Why the new MDA online licensing framework is censorship

I've been using the Internet for a very long time -- since 1995 or so. I remember the days of pine, lynx and tin; irc, talk and finger. I remember soc.culture.singapore and soc.culture.singapore.moderated. I remember seeing the very first Singapore National Education post from mrbrown, back when podcasts haven't been invited and he was probably wearing pants everyday instead of shorts.

And yes, I also remember when the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (MDA's predecessor) first introduced the Class Licence scheme in 1996, and the firestorm of anger within the (very much smaller) internet community then.

To SBA/MDA's credit, it has indeed, for the most part, administered the Class Licence scheme with a "light touch" in the 17 years since. So when various ministers say that the MDA would continue its "light touch" regime, I actually think that will be true on a day-to-day basis -- for the most part.

But that is not the whole picture. And sadly, so far no government official or representative (except perhaps for MP Baey Yam Keng) has seen it fit to squarely and directly confront the issues raised by bloggers, and as the Talking Point programme has shown, by regular Singaporeans as well.

The one glaring exception to SBA/MDA's "light touch" regime provides a cautionary tale on what happens when a regulator has broad discretion in a regulatory environment with ambiguously-worded legislation.

Sintercom (which stood for Singapore Internet Community) was the very first, and in its time the leading, socio-political website in Singapore. In 2001, just before the General Election that year, the SBA made a ham-fisted attempt at getting Sintercom to register as a political website. It did register, but eventually decided to shut down soon after. I can still remember the consternation in the community when that happened. From what I can recall, the summary at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintercom seems pretty accurate.

_______

The new licensing framework for online news sites does not establish regulatory parity between the Internet on the one hand and print and TV on the other; the decentralised and democratising nature of the Internet, as compared to the resource-heavy nature of print and TV, makes that simply impossible.

But the new framework does establish regulatory parity between the 10 websites targeted by MDA, and the print and TV outlets already regulated by MDA. It does so, by subjecting the targeted websites to the same sort of opaque licensing regime as print and TV outlets are subject to, which ultimately tends to encourage self-censorship and threatens media independence.

(Those who would claim that the mainstream media is free and independent in Singapore, would do well to read "OB Markers: My Straits Times Story" by former SPH editor-in-chief Cheong Yip Seng, and then take a look at the Newspapers and Printing Press Act.)

The new framework allows the MDA to take the targeted websites out of the existing Class Licence framework, and issue them with individual licences under Section 8 of the Broadcasting Act. Section 8(2) states:

"Every broadcasting licence, other than a class licence, granted by the Authority shall be in such form and for such period and may contain such terms and conditions as the Authority may determine."

Basically, the MDA can decide what the terms of the individual licences are, and presumably can also decide that the terms are confidential, such that the public will never actually know what the licences say. After all, does anyone know what is in SPH's or Mediacorp's licences?

Today, the MDA has decided that the targeted websites must take down content in 24 hours and put up a $50,000 performance bond -- conditions which do not appear in any published legislation, but only in the Government's press statements.

Tomorrow, the MDA can change the licensing terms to say that the websites must also proactively screen content and obtain MDA approval for editorial appointments -- and we may never know. I'm not saying that the MDA will do this, but Singaporeans need to know that they can.

And for the record, Singaporeans do not know what other terms, if any, exist in the individual licences issued by the MDA to the targeted websites.

Laws exist as much to empower governments to do good, as to protect citizens from their governments.  Unfortunately, most Singapore legislation focuses on the former and completely disregards the latter. This MDA regulation is just the latest example of that, and the way it was introduced is just a very stark reminder of how imbalanced our legislative system is, that something with such potentially broad impact can be made into binding law with no discussion at all.

_______

Let's go back to the various assurances proffered by the Government, in the days since it announced the new regulations. For me, they have all been meaningless chaff, smoke and mirrors that seek to distract from the central truth: that the MDA has established a framework whereby it can now easily take a website out of the Class Licence scheme, and impose whatever terms it wants on that website. All of this can be done, without any shred of transparency or accountability. Even if the same content standards apply for both the Class Licence and individual licences, the levers through which the MDA can exert power and influence are radically different.

I drew two main conclusions from all the empty statements from the Government:

• The Government has issued many, many clarifications. It has had many, many opportunities to clarify whether non-commercial websites like The Online Citizen fall within this new licensing framework, which it has spurned. I can only conclude that commerciality or otherwise is not relevant to this. Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin seems to have confirmed as much on Talking Point, where he seems to say that blogs (non-commercial) can be subject to individual licensing if  it "reports news", which is really a meaningless and arbitrary distinction in today's world. 

• The Government has thrown up strawman after strawman in trying to justify the new framework. The references to racist comments, need to ensure that sites co-operate in taking down content, etc. all become meaningless, when you consider that:

1. apparently all of the 20-something take-down requests issued by the MDA in the past 17 years have been successful.
2. of these requests, only 1 was not for sex-related advertisements, and that was a takedown request issued to YouTube over the "Innocence of Muslims" video -- and YouTube is not on the list of targeted websites. Let me repeat that: the MDA does not see fit to individually license the one website that has actually received a takedown notice over potentially inflammatory content in the past 17 years.

The new framework is ostensibly to ensure fair and accurate news reporting, and yet the Government throws up justifications that have nothing to do with news reporting at all. Indeed, the Government has not cited one single example of unfair or inaccurate news reporting. And, as either Bertha Henson or Arun Mahizhnan pointed out on Talking Point, inaccurate news reporting is best combated by clarifications and rights of reply -- not outright removal of content.

So the objective of this new licensing framework must be something else altogether. The obvious suspect is censorship, or rather the power to censor, over independent media outlets like Yahoo! and The Online Citizen. (See also my interview in the Straits Times last Saturday June 1.)

The Government has had ample opportunity to make its case for why that is not so. It has failed abjectly in every single attempt.

I am overseas and will not be able to join the #freemyinternet protest on Saturday June 8. I will however blackout this blog on Thursday June 6, in solidarity with my fellow bloggers in Singapore. I have also signed the petition calling for the withdrawal of the new licensing framework.

73% of respondents to the Talking Point live poll think that the new licensing framework will limit online news content. If you do not want to see that happen, please sign the petition and join the protest at Hong Lim Park from 4-7pm on Saturday.

Free My Internet: or, I can choose what I read on the Internet, ok?

#FreeMyInternet – Movement against new licensing requirements for online media

The blogging community -- collectively called Free My Internet -- will be organising a protest and online blackout next week against the new licensing requirements imposed by the Media Development Authority, which requires "online news sites" to put up a "performance bond" of $50,000 and "comply within 24 hours to MDA's directions to remove content that is found to be in breach of content standards".

We encourage all Singaporeans who are concerned about our future and our ability to participate in everyday online activities and discussions, and to seek out alternative news and analysis,  to take a strong stand against the licensing regime which can impede on your independence.

We urge Singaporeans to turn up to send a clear message to our elected representatives to trust the Singaporeans who elected them.

