TR EMERITUS

The popular Korean series 'Squid Game' depicts a dystopian world about a group of debt-ridden contestants competing to win a grand prize of $38.5 million. The games are based on traditional children's games, some of which are unique to Korea, while others, such as "Red Light, Green Light," are well-known globally. However, unlike other children's games, those in 'Squid Game' carry terrible repercussions if you fail. That's because the alternative to winning is dying. As participants battle their way through the competition, the Game provides a twisted, unsettling glimpse into human nature—the extent individuals will go for money when they are desperate, if decency and compassion can emerge from such turmoil, and whether life, even when reduced to playground games, is worth living. It exposes the failings of current social order more poignantly because it presents the inevitable consequences of our failings. The prose is direct and unembellished; the message is gut-wrenching if you pay enough attention to note it unless your moral compass is disconnected and it's not difficult to look at the story through a political lens though it's not as clear, but the story obviously intended to describe a society based on Capitalism, unchecked Capitalism, and humanity. Things are unfair. The games are rigged for maximum carnage, and it is even more disgusting when it allowed people to buy the lives of others. Some might argue it is a metaphor for life itself. Every choice you make has consequences, even when those choices are unfairly pushed upon you. When writer and director Hwang Dong-hyuk set out to create the dark and bizarre thriller Squid Game, he didn't look too far from reality for inspiration. “I wanted to write a story that was an allegory or fable about modern capitalist society, something that depicts an extreme competition, somewhat like the extreme competition of life,” he told Variety. The result was the premise of his now top-ranking Netflix series: a twisted underground program where people with staggering debt are recruited (and volunteer) to play simple games at life-or-death stakes for the chance at a ridiculous amount of money. The VIP freaks who revel in all the carnage of the games are bored, rich men who view the contestants as nothing other than playthings. They dehumanize them and place wagers on who will survive each level. Additionally, they also encourage the Frontman to change the game at will to make things more “exciting” for them. They all appear to be entitled, wealthy, and for the most part, white Westerners. But that’s a pretty broad credo. It is more than just a survival of the fittest exploitative game; it is a sharply pointed commentary on greed. Things are unfair. It could be about an overreaching Government controlling the populace, sacrificing the virtuous to a hedonistic elite? Or how a society controlled by the 1% inevitably enslaving the 99% and forcibly controlling all resources and removing the common man from having a voice? The circle represents workers, the triangle represents soldiers, and the square represents managers. In Squid Game, workers, soldiers and managers only carry out their given tasks and nothing else. It's irresistible because the characters are so real, their stories so powerful, and the plot is so elegantly executed. We do, however, as a society, relish violence and competition in which one challenger decimates the opponent as part of our regular diet of entertainment. We may allow the elite 1% to manipulate a system in which the ranks of those in poverty grows and grows. We may take the machinations of power for granted and expect little in the way of principles from our leaders. It shows us the awful truth: too bad we appear immune to 'The Squid Games' implications, obvious as they are.   Sjorne Shen      Read More →

Health Minister YK Ong I refer to the article "Singapore tightens COVID-19 rules despite 80 per cent vaccination rate" (The Sydney Morning Herald; Sep 24) It states that "Residents are airing grievances over not being able to reach the health ministry quickly to discuss their concerns and fretted over the long lag between testing positive for COVID-19 and getting sent to a recovery facility." Comment: For years, the ruling party has tried to subconsciously sell the idea that their Ministers are superbly capable policy makers, and there is no other alternative to govern Singapore. Over time, people rarely question why Ministers with no relevant experience in certain fields are 'parachuted in' to head that particular Ministry. For example, I understand that the current Health Minister has no health background whatsoever but was put to head the Health Ministry in times of the worst ever health crisis facing the world. Another of his high profile '4G' Ministers was a former Military General but was put to head the Trade Ministry, and now the Education Ministry. Besides the grievances as highlighted in the media, I also understand that people are disappointed at the lack of proper