It's how we close differences, rather than entrench them." Would our PM, who is suing a blogger this week, listen to the "doves"? What do you think?    Read More →

PM Lee has decided to take Roy Ngerng to court over the issues of CPF and allegations of criminal misappropriations. Is that the right thing to do? This post examines the issue from two dimensions: Moral and Tactics Is suing Roy morally right? A lot of people view that it is not right for PM to sue Roy because it is a bullying tactic. It is reminiscent of old PAP tactics where political opponents are silenced and bankrupted with libel suits. Which equates to a loss of democracy and freedom of speech. I believe that PM is on the moral high ground to sue Roy for accusing him of criminal misappropriations. The case is clear-cut. Roy has no proof, and this is shown by how he “took down” the offending postings. If Roy had a strong case with proof, he wouldn’t take his postings down, not when he is prepared to go to court. If what Roy said is true, then where are the heavyweight opposition party leaders that would be ready to back him up? It is also important to note that Roy has been posting for years, but was only served notice recently. Why? Because there’s a fine line between criticising the Government and accusing someone of being a criminal. But should PM have been the “better man” and not sued anyway? There are people who think PM should not be suing under any circumstances. I find this puzzling. Is it right to allow anyone to say whatever they like about our leaders without repercussion? Especially when we expect our leaders to be morally upright people that lead by example? Shouldn’t a line be drawn somewhere to define what is unacceptable speech? If it is ok to accuse PM of misappropriating CPF funds, it is ok to call PM a racist? A rapist? An unfaithful husband? Someone who murders his political opponents? We cannot be encouraging people to accuse others of anything they like. Surely there is a point where it is reasonable to defend yourself. Everyone should be allowed fair protection under the law. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility of speech. It is a lesson we teach our children when they are young enough to learn. Don’t say stuff that you can’t back up with proof. The burden of proof is always on the accuser. Is suing Roy tactically right? Many people have said that PM has more to lose than to gain by suing Roy. Just look at the number of online blogs and comments that ignore the issue of criminal misappropriation and zoom in on the perception of bullying. The tale of David vs Goliath is an enticing one. President Obama gets all kinds of crazy accusations from hardcore Republicans, yet you don’t see Obama suing all this people. So did PM gained more than he lost? Here is my perspective. To begin with, it is important to note that politics in Singapore is the battle for the middle ground. About one-third of Singaporeans will always be anti-PAP, while one-third are PAP loyalists. So the real question is whether the remaining one-third of Singaporeans living in the middle ground are swayed by PM’s actions. I humbly submit that PM may have done something right this time. If you observe the blogosphere and Facebook reactions over the past few days, there have been quite a number of posts defending the CPF (or at least clarifying that Roy has seriously misinterpreted the CPF). In my view, this kind of activity is almost unheard of in online history. Online reactions that are somewhat supportive of PAP policy (as opposed to jumping on the anti-PAP wagon) are as rare as solar eclipses. For more proof, check out the links on singaporedaily.net over the past 2 weeks. If we take this level of support, and compare it against vitriol when PAP launched the population white paper and makes changes to ERP or public transport fares, we can see that it is a world of difference. That has to mean something, doesn’t it? I think the PM was also smart to target Roy. Roy’s one-sided argument about the CPF has painted himself as a dangerous element that is trying to incite anger by selectively manipulating his words and statistics. In one stroke, he has unfairly painted the entire spectrum of opposition supporters in a bad light. His “funny business” of taking down his postings when he didn’t really do so, smacks of childishness and mischief. (He made the posts private and sent links to the foreign media.) So this episode may not have been entirely to PM’s loss. Opposition supporters can cry foul all day long, but what really matters is the net result to the middle ground. Sure, there will still be people who have a bad taste in their mouth due to the perception of bullying, and there will still be people who think they can manage their CPF returns better than government. But it is still bad news for opposition supporters when the Facebook feeds of the middle ground light up with arguments shared by friends that defend PM and the CPF. sgthinker * Sgthinker pens his thoughts and feelings about Singapore’s political happenings, government policies and society trends in his blog. He hopes that his blog will provide a moderate voice in the growing online debate about the state of Singapore society. He blogs at sgthinker.wordpress.com.  Read More →

I myself was swept off my feet by Workers' Party chief, Mr. Low Thia Khiang's spirited verbal spat with Cambridge educated PM Lee. He matched the latter point for point and what a performance from him - a graduate of the old Nanyang University and lacking masterly English! There is a vital difference between foreign immigrants (Class A) and foreign labour (Class B). You can bring in another 100,000 or 200,000 from Class B (if there is critical need for them in order to keep pace with our infrastructure/building developments and upkeep of our housing estates and roads and parks maintenance. There are no issues with this kind of labour because they are basically transient workers here for 1-2 years or more and would go back when their services are no longer needed. These are jobs Singaporeans typically shun mainly because they are over-worked and underpaid jobs (how to run a family with a $1,200 salary?). If some training is given and they are paid about $2,000 a month the trend will perhaps reverse and we will see less and less of imported labour. The angst and anger is only against the mindless intake of  foreigners of Class A, a good percentage of whom are dubious types or of doubtful pedigree. They rob and deprive Singaporeans of their jobs particularly in the management and supervisory levels at all employment sectors because they are cheaper to hire. There is an army of such displaced Singaporeans who have now become taxi-drivers and security officers to eke out a living. Good value talent like the professionals, entrepreneurs and academics should be most welcome. But we have to be wary of welcoming venture capitalists and investment related professionals who just play around with other people's money and make good money for themselves all the same, win or lose. If I remember correctly, when the Population White Paper was debated some time back, the Government projected a population of 6.9 million (?) as its preference and in this respect, it wanted to grant of PR/Citizenship to 50,000 resident foreigners annually. Core Singaporeans were generally opposed to this and the WP wanted the figure to be reduced to not more than 30,000 a year. There is no inconsistency in varying the labour pool requirement for transient workers across sectors  according to the needs of the time and wanting a firm cap on granting PR/Citizenship to foreigners. Perhaps this is what the WP has done. Hawking Eye * Submitted by TRE reader.  Read More →