Singaporeans can support us in three ways:

1)    Join us at the protest.
Date:            8 June 2013
Time:            4.00pm – 7.00pm
Venue:            Speakers Corner, Hong Lim Park

2)    If you are a blogger, join us in an online blackout by closing your blog for 24 hours, from Thursday 6 June, 0001 hrs to 6 June, 2359 hrs. You can choose to create your own blackout notice, or use www.freemyinternet.com we have created for your convenience. When you reopen your blog, write your account of the protest, about the new regulations and censorship, or anything related to media freedom in Singapore. Share your thoughts. Share your hope that the light that free speech provides will not go out on us.

3)    Sign our petition and read our FAQ at this link to call for the Ministry of Communications and Information to completely withdraw the licensing regime.

We invite media to cover the protest at Hong Lim Park. To indicate media attendance and other media queries, please contact Howard Lee at howard@theonlinecitizen.com.

Signed off as: Free My Internet

Leong Sze Hian – http://leongszehian.com/
Andrew Loh – http://andrewlohhp.wordpress.com/
Ravi Philemon – http://www.raviphilemon.net/
Kumaran Pillai – http://sgvoize.wordpress.com/
Terry Xu – http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Richard Wan – http://www.tremeritus.com/
Choo Zheng Xi – http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Rachel Zeng – http://rachelzeng.wordpress.com/
Roy Ngerng – http://thehearttruths.com/
Kirsten Han – http://spuddings.net/
Gilbert Goh – http://www.transitioning.org/
Lynn Lee – http://www.lianainfilms.com/
Biddy Low – http://publichouse.sg/
Martyn See – http://singaporerebel.blogspot.sg/
Howard Lee – http://theonlinecitizen.com/
Elaine Ee – http://publichouse.sg/
Joshua Chiang – http://facebook.com/joshuafly
Donaldson Tan – http://newasiarepublic.com
Stephanie Chok – http://littlemskaypoh.wordpress.com
Jolovan Wham – http://www.workfairsingapore.wordpress.com
Ng E-Jay – http://www.sgpolitics.net
Siew Kum Hong – http://siewkumhong.blogspot.sg/
Darryl Kang – http://blog.dk.sg
Daniel Yap – http://doulosyap.wordpress.com/
Jean Chong – http://www.sayoni.com
Benjamin Cheah – http://www.benjamincheah.wordpress.com/
Theodore Lee – http://www.mrbrown.com
Benjamin Lee – http://miyagi.sg
Illusio – http://akikonomu.blogspot.com
Lee Xian Jie – http://hachisu.com.sg
Damien Chng – http://secondchances.asia
Priscilla Chia – http://secondchances.asia

This was first published on mumbrella.asia.

Why Singapore’s crackdown on online news reporting is a mistake

My sense is that for a long time now, the Singapore government has been looking for a way to give itself the power to censor the internet, in the same way that it has the power to censor offline media.

It may choose to exercise that power sparingly; but the mere possibility of censorship creates a strong chilling effect.

This new regulation is a mistake, and reinforces the perception that Singapore is a repressive place — which is precisely the wrong message to be sending to a globalised and networked world, when you are trying to build an innovative and creative economy where freedom of thought is so essential.

This is a significant retreat from the “light touch” approach to internet censorship that the Singapore government has espoused since the late 1990s.

We have gone from being arguably the first country in the world to gazette a socio-political community blog as a “political association” (by this I mean The Online Citizen), to being probably the first democratic country in the world to require websites to post a significant monetary bond before they can continue publishing.

While the Media Development Authority has sought to frame it as establishing regulatory parity between online and offline news outlets, the details available to date show otherwise.

Most notably, the MDA now has the power to order online news sites to remove purportedly illegal content within 24 hours, failing which the site stands to lose its $50,000 bond.

But there is no equivalent to this for newspapers, for example; if the Straits Times publishes an article that is prohibited under MDA guidelines, the Straits Times is not obligated to recall all unsold copies within 24 hours.

More fundamentally, the power to compel content removal is simply the power to censor outright. If the intent was to ensure responsible or accurate reporting, then surely the MDA should have chosen to include the power to order the publication of an update or correction as well. But this does not seem to be the case, at least based on the MDA’s own announcement.

Now that the government has announced this, the damage has been done. But the MDA can still mitigate this by clearly affirming that this regulation will cover only commercially-operated sites, and not true citizen-operated sites like The Online Citizen and The Real Singapore. That will go a long way towards addressing the perception that this measure is solely intended to bring the internet to heel, so to speak.

Now, I can’t speak for what Yahoo! should or might do, as the license conditions have not been published. I am a little surprised that MDA chose to make the announcement without also publishing the license conditions — this creates uncertainty and lacks transparency.

It is however notable that of the 10 sites [which are: Asiaone.com, Businesstimes.com.sg, Channelnewsasia.com, Omy.sg, Sg.news.yahoo.com, Stomp.com.sg, Straitstimes.com, Tnp.sg, Todayonline.com and Zaobao.com], Yahoo! Singapore was the only site that is not operated by a government-controlled or -owned company (so Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp).

This will inevitably lead to speculation that this regulatory action is aimed directly at Yahoo!, with the goal of ensuring that the government has direct or indirect control or influence over all major online news outlets in Singapore.

Disclosure: I was the General Counsel of Yahoo! Southeast Asia up to October 2012, but I did not work on this matter at all. I wrote this in my personal capacity. Thanks to Robin Hicks from mumbrella.asia for some excellent editing.

Beggaring my neighbor does not make me rich: why the National Defence Duty will not work

I've wanted to blog about the Population White Paper for a week now. But I have very complicated feelings about it, and couldn't figure out exactly what I would say. Until I read Hri Kumar's suggestion about a National Defence Duty on foreigners and PRs (with the catchy tagline of "we do duty, they pay a duty"). Things clicked immediately (more on the White Paper on a later post).

Hri Kumar's suggestion makes perfect sense -- if you see the world through the lens of rational economic theory and you think of people as homo economicus. Male Singaporeans suffer a disadvantage because of NS, so let's apply a tax to make male PRs/foreigners equally disadvantaged. Perfect economic sense, and true to the PAP's technocratic bent.

Except that the world is about much more than economics, and people are homo sapiens not homo economicus. We've traditionally talked about NS as a noble sacrifice, a ritual that turned boys into men. More recently, we've seen it also as a great social leveller that helps Singaporeans from different socio-economic classes mix and understand each other in a way that schools no longer allow (I totally agree, but have to wonder about female Singaporeans then).

And now an MP wants to put a price on it. It makes cold hard rational sense, but humans are warm-blooded; we become cold and hard only after we die.

This proposal encapsulates why the PAP as a whole is struggling so much today. It has become too transactional in its philosophy, the dollars and cents have become too entrenched and central in its thinking. Again, it all makes rational economic sense -- but we are real human beings, not abstract economic units.

This transactional worldview also explains why, despite the PAP's best efforts to "sharpen the differences" between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, Singaporeans remain so unhappy and unappreciated. That is because these efforts would work, only for Singaporeans who truly love schadenfraude.

If I am unhappy because I think I am being badly treated, would I really feel better just because the Government treats someone else equally badly? I mean, relatively speaking the other person may no longer be better off than me, but it does not improve my own position in any way. Imposing the National Defence Duty makes foreigners and PRs worse-off, but do not directly improve the lot of Singaporean males (at least not by much, and certainly not in any meaningful way), and most importantly does nothing to address their main concerns, in particular the complaint that employers discriminate against Singaporean males because of their NS liabilities.