enforcement and hap-hazard policy announcements - for example, just 3 weeks ago, one minister of the task force said that the number of unlinked cases are not as relevant as before whilst another said that the concern is the rate at which the virus is spreading. In this connection, is the rate of spreading not directly consistent with the number of unlinked cases? I recall that the late LKY famously said: You know, the cure for all this talk is really a good dose of incompetent government. You get that alternative and you'll never put Singapore together again... my asset values will disappear, my apartments will be worth a fraction of what they were. Given the lapses in the way this pandemic is handled, the notion that these Ministers are the most capable, is, arguably, flawed. Are we to repeat our unquestioning stance, say, when another paper general is put to head a certain ministry like National Development (which happened in 2011)? Can we say that the current Cabinet is competent that the late LKY will give his nod of approval? As a country, how confident can we be in any of the 4G, in moving the country forward in more trying geopolitical times?   Leong Sze Hian      Read More →

What is FICA? On 25 Sep, ST published an article “From black ops to bots - countering hostile meddling by foreign actors” to help to justify the “Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act ("FICA"). The Act was unveiled on 13 Sep and due for second reading in Parliament on 4 Oct - a period of only three weeks for a bill of 249 pages! I think the two ST writers struggled to find good recent examples to show the threat of foreign interference is indeed real and quick actions must be taken by the government to protect Singapore’s sovereignty and national security. They dug up the Eastern Sun (1971), expulsion of American diplomat Hank Hendrickson (1988), impounding of Terrex armoured vehicles in Hong Kong (2016), expulsion of academic Huang Jin (2017, warning of foreign disinformation campaign during POFMA committee hearings (2018), spike in critical comments during tensions with Malaysia (2018-19) and report of China’s soft power efforts in Singapore (2019). Unlike the parliamentary committee hearing for POFMA, this FICA has none but is certainly no less sensitive. Why? It seems the 2-page ST article is meant to supplant such committee hearing by providing some feedback from academia. Although some points they raised were good, is that sufficient for the government to push through this bill with PAP MPs forming the overwhelming majority in Parliament? Politically, it seems so unwise for the Law Minister Mr Shanmugam to do it. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in introducing the bill said:”Open and highly digitally connected Singapore is especially vulnerable to foreign interference and the threat it poses to political sovereignty and national security.” Is this a new development? “The draft law targets external meddling in Singapore’s domestic politics conducted through hostile information campaigns and the use of local proxies.” When domestic politics come into the realm of this Bill, Singaporeans should be more wary after seeing how POFMA was used to target certain people with dissenting views. “If the Bill is passed into legislations, the government will have powers to compel Internet platforms to block accounts and to require politically significant persons to declare any foreign affiliation, among others.” Mr Muhammad Faisal Abdul Rahman, a research fellow at the Centre of Excellence for National Security at RSIS, amid the two episodes with China and Malaysia, said “ there were online posts implying that Singaporeans lacked the steel to fight and that Singapore should just acquiesce to bullying by larger states.” If the government is fearful that foreign interference through propaganda can shake the resolve of Singaporeans (when most male adults have completed NS), to defend the country, this calls into question, how willing are our citizens to die for our country, I doubt any foreign country can influence Singaporeans’ resolve in a national crisis just by launching a hostile social media campaign. Loyalty for a country has much deeper roots. Associate Prof Chong Ja Ian from NUS political science department, says: “ Addressing malign interference requires a scalpel and not a meat cleaver.” Is FICA all that is aiming at: actions undermining Singapore’s political sovereignty and ability of Singaporeans to make their own choices? In 2019, Minister of State Mr Edwin Tong said in Parliament, “ there was a need for new updated legislation against modern and technologically sophisticated foreign interference tactics.” If that is all that FlCA seeks to achieve, then I think the Bill has gone way out of proportion which has strong capacity to change the current political landscape. This should be a matter of grave concern for Singaporeans. Associate Prof Alton Chua, associate chair of research at NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information