In the same vein, charging PRs and foreigners more for public education and public health services (and even, bafflingly enough, horseriding fees at the Turf Club -- an American told me about this) has not made Singaporeans feel better, and not surprisingly, because it's not like they are paying less. Seeing my fellow inhabitant of Singapore suffer as much as I do does not make me suffer any less.

In economic terms, these policies can make sense. The National Defence Duty seeks to quantify the opportunity cost of having to serve Full-Time National Service, and then impose it on those who do not have to serve. Heck, the formula can probably even be tweaked to include some proxy measure of the opportunity and other costs of NS liability. Similarly, differentiated fees for Singaporeans vs PRs/foreigners means that Singaporeans are better-off than PRs/foreigners, even though Singaporeans are actually not better-off at all.

But in all these cases, the Singaporean's life does not become better in a meaningful way. This is the flaw of the PAP's transactional worldview -- it is a view of the economic world, and not of the real world.

Instead, if we want to make up for the cost and burden of defending the country, we should give those who have served NS even more benefits than they receive today. More, much more than the tax relief and the SAFRA membership. This is not to compensate them for what they have given up for NS, which is frankly something that can never really be done, but to do what we can, as a country, to recognise their contributions and express our appreciation.

For example, we can waive polyclinic consultation fees and public hospital C-class bed charges (or apply an equivalent discount for those who opt for more expensive classes), in full for everybody who has completed Full-Time NS and the 13-year NS cycle, and at 25% or some other percentage for those who completed Full-Time NS but did not have NS liability. And yes, that's for life.

And/or do the same for public school fees and miscellaneous fees. And/or public transport charges when they become senior citizens. And/or discount other medical charges in public hospitals. And/or give them priority queues in public government agencies.

The possibilities are nearly endless. Yes, these measures can be costly and/or inefficient. But the goal here is not to be economically efficient or precise, but to express our true gratitude to those who have given up part of their lives to serve and defend Singapore and Singaporeans. And honestly, we spent over S$12 billion on defence in 2012; anything we do will almost certainly be less than a drop in that ocean of money.

Similarly, sharpening the differences between Singaporeans and PRs/foreigners should be done not be making things more expensive for PRs/foreigners, but by giving some positive benefit to the Singaporeans. Instead of increasing the school fees and polyclinic charges for PRs/foreigners, why not reduce them for Singaporeans. It may cost more to the Government, but it will also be much, much more likely to achieve the desired results of making Singaporeans feel cherished.

In Memory of 1987: video

Here is the video of my speech on Saturday:

In Memory of 1987

On Saturday 2 June 2012, MARUAH and Function 8 organized an event called "That We May Dream Again" to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Operation Spectrum. I spoke at this event as Vice-President of MARUAH.

In Memory of 1987

Ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues, thank you for coming here today. My name is Siew Kum Hong. I speak today in my capacity of Vice-President of MARUAH. And I am very honoured to speak here today.

The U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Looking at all of you here today, I am heartened to know that so many Singaporeans are no longer afraid of the Internal Security Act, or of the 1987 detentions.

And fear is the currency of the ISA. Its scope is notoriously broad, its wording infamously vague. I personally believe that this is deliberately so, to keep the population in line.

I once heard someone say, with full sincerity and conviction, that the ISA has not been used to detain political opponents in the last 10 to 15 years. I think that is probably true. But that time-frame seems carefully selected. Would that person have been equally sincere and convincing, if he had said 25 years instead?

The events of 1987 still haunt many Singaporeans, especially the older generations. It is different from younger Singaporeans, many of whom had not even been born in 1987.

In 1987, I was 12 years old.  I only have a hazy recollection of what was happening then. So most of what I know is based on what I have seen, read and heard as an adult. And of course, what I studied in law school and what I and my colleagues in MARUAH have researched since.

Like how some 1987 detainees challenged their detentions and won their case before the Court of Appeal, only to be immediately re-detained upon their release. Like how the Government quickly amended the ISA after that case, to limit future reviews of ISA detentions by the courts to purely procedural grounds, as you’ve just heard Jeannette say. Like how, even in the post-9/11 world where preventive detention laws have become more commonplace, the ISA continues to lack the checks and balances found in other countries’ laws.

What are some of these missing checks and balances? Firstly, even though the detainees are not brought before the courts, they are still subject to some sort of hearing that should comply with due process. In Singapore, we have a hearing before an advisory board. But this process is shrouded in secrecy and is completely non-transparent.

According to a lawyer who has appeared before advisory boards, the detainees and their lawyers do not get to see the evidence that is presented against them, and do not have the right to challenge witnesses against them. The decisions of the advisory board are not published and not even disclosed to detainees. So much for the right to a fair hearing.

Another critical area where the ISA falls short of international norms, is the maximum period of detention without trial that is allowed. For instance, Australia allows detention for only up to 48 hours. Even the UK, which has suffered actual terrorist attacks on its own soil, only permits detention for up to 28 days.

But in Singapore, preventive detention is potentially indefinite – for instance, Chia Thye Poh was first detained in 1966, released from ISD detention in 1989 after 23 years, but confined to Sentosa until 1992. The remaining restrictions were gradually lifted over the years, and he became a completely free man only in 1998 – 32 years after he was first detained.

Singapore went through the Universal Periodic Review process last year, which is a process where the United Nations reviews each country’s human rights record in turn. MARUAH submitted a paper focusing specifically on preventive detention and the death penalty. In that paper, we called for numerous reforms to the ISA to bring it in line with international norms and due process. The objective was to ensure that even if there is a legitimate security requirement for preventive detention, the detention is done in accordance with human rights norms and due process.

Since then, we have refined our position. MARUAH now thinks that the best way to achieve that objective, is to simply repeal the ISA and introduce new anti-terrorism laws consistent with human rights.

And that is exactly what Malaysia has done. Around six weeks ago, Malaysia repealed its own ISA, replacing it with an anti-terrorism law that limits preventive detention to 28 days. Yet, the Singapore Government continues to insist that it needs the ISA in its current form, and that a specific anti-terrorism law would not work or would not be enough or would take too long to implement. The Singapore Government continues to make these bald assertions without any real explanation or justification.

Well, I can only say in response: “Malaysia boleh!”

As many of you know, MARUAH is also calling for an independent Commission of Inquiry into the 1987 detentions. We are asking Singaporeans to sign a petition in support of this call.

Look around you today. Today, we see so many of the so-called Marxist conspirators standing together again, in public. This is Singaporeans’ chance to find out the truth for themselves.

Look at the ex-detainees. Go up to them. Talk to them. Look into their eyes. Listen to what they have to say, but more importantly listen to how they say it.

And then ask yourself: could these allegations really be true? Could they really have been subversives? Could they really have plotted to overthrow the Government? Could there really have been a Marxist conspiracy, or any conspiracy at all? And if the answers to those questions are “no”, then what could have been the justification for the detentions?

I have always doubted the supposed reasons for the 1987 detentions. And the first time I met and spoke to Vincent Cheng, I stopped having any doubts. I knew that I could not accept the story put forth by the Government. I became convinced that these were just good men and women who wanted a better Singapore. And for that, I salute them.

The 1987 detentions effectively killed civil society for an entire generation. Activists saw what happened to those who were willing to act on their conscience, and either gave up or went underground. Common people saw what happened to those who were willing to stand up and be counted, and so they shut up and sat down.

The Government talks about an active citizenry, it talks about getting Singaporeans involved. They talk about so many things, but they don’t talk about the great big elephant in the room.

In recent years, ex-detainees, whether from 1987 or earlier, have been publishing their own accounts about what happened to them. And these stories always contradict the official version stated by the Government. So far, the Government has completely failed to respond to the ex-detainees. As a first step towards coming to terms with the ISA, we need to understand, once and for all, what really happened in 1987. What evidence did the Government have of a conspiracy, that led them to order the detentions? Were the confessions by the detainees coerced? Were the detainees mistreated or tortured?

A famous American judge once said: “Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.” I ask the Government to shine a light on the events 25 years ago, and once and for all resolve all the doubts and questions that so many Singaporeans continue to have. Hold an independent Commission of Inquiry, and disinfect this gaping wound in our national psyche and soul. That is the only way that we can start to heal, and finally begin to come to terms with this dark stain on Singapore’s history, and have an informed national discourse on whether the ISA in its current form is necessary today.

Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for listening. Thank you for coming today. Most of all, thank you for taking a stand against this law called the Internal Security Act, that has destroyed so many lives. May we see its abolition soon.

In defence of Cherian George

I am proud to consider Cherian George a friend. While he is not all that much older than me, I do remember reading his articles in the Straits Times as I grew up.

For a large part of his stint in ST, I was perhaps probably too young to truly understand everything he was trying to say back then, since in those days a lot more was said between the lines than in the lines themselves. But I always understood that he was usually criticizing the Government in some way or other.

Those of us with longer memories, who are older and remember life in Singapore before the internet and globalisation, know that Cherian has always been independent-minded and unafraid to speak truth to power, however unpalatable that may be to those in power.

He continues to do so today -- a careful reading of all his writings will show that he continues to be fiercely independent-minded, always fair and never taking partisan sides. And those of us who know him personally, know that he has paid the price in his personal life, in ways that could have broken lesser people and caused them to give up long ago.

So it truly breaks my heart to see clearly uninformed elements on the Internet today, conducting what is essentially a witch-hunt against Cherian. My bet is that these are probably young people without any knowledge or memory of the past, but more dismayingly, without any interest in finding out more about the man and his history before criticising, nay persecuting, him.

Cherian is one of the still sadly rare few in Singapore who are willing to risk their reputation and career, to openly and frankly speak their minds about what they perceive to be wrong in the country they love. He runs the risk of censure, and worse, by his employer and the establishment. And yet, look at what some people are doing to him.

I don’t want to give any shred of credence to their claims by naming them or linking to them. Suffice to say that correlation is not causation; Cherian writing about TRE coming out into the open and the attendant risks, does not mean that he had anything to do with them being threatened with a lawsuit.

And their claim that Cherian’s failure to reproduce the allegedly defamatory comments about Mr K. Shanmugam makes it one-sided, betrays a laughable ignorance of the realities of defamation law. If he had reproduced those comments, he himself ran the risk of getting a lawyer’s letter. Unlike his critics, Cherian operates in the light and not in the darkness of anonymity, where he risks losing everything in a moment of recklessness.

Those who make these baseless accusations against Cherian need to understand that Cherian, as an academic working on media issues who advocates a liberal and progressive perspective, is probably one of the few friends and advocates in the establishment that those of us in the blogosphere and social media have today. While I firmly believe that Cherian is a bigger man than many of us, and so he will overlook the tragic irony of those for whom he advocates turning on him, let’s not make this harder for Cherian than it needs to be.

Cherian George has given so much for Singapore and Singaporeans. While I know he does not expect anything from us, he certainly deserves better than this.

Every Singaporean really does count

UPDATED: MOS Wong posted a clarification on his FB page. It addresses the insensitivity of the comments reported by TODAY, although surely the original comment -- presumably accurately reported, since there was no suggestion of a misquote -- still should not have been made in the way it was made. I am not sure that there is any context in which that comment is acceptable. In any case, the FB post is simply an expansion of the same fundamental philosophy that I criticise below. Let's not forget that it is always harder for people to start work and then go back to school (either part-time or full-time), even though life-long learning is now accepted as a necessity.

According to the Heritage Foundation, Singapore has the second freest economy in the world (after Hong Kong). But there is one aspect of Singapore that has always felt to me like a command economy: the way the Government tries to calibrate supply and demand in higher education.

On 8 February, the TODAY newspaper reported that further education was hotly-discussed when Minister of State for Education Mr Lawrence Wong conducted a dialogue with around 100 ITE students. Some ITE students asked about the possibility of increasing the number of polytechnic places available to them after graduating from ITE.

This is what TODAY reported:

“Mr Wong said he understood their aspirations but not everyone would be able to pursue a diploma at a polytechnic immediately after obtaining their Higher NITEC.

This was due to limited places at local polytechnics and employers' demand for ITE graduates. "If everyone can move up, we will not have enough ITE graduates out there in the workforce," he said.

"At the end, it's the number of places we can provide … I don't think we'll be able to satisfy everyone, frankly," he said.”

MOS Wong also warned against a situation of too many degree- and diploma-holders seeking jobs, citing the example of the Singapore embassy in Paris, who had received only applications from degree-holders for a receptionist job. He also went on to explain that ITE was a foundation for polytechnic education, and hence ITE graduates would not be allowed to apply for polytechnic courses unrelated to their areas of study.

As Mr Brown put it on Facebook:

“Translation: “If we allow everyone to be well-educated, who will be the serfs?””

This is the sort of misguided social engineering that leaves a bad taste in many Singaporeans’ mouths. It stems from a fundamentally-misconceived view of higher education as being a means to the end of creating people to fill the jobs out there. And mind you, the sort of logic has been applied in the past, to limit the number of polytechnic graduates who are allowed to pursue undergraduate courses in our universities.

Never mind that the Government has a poor record at central planning with higher education to guide Singaporeans towards, or to deter or exclude Singaporeans from, this or that sector. Witness the shortage of lawyers in recent years. Witness also the angst of biotechnology graduates today, who were induced to enter that course of study by the heavy promotion by the Government, only to find that a basic biotechnology degree was, to paraphrase Mr Philip Yeo, only good enough for washing test-tubes.

Never mind that nowadays, most people view education as being at least as much about self-actualisation. Viewing higher education solely in terms of an assembly line for workers is nothing less than anachronistic.

Never mind that education is almost universally recognized as one of the key drivers of social mobility, and this message tells ITE graduates that they need to look for another way – besides education -- to do better in life.

Never mind that deliberately limiting the number of places available to ITE graduates, effectively imposes an artificial restriction on how far ITE graduates can go in their education. Don’t we pride ourselves in meritocracy? Where is the meritocracy in not allowing those ITE graduates who are good enough for polytechnics, to enter them?