rightly pointed out that “ more attention should be paid to underlying societal issues such as the local-foreign workplace divide” which malicious actors can exploit even without using sophisticated methods. Is MHA totally transparent with Singaporeans on the objectives of FICA? The ST article was silent on the harsh penalties proposed by the Bill. On 23 Sep, Reporters without Borders’ article, “Singapore’s foreign interference bill - legal monstrosity with totalitarian leanings,” provided another perspective of the Bill. I quote from the article: “Under the guise of defending national sovereignty, it will enable the government to designate any independent media outlet as a foreign agent and to censor its content, RSF says. Unveiled on 13 September, the government’s FICA Bill could be passed by Singapore’s government-dominated parliament as soon as early October without significant changes. It contains 249 pages of obscure legal jargon, in which the devil is in the details. Behind specious wording and using national sovereignty as a cover, this bill gives the government a blank check to slap a “foreign agent” label on any media outlet it dislikes and to impose extremely harsh sentences simply for the intent to publish content. And, above all, it would allow the government to introduce a system of prior censorship without saying so openly. “What with its extremely vague definitions, pervasive arbitrary approach and lack of independent legal recourse for those who are given orders by the government, the FICA bill is an abomination both from a purely legal viewpoint and as regards respect for fundamental rights,” said Daniel Bastard, the head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk. “Above all, under the pretext of preventing possible foreign influence on the state, this bill institutionalises the persecution of any domestic entity that does not toe the line set by the government and ruling party, starting with independent media outlets. As it stands, this utterly Kafkaesque project contains within it the seeds of the worst totalitarian leanings.” I believe some sections of the Bill could bring about a significant change in the political landscape of Singapore and likely to heighten fear among Singaporeans on any involvement in local politics or even making public comments. This Bill has vague concepts which give the government a great deal of leeway. The Bill seems to be directed at restricting political activities such as Section 7 which also allows the government to justify action as being “in the public interest” if activities could result in “a diminution of public confidence” in the government or is “directed towards a political end.” And what is a “political end”? Anything liable to “influence the legislative process” or” influence public opinion” on what is “a matter of public controversy” or “political debate.” [Can CECA be an example?] Is the Government fearful of losing public trust that it needs to introduce stronger legislations to prevent further challenges? The penalty for violation is harsh. “Any violation or intention to publish information online without declaring the involvement of foreigners will be punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a fine of 100,000 Singaporean dollars (63,000 euros) for an individual or a fine of 1 million Singaporean dollars for an entity, such as a news site.” The Reporters Without Borders is of the opinion that the Bill “is clearly independent media outlets that the FICA is targeting on national sovereignty grounds.” Singapore is ranked 160th out of 180 countries in the RSF’s 2021 World Press Freedom Index, and has been coloured black on the RSF press freedom map since 2020 as the situation is now classified as “very bad,” in part because of the draconian anti-fake news law adopted in 2019. The new Bill, if passed in Parliament on 4 Oct, will put Singapore further down the global index. The government won’t care. What it really cares about is how it can maintain and strengthen its power over the country- if FICA serves the purpose, it shall be done. It also doesn’t matter if no Singaporean believes in this “foreign interference” fairy tale. I think this single-mindedness of the PAP government to pass the FICA Bill in such great hurry is a sign of deep fear that it is losing the trust and confidence of Singaporeans in its general governance, unwillingness to admit policy failures and the standard narratives [that foreigners create good jobs for Singaporeans], that Singapore is unique and its political leadership is outstanding. These are the “underlying societal issues” (as mentioned by Associate Prof Alton Chua) that can create dissent and champion by local political opponents, not foreign interference against national sovereignty, that worries the ruling government. I think the government is preparing the ground for GE 2025 and all risk of any rising political challenge must be contained or removed. Hence, the FICA Bill must be passed as law!   Kok Ming Cheang      Read More →