Never mind that an education is meant to equip one for life, while the jobs out there today will not be the jobs available in 10 years’ time. Without giving ITE graduates who want to do so, the opportunity to equip themselves with skills going beyond today’s jobs, the Government may be deliberately disadvantaging ITE graduates for years into the future, if not for life.

Never mind that even if ITE graduates are not allowed to enter polytechnics, many will still pursue part-time private courses at their own expense.

Never mind that a diploma-holder who is good will succeed, while a diploma-holder who is not good will not succeed. And that is regardless of whether or not that diploma-holder entered the polytechnic after graduating from ITE, JC or secondary school.

Never mind that the Paris embassy example cited by MOS Wong is not at all analogous. France is experiencing economic troubles including very high unemployment, which is the more likely reason why degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job. Correlation does not mean causation, and the fact that degree-holders are applying for the receptionist job does not prove that there are too many degree-holders in France.

Never mind that polytechnic courses are varied enough that there will be some, if not many, courses that ITE, JCs and secondary schools do not prepare students for. In which case, why restrict only ITE graduates, but not JC or secondary school graduates, from applying for such courses?

Sorry Mr Wong. It’s not just ITE students who disagree with you. I would hazard that most Singaporeans would also be disappointed with these comments. In our hearts, we want all Singaporeans to have equal opportunities, and to support those Singaporeans in going as far as they can. There actually are Singaporeans who truly believe that every Singaporean really does count.

We not stupid, ok?

The Straits Times ran a story on PAP MPs' rebuttals of Mr Chen Show Mao's speech on ministerial salaries. [note: the ST story is completely available for free, but it may not stay fully available for long]

Below is the text of what I wrote on Facebook about these PAP MPs' so-called rebuttals.

---

I am posting this instead of working because this article made me so fed-up. It is ok for politicians to engage in politicking, and it is entirely expected that PAP MPs would line up to try to rebut Mr Chen Show Mao (and probably told to do this, when they were scheduled to speak after him). But I cannot stand poorly-reasoned arguments, which are replete here.

1. "'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' [Zaqy] said."

An odd conclusion, because the PAP-accepted proposal pays more (on an annual basis) to ministers than the WP proposal. How you get there (the formula) is important, but where you end up (the amount) is also important. If the WP proposal omits sacrifice, then how much more so the PAP-accepted proposal which pays even more?

2. ""It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health [Amy Khor]."

Surely Dr Khor is not suggesting that the WP proposal is non-transparent. Whether or not you agree with it (I myself am not completely sold, because we would probably see the MX9 benchmark creep upwards), it is simple and transparent. The WP proposal was constructed using a bottoms-up approach, based on principled reasoning on how ministerial salaries should be determined. You may disagree with the approach, but calling it "less or non-transparent" is misconceived.

3. ""Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr [Alvin Yeo]. "Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'."

Actually, the excitement was because Mr Chen gave up a big job and a big salary to join the Opposition (no parachute for him, no near-guarantee of a win) and then become a regular MP -- with nary a whine or moan about his pay-cut. Until the PAP understands that Singaporeans loved that because it exemplifies the spirit of public service (and the uncomplaining sacrifice that the PAP likes to talk about so much), they will NEVER get it.

4. "'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr [Sam] Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin."

Actually, it should be, if the so-called talent in question is so overly-concerned about money, that a salary that can support a very comfortable lifestyle is not enough.

TODAY: Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries

TODAY asked me to re-write my earlier blog post for them. I basically halved the word count and added what I read in the Straits Times about what Mr Chiam See Tong and Prof Walter Woon had said in 1994 (which Mr Chiam had repeated in 2000).

Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries
by Siew Kum Hong

Published in TODAY on Saturday Jan 07, 2012

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ministerial review committee's report has not quelled criticism of supposedly overly-high ministerial salaries.

There have always been two types of criticisms of ministerial salaries. Many were technical criticisms focusing on the flaws in the formula's mechanics, which implicitly endorsed the pegging of ministerial salaries to top private-sector salaries.

The others, which are political criticisms, decried ministerial salaries pegged to top private-sector salaries as excessive and out of touch, regardless of the exact formula used.

I think that the committee gave a good answer, but to the wrong question. The recommendations address the technical criticisms, but do nothing to stem the political criticisms.

The committee did well in fixing many major flaws in the previous formula, but it was asked to answer the wrong question.

Its terms of reference accepted the pegging of ministerial salaries to top private-sector salaries, and only required it to answer the technical question of how to implement this principle.

But ministerial salaries is a political question; i.e. "how do we determine ministerial salaries in a way that Singaporeans can and will support". That's why we got a technocrat's answer to a technical question, when what we really needed was a political answer to a political question.

Since we didn't get that, the political criticisms have continued.

The Government, and the committee, clearly think about public service in terms of sacrifice by office-holders who would otherwise command top private-sector pay, especially financial sacrifice.

But this approach will never be accepted by most Singaporeans, because they see public service in completely different terms.

Public service is not a sacrifice; it is not a burden or imposition. Public service should be a calling; it is an honour and a privilege.

It is something to be proud of, not something to bemoan and begrudge.

And running a country is a political undertaking different from running a company, which is why Singaporeans reject the constant comparisons to private-sector jobs.

But ministerial salaries should not be so low, such that only rich people will run for office, or office-holders become distracted from running the country by personal financial needs.

One approach would be to set a salary that would enable a reasonable lifestyle. What is reasonable is open to debate, but the objective should not be in dispute.

This idea is not new; according to reports, Mr Chiam See Tong and then-NMP Professor Walter Woon had proposed such an approach back in 1994, with Mr Chiam suggesting S$50,000 per month as sufficient.

Regardless of the actual number, this approach is more politically defensible as being necessary to allow ministers to do their jobs without undue distractions, while letting them maintain a reasonable standard of living. It will not satisfy all detractors, but if properly implemented, it can win over the critical middle ground of Singaporeans.

The issue of ministerial salaries has severely poisoned political discourse in Singapore. Unfortunately, these latest changes have not sucked all of the poison out of local politics.

What a wasted opportunity.

The writer is a corporate counsel and former NMP. This is an edited rewrite of a post on his blog siewkumhong.blogspot.com.

Answering the wrong question on ministerial salaries

By now, the highlights of the report by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries should be well-known, so I won't rehash them. A search on "singapore ministerial salaries" will quickly bring you up to speed.

There have always been two types of criticisms leveled at ministerial salaries. The first category comprised criticisms of the formula itself, that it led to distortions and did not achieve the outcomes we wanted. These are technical criticisms that implicitly endorsed the principle of pegging ministerial salaries at a discount to supposedly equivalent private-sector salaries.

The second category comprised criticisms of the absolute amount of ministerial salaries, which are seen as being excessive in their absolute amounts and completely out of touch with normal Singaporeans. These are political criticisms that will persist regardless of the formula used, because they stem from a fundamental perception that the absolute salaries are simply unjustifiably high, regardless of the formula used.

Well, here’s what I think: the Committee gave a good answer, but to the wrong question. The Committee’s recommendations will address the first type of criticisms, but will do nothing to stem the second.

I actually happen to think that within the limitations of its terms of reference, the Committee did a pretty good job. That’s because its terms of reference required (and perhaps limited) the Committee to “take into account salaries of comparable jobs in the private sector and also other reference points such as the general wage levels in Singapore”, and to implement “a significant discount to comparable private sector salaries to signify the value and ethos of political service.”

The Committee fixed a lot of the major flaws in the previous formula. For instance, by expanding the sample size of income earners from the top eight earners in six professions to simply the 1000 highest-income Singaporeans, the Committee effectively rendered irrelevant the problem of the 48 top earners being a changing cast while the ministers themselves did not change. Similarly, the new bonus structure is much improved on the previous simplistic reliance on GDP growth as a proxy for the good performance of the Government (and on that, I was reminded of this defence of the previous bonus structure by now-DPM Teo Chee Hean).

But I do think that the Committee was asked to answer the wrong question. The Committee’s terms of reference had already pre-supposed that fundamentally, the proper way to determine ministerial salaries was to compare with private-sector salaries (“how do we calculate ministerial salaries taking account private sector salaries and other guidelines”). In other words, the Committee was only being asked to answer the technical question of precisely how to calculate ministerial salaries based on private-sector salaries.

But to my mind, the question of ministerial salaries is actually a political one (“how do we determine ministerial salaries in a way that Singaporeans can and will support”). And so, we ended up with a technocrat’s answer to a technical question, when what we really needed was a political answer to a political question. Since we didn’t get that, the political criticisms I had referred to will almost certainly continue.

It is clear from the report, and subsequent public comments, that the Government, and the Committee, continue to think about ministerial salaries in terms of private-sector salaries and sacrifice by office-holders, especially financial sacrifice.

I think that is a completely incorrect approach to the question, which as I have said is a political one. This approach will never get true buy-in from the majority of Singaporeans, because they see the Government and ministers in completely different terms.

The Government and the Committee see public service as a sacrifice, as if it is some sort of burden or imposition. But I, and I suspect most Singaporeans, see public service as a calling, as an honour and a privilege. It is something to be proud of, and not something to bemoan and begrudge. That is what the spirit of public service is about.

The Government and the Committee also see private-sector jobs as being closely equivalent to ministerial posts, as if running a company is very similar to running a country. I think most Singaporeans disagree, because they instinctively understand that running a country is a political undertaking that is fundamentally different from running a company, requiring as it does political sensitivities and skills that are not always or usually needed for corporate success (and here, I am talking about popular politics, not office politics).

I do want to be clear: I don’t necessarily think that S$1m a year is excessive. I don’t know for sure what number would or should work, but it probably won’t be a small number. I do think that Singaporeans should be more mindful of wanting ministerial salaries that are so low, that only rich people will run for office. I also think Singaporeans should be careful about cutting salaries so much, that our office-holders become distracted from the all-consuming job of running the country by personal financial needs.

So that begs the question of how ministerial salaries should be set. Well, I think the starting point should be that we do not want money to drive ministerial aspirations, but at the same time we do not want ministers to have to worry about their personal finances.

One way to do this is to figure out what a reasonable salary for a minister would be, such that he/she can maintain a reasonable lifestyle. And by reasonable lifestyle, I would think that the salary should be enough to comfortably cover mortgage payments for a reasonably-priced landed property in a reasonable location; payments for 2 cars for the family; education for a minister’s children (including overseas education); some retirement savings; and so on.

This may or may not be a big number, but then at least it becomes more politically defensible in terms of this being what is necessary to allow the minister to do his/her job without undue distractions and while allowing the minister to maintain a reasonable standard of living. It also completely strips away the effects of the widening income gap, although it does become subject to changes in the cost of living. It represents an approach that can be explained to people and which people can instinctively understand (viz. the need to take care of one’s family).

Sadly, this is not the approach that has been adopted for Singapore. Which is why I think Singaporeans will continue to be dissatisfied with the level of ministerial salaries in Singapore.

The question of ministerial salaries is a critical one for Singapore. Not just for the obvious reason that it affects who enters into government (and who is attracted to join politics in the first place), but also for how it has severely poisoned political discourse in Singapore. Every time something bad happens, there will be people who will complain about how our highly-paid ministers had once against failed – whether or not this is justified. This cannot be a healthy state of affairs for Singapore.

The Government recognized this, hence the Committee. Unfortunately, I firmly believe that these latest changes will not suck all of the poison out of local politics. What a wasted opportunity.

Leopards and spots

It is as if the PAP is determined to prove that leopards cannot change their spots. The People's Association can try its best to spin the truth, but the latest revelation from the Workers' Party completely destroys any plausible deniability that could possibly be left.

The Workers' Party's revelation has to be read to be believed, but in a nutshell, the HDB had the brazen nerve to lease some prime spots for grassroots events -- apparently previously by the PAP-controlled Aljunied Town Council -- to the People's Association. This was done quickly after the General Elections, on 27 May and 13 June, and apparently without any announcement or publication anywhere. On 15 August, the PA informed Sylvia Lim, Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, that "bookings by WP will not be allowed".

This is offensive on so many levels. The HDB needs to explain why it did what it did, and the timing for those actions. Why did it suddenly lease those areas to the PA, after the PAP lost Aljunied GRC, when those areas had previously been managed by the town council? Has it ever leased such areas to the PA in other constituencies ? What was the criteria for choosing those areas?

As for the PA, this drives the final nail through its pretense of being a true grassroots organisation -- as opposed to a state-funded para-political organisation used as a mobilisation vehicle by the ruling party. If it was truly non-political, it would not issue a blanket refusal to lease these areas to the Workers' Party.

Many will consider me naive, but I had hopes after the General Elections that the PAP would truly learn its lessons, and become a fair and just party truly focused on doing the right thing for all Singaporeans -- instead of working for the party's own narrow interests. I now see that that was too much to hope for.

Before May 7, I had privately predicted that GE2016 would be Singapore's equivalent of Malaysia's GE2008, when the opposition tsunami rocked the long-time ruling coalition. I did not see that happening this year. After May 7, I thought that the PAP still had a chance of avoiding an opposition tsunami in the next elections.

Well, let's just say that the PAP MPs and prospective candidates better have a Plan B in 2016, in case they lose. Many of them will likely need to use it.

Lee Kuan Yew – giant of a repressive decade

This article was first published on The Online Citizen on August 8, 2011

I consider myself a child of the ’80s. Born in 1975, I first became conscious of the world around me in the 1980s.

Even by Singapore’s standards, there were a lot of changes in that decade. Many of these changes have gone on to become integral and fundamental to what Singapore is today.

Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) were introduced in 1988. Much of the foundation of today’s transport system were laid, with the AYE, BKE, ECP and PIE being opened throughout the decade and the MRT being officially opened in 1988 (after a soft launch in 1987 with just five stations – I still remember my dad taking me to ride the train from Ang Mo Kio on its first day!). Even the hotly-debated topic today, the Elected Presidency, was first mooted in the 1980s.

Echoes from the darker events of the ’80s still resonate today as well. The much-hated graduate mother scheme has reared its head again in the pre-campaigning for the Elected Presidency, with questions have been asked whether Dr Tony Tan had supported or opposed it. The likes of Teo Soh Lung and Vincent Cheng, as well as others involved in social enterprise Function 8, have continued to raise questions about the 1987 so-called Marxist conspiracy.

One man dominated the landscape through all these developments and events: Mr Lee Kuan Yew. He was the Prime Minister through the entire decade, stepping down only in 1990. Mr Lee’s dominance of the 1980s was all the more reinforced with the retirement of his colleagues from the First Generation leadership throughout the 1980s, starting with Toh Chin Chye in 1981, continuing with Goh Keng Swee in 1984 and culminating with S. Rajaratnam in 1988. In comparison, Mr Lee took another 21 years more to leave the Cabinet, which occurred only this May in the wake of the General Elections.

What then were the 1980s like? If we had to identify one single theme from the decade, what would it be?

Unfortunately, I would have to say: repression. The scars of the 1987 detentions lasted for 3020 years; it is only in recent years, that the former detainees have felt able to tell their own stories and ask the questions that have cast such doubt on the government’s official account. The treatment of Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the first opposition politician to win a parliamentary election in post-independence Singapore, left a sour taste, with Mr Jeyaretnam being disqualified from Parliament despite a strongly-worded judgment in his favour by the Privy Council. The actions against Mr Francis Seow sent a warning signal to other would-be dissidents, while the muzzling of the Law Society and hence the legal profession continues today.

These events from the 1980s, followed by the defamation suits in the 1990s and criminal prosecution of the civil disobedience activists in the 2000s, did much to silence dissent and instill the much-discussed climate of fear in Singapore. It is only this year, that this climate of fear has been reduced, if not dissipated.

Mr Lee was a driving force, if not the main player in the government, in all of these events. So as I looked back at the 1980s, I could not help but think of Mr Lee. He was truly a giant in Singapore’s history. Sadly, he was also the dominant figure in this repressive decade.

What next for the PAP?

What. A. Night.

The Workers' Party has now cemented its position as the second party in a two-party system, albeit one that remains heavily skewed in favour of the People's Action Party. The WP will be celebrating its groundbreaking win in Aljunied GRC, and rightly so. The strong results of even its lesser-known candidates demonstrate the power of the WP brand -- indeed, a study by an Australian polling firm shows the WP brand to be as strong as the PAP's.

What does it mean for the PAP though? How will the PAP respond?

First and foremost, the PAP lost because it had lost touch with the ground. It had clearly under-estimated the extent of antipathy towards it by a large margin. Was this because of a failure in the intelligence from its grassroots organisation (aka the People's Association, even though it is a statutory board), or did the leadership simply ignore or overlook the grassroots intelligence? Those of us on the outside will never know.

But what we do know, is that it was the PAP's arrogance that had led to its downfall. The themes of government accountability and arrogance played so strongly with the electorate, that the Prime Minister was compelled to apologise for the errors of his Government late in the campaign. But it was clearly too little, too late for disenchanted voters. Worse, only the PM and George Yeo actually noted the problems with the party; it was almost as if all of the other ministers remained, in Minister Lim Swee Say's words, "deaf frogs" to the criticisms from the electorate.

I remember that the PM's "apology" speech at Boat Quay was reported in two parts, on the front page and on an inside page. The portion of the report on the inside page was dwarfed by a big article on Minister Mah Bow Tan, quoting him as intending to raise the $8000 income ceiling on HDB flats in response to feedback. Two things struck me: firstly, even though PM had acknowledged the failure to anticipate and prevent spiralling housing prices as a mistake, there was not a single squeak of sorry from Mr Mah; and secondly, the feedback on the income ceiling was not new at all, so why was the Minister considering the change only now?

So the real question is whether the PAP has truly accepted and internalised the lessons from this election and the messages from the voters. My own sense is that the middle ground, that big chunk of voters in the middle who decide the fate of elections, largely approves of the PAP as the governing party, but had grown to dislike the PAP and its style. And that is something that is entirely within the party's control.

I for one think the PM got it right, when he said that the PAP government was not perfect, and will make mistakes, but must acknowledge and admit mistakes, apologise, and then rectify the problem and try to prevent a recurrence. The problem though, is that the PAP hadn't done that at all in the past 5 years, in particular in terms of admitting and apologising for errors.

The PM was spot on when he said that the PAP needed to re-connect emotionally with voters. If the PAP wants to arrest this slide in its popularity, then it needs to be authentic and sincere in engaging with the people.

But the early signs on election night were not positive. The two ministers facing the most personal criticism over the past few years have been Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng and Minister Mah Bow Tan. Both led their teams to a 57% vote share, below the ~60% national average for the PAP. DPM Wong described it as "strong support" from Bishan voters, while Minister Mah called the 10-point swing against him since 2006 a "strong mandate". Few would agree with those claims, which ring hollow and false. If they truly believe their words, then the lessons from GE2011 would appear to have been lost on them, in which case the Opposition can expect even more gains in the next elections.

GE2011: what I'm getting up to

Some of you may know that I am part of two gazetted political associations, namely local socio-political community blog The Online Citizen and MARUAH, a registered human rights NGO in Singapore.

For the elections, I have been live-blogging for TOC at the rallies that I'm attending -- so far I've been at WP's Hougang rally on 28 April (phone network died so not much live-blogging there), NSP's rally at Delta Hockey Field on 29 April, and SPP at Potong Pasir tonight. To follow my live-blogging, go to my Twitter profile or follow #TOClive on Twitter.

As fun and exciting as live-blogging is (and it is), it's what I'm doing with MARUAH that's potentially more far-reaching and important. MARUAH are conducting an election watch project. Given the lack of access in Singapore (Elections Dept has so far not responded to our request for access to polling and counting stations) and our lack of resources (thanks PMO for the gazetting!), we've had to scope the project carefully and limit it to what we know we can do rigorously.

MARUAH will be doing monitoring how the Straits Times, TODAY and The New Paper cover the GE for the duration of the campaign. The results from the first 3 days are up, please check them out!

Workers' Party rocks Hougang, 28 Apr 2011

I made it a point to catch the Workers' Party rally tonight. It's their first rally, and I wanted to see Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, Chen Show Mao and Yaw Shin Leong in action. I also wanted to see -- for myself -- just how big the crowd is.

The second question is easier to answer: it was a massive crowd. See for yourself (photo at http://darrensoh.com/elections/), make sure to scroll all the way to the left:



The crowd was so big, that the mobile networks basically all died. After a while, nobody had any service at all. It was sheer exhilarating and inspiring madness.

As for the speeches -- Low Thia Khiang was his usual polished self, working the crowd effectively in English, Teochew and Mandarin. Sylvia Lim had a great performance as well, definitely much much more powerful than her speeches in 2006, although I was a little surprised she didn't deliver a Mandarin speech (at least a short one). Her call-and-response style worked very well. Chen Show Mao did a couple of sentences in Tamil, rather more in Malay, and was excellent in Mandarin -- but the pacing for his English speech was a little too slow. And Yaw Shin Leong acquitted himself well, although he kept building the crowd to a crescendo (which was really skilfully done) and then going an anti-climactic "ok?".

But for me, the surprise of the night was Gerald Giam. He was frankly quite stiff in the TV forum with the other parties. But he was really good tonight, worked the crowd well, delivered his speech strongly and convincingly and basically rocked the house. Gerald looks to be a real gem in the making.

Now that I'm back at home, adrenaline fading and legs aching, caught up on Facebook and much of the material from the other rallies, the question in my mind remains one asked by one of the speakers (Chen Show Mao?): last election, we also had huge crowds, but look at the voting outcome. What will it be like this time?

Disgust and loathing in Singapore

UPDATE: I should have added that so far in this campaign, I have respected SM Goh Chok Tong for his call to keep things "clean" (even though it is self-serving since Tin Pei Lin is in his GRC, but it was the right thing to say), Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng (and indeed the rest of PAP) for not mentioning Mr Chiam's health, and Minister for Trade and Industry Lim Hng Kiang for declining to make any personal comment about Tan Jee Say. I would also express disappointment at the NSP's Yip Yew Weng for perpetuating race-based politics (see the piece in last Saturday's(?) Straits Times about multi-cornered fights) thereby playing into the PAP's hands in terms of justifying the continued existence of GRCs.

Not much in Singapore politics gets me really worked up anymore. All too often, it just feels like "been there seen that".

In fact, nowadays, the things that tend to rile me are not about the substantive issues themselves -- it's gotten too easy to predict the PAP's response and arguments to explain why something I agree with is "not right" for Singapore. Instead, what gets my blood boiling will be questions of (un)fairness and (in)justice.

Most recently, it was the attacks on Tin Pei Ling, who does enough to destroy her own credibility in her own speeches and responses to questions without needing any help from gutter would-be-journalists trawling her Facebook account. Today, it was this personal attack by the PAP.

The PAP can try all it wants, but the objective here is transparently clear to everyone: to tell the world that Vincent Wijeysingha is gay, and thereby win the votes of that part of the population that will vote based on just this single wedge issue, regardless of any other issue.

The rest of the statement -- in particular the allusion to an alleged discussion about "sex with boys and whether the age of consent for boys should be 14 years of age" -- is just outright unjustified mudslinging insinuation that seems designed to imply a linkage between Vincent Wijeysingha and that discussion. If you watch the video in question, you will find that:

(a) Vincent Wijeysingha does not talk about sex with boys or lowering the age of consent for boys.

(b) only M. Ravi talked about that, and he also does not advocate lowering the age of consent for boys. Instead, he seemed to be talking about the age of consent for boys in the context of making a more general point (it's hard to tell precisely what the point is, because the clip has been edited -- perhaps deliberately -- such that what went on before is not shown).

[At this point, I hope that those responsible for posting the video and the misleading description about "lowering age of consent for sex with boys aged 14" are aware that they may have contravened Section 61(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. And I certainly hope that the Elections Department will be fair and investigate this case, and prosecute if the culprit is found.]

Considering that the constituency in question is Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, a fairly rich area which may well have a higher than average proportion of conservative Christians, this move may yet pay off in terms of votes. But it would fundamentally damage the fabric of Singapore politics, by opening the door to the slippery slope of mudslinging attack politics, where personal attacks are disguised as questions about "agenda".

This PAP statement is no different from, and is in fact worse than, the gutter attacks on Tin Pei Ling to degrade the political discourse in Singapore. I did not want Singapore politics to degrade like this, so imagine my dismay that it is the PAP itself bringing politics down.

I hope -- no, I trust and believe -- that Singaporeans will see through this PAP statement for what it is. Now that the SDP has posted its response, the ball is really in the PAP's court. Will the PAP retract its statement? Will the PAP apologise? Will the PAP understand that there will be a backlash to this, the same way there was a backlash to their efforts to demonise James Gomez in 2006?

Well, we can all let the PAP know exactly what we think of this. Speak up, whether online or in the papers. Ask your grassroots leaders what they think about it, and whether they agree with the tactics apologised. Ask the next PAP candidate who asks for your vote, what he/she thinks about this and when the PAP will apologise. Ask the PM if the Government's stand on all this has changed, since he presumably had the last word on this during the Section 377A debate in 2007.

The strangest part of all this is that the political parties, including the PAP, have historically been discreet on personal lifestyles and indiscretions, as noted by Cherian George. It is unclear if this statement has been endorsed by the PAP leadership, but in the absence of any public dissociation by the party from the statement, we can only conclude that it was. That would mark the PAP leading us to the kind of "First World Parliament" that we know we do not want, namely the gay-bashing tactics of US conservative right-wing politics.

This is not what I want Singapore politics to be like

This post will be short, because I am on a business trip right now. But I feel compelled to write this quickly before going back to work, because I am that disgusted and upset.

The PAP recently unveiled 27-year-old Tin Pei Ling as a potential candidate in the upcoming elections. What has been happening on the Internet (especially Facebook) since has been nothing short of disgusting.

Ms Tin is reportedly a business consultant at a big accounting firm, and apparently is married to what would seem to be a high-flying civil servant in a position of some importance. From the news reports I've read, she had been volunteering with grassroots organisations since 21.

Some folks seem to have taken it upon themselves, to dig up what they think is dirt on her personal life, in an effort to put her down and besmirch her reputation. These efforts have included personal photos apparently from her Facebook account before she removed or privatised them (and here is an object lesson to the PAP and indeed all parties: tell your candidates to privatise their online presence before announcing them!), insinuations about who she is married to and how and why she married him, and claims about her purportedly extravagant lifestyle, so on and so forth.

This is essentially a young woman who has taken a huge leap into the unknown by stepping forward as a potential candidate. Her motivations are still unknown (other than whatever she has publicly stated), her competence and suitability as an MP remain to be seen, and she has not said much about her policy positions. In short, she is still pretty much a complete unknown.

And that is precisely my point. I would like politics in Singapore to be about the candidates and their views and their competency/suitability as MPs and office holders. I would not like politics in Singapore to become an exercise in gutter journalism. If and to the extent that a politician makes morality and virtue part of his/her platform or public persona, then that becomes fair game as well -- but only then, and not before.

I would like Ms Tin to be given a chance to show what she would be like as an MP, instead of digging up all this personal stuff -- things which, frankly, to my mind have been overblown and do not say anything about her suitability as an MP, or even her as a person. She is a 27-year-old professional, not a nun.

I find what has happened to be quite offensive and reprehensible (which is why I am deliberately not including details of or links to the comments). It is almost as if people, in their antagonism towards the PAP, are willing to overlook and ignore what is right and what is dignified.

The consequence of all this, is that people will be deterred from joining politics, even more so than before. I for one will openly admit that I have thought about it and decided against taking the plunge, in part because of these things. I have been a victim of these whispers. It is not fun. It is not right. It is not what I would want Singapore politics to be like.

And so I will not like, comment or share these stories and articles. I will lose, and have lost, some respect for those who pile in with their derisive comments on Facebook (some of whom I had respected before). I will choose to publicly express my disagreement with what has happened and is happening, and my sympathies for Ms Tin.

I sometimes feel like we have the government that we deserve. Well, through our actions, we will also get the politics that we deserve. Let's think about what we really want Singapore politics to be like.