Singapore Day and PMO OSU revisited

I had previously blogged about the Prime Minister's Office letter to TODAY about my piece on Singapore Day, and what I felt was a misrepresentation in that letter about what I had written. Yesterday's edition of TODAY ran a response from me to point out that mistake in PMO's letter, as follows:

"I refer to the letter "More than just a taste of home" by Mr Roy Quek of the Overseas Singapore Unit of the Prime Minister's Office (May 9), responding to my commentary "Not a recipe to win hearts" (May 4).

Mr Quek asserted that "Mr Siew's commentary is built around his mistaken premise that Singapore Day was organised to woo overseas Singaporeans back". There was no such mistake or premise on my part.

My commentary explicitly stated my personal belief that Singapore Day "served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore". This would have been clear and unmistakable to any reader."

I had initially been inclined to just let it be. But what got me pretty annoyed was the response from PMO to the e-mail that had been sent to them. The e-mail was from fellow TODAY writer Adrian Tan, who basically pointed out this pretty fundamental -- and obvious -- error and questioned why this error had been made. I had replied over that e-mail, asking PMO what their response was or whether they were going to respond at all.

Adrian replied to my e-mail (somewhat aggressively), ending with this paragraph:

"Am I correct, PMO that misrepresenting (whether negligently, or wilfully) in public the views on an MP (even an NMP) is a serious matter? Or am I wrong and that it's OK for the civil service to misrepresent publicly theviews of NMPs?"

PMO finally responded, one full week after Adrian's initial e-mail and three days after my e-mail. Their response is reproduced below in full.

"Dear Mr Siew,

The Overseas Singaporean Unit (OSU) does not see a need to respond to Mr Adrian Tan's comments as Mr Tan was sharing a personal view, which we have duly noted.

We will be happy to engage and discuss with Mr Tan if he has specific ideas and proposals on how we can better engage and connect with our Overseas Singaporeans, including suggestions on how we can improve on Singapore Day and other outreach initiatives.

Thank you."

I thought that there were many things lacking about this response. Firstly, it was sent only to myself -- it omitted Adrian and other cc addressees (TODAY folks), which I thought was a little impolite. The tone of the message was also pretty arrogant and high-handed.

Second, it was unsigned, with the sender unnamed. I'm told that the Overseas Singapore Unit is a 3-person unit, so that is pretty much an exercise in futility.

Third, Adrian was not stating a "personal view" -- he was pointing out an error. Was it too much for them to acknowledge whether there was in fact an error, and if not to explain why they had stated what they did?

Finally, the suggestion seems to be that the OSU will engage Singaporeans if and only if there are specific ideas being offered, and in no other circumstances. Is that really an appropriate position for a government agency to adopt? Whatever happened to taking in feedback? Is the only feedback that is valid and which the OSU will deign to respond to, feedback to help the OSU do its job?

All of these things are really not quite acceptable and not becoming, especially for a unit of the PMO, which really sets the tone for the entire civil service. So it really did raise my ire a bit. I had been inclined to simply blog about the mistake, because I have no wish to embarrass anyone publicly. But if that was going to be PMO's attitude, then I decided to write in to set the record straight in TODAY, who agreed to publish a response.

This whole episode has been more than a little disappointing. I didn't expect any bouquets, but to be misrepresented was uncalled-for. And I am sure any reasonable person would find the response from PMO simply unsatisfactory. This is not an ego trip from an NMP who has inflated expectations and perceptions of the importance and power of this appointment (trust me, I very much swing towards the other extreme), but simply an expression of annoyance, disbelief and and above all disappointment from a citizen.

PMO response on Singapore Day, and Straits Times interview on homosexuality on 11 May 2007

I was out of town for much of this week, and was ill over the weekend (unfortunately, still am). So I've not been blogging or replying e-mails.

Regarding Singapore Day, there was a response by the Overseas Singapore Unit of the Prime Minister's Office in TODAY on 9 May 2007. There was a line in there which said:

"Mr Siew's commentary is built around his mistaken premise that Singapore Day was organised to woo overseas Singaporeans back."

Someone has e-mailed PMO to point that my piece included this line:

"I prefer to take the Government at face value and think that the event served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore."

PMO has still not responded to that e-mail. I am keenly curious as to what they will respond with.

And I'd like to thank all of you who have posted or e-mailed supportive comments on the Yvonne Lee and homosexuality issue. The Straits Times ran a piece on Friday, basically a Q&A with 3 lawyers: Ms Indranee Rajah, Mr Lim Biow Chuan, and myself. I have reproduced below the published Q&A with me (yes, they asked me to look at the final edited version, so a big-up to the journalist for that!).

MR SIEW KUM HONG, 32, senior counsel for CA, an IT management software company. He is single and has been a Nominated Member of Parliament since January.

Your response to MM Lee’s comments?

My first thought was that his view was premised on pragmatism, not principle. It might result in what I believe to be the right conclusion (ie. decriminalisation of gay sex), but I do not agree with the reasoning process. In the end, it rests entirely on homosexuality being genetic but if there is subsequently any evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, then does it mean we should change positions again?

My own belief is that homosexual sex should be decriminalised regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic. It is fundamental to respecting people’s dignity and their freedom to lead their private lives as they decide to the extent it does not harm others, regardless of why they would want to lead their lives that way.

What do you think of the current situation, where homosexual sex is banned but is not proactively enforced?

Having a provision on the books that the Government has explicitly stated it will not proactively enforce, risks bringing the law into disrepute. And here’s another question – what if a homosexual is jilted and makes a complaint against his former partner? Should the police take enforcement action then? But should enforcement be based solely on whether a complaint is made? If so, is that a rational and justifiable basis for deciding whether to enforce?

On what basis should laws be made? Should they reflect values and morality? What about pragmatism?

I do not think that laws should reflect values and morality per se. Instead, I believe that laws should deter and prevent harm to people. And if that coincides with morality, then great.

But they are conceptually separate and distinct concepts, and we need to bear that in mind. There is a great danger when laws are used to enforce values and morality, because they do change. Women previously could not vote, and this was enforced by law. Obviously, values and morality have changed since those times, and I think rightly so.They are also not universal, and so could potentially oppress those who do not share such values and morality.

How do we advance the debate on decriminalising homosexual sex, beyond the fixed standpoints that have been presented?

I’m not sure if you can. The starting points are so fundamentally different that they are essentially arguing at cross-purposes. How do you convince, through argument, a Christian who is convinced that homosexuality is evil and immoral, a sin that needs to be outlawed? I don’t think you can.

But policy and law-makers have a different responsibility. I would hope and expect policy- and law-makers to acknowledge that their own values and moral beliefs are personal to them, and that policy- and law-making requires them to adopt more objective approaches.

Some will and have argued that the approach embodied in the Wolfenden Report (a 1960s document that sets the basis for the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in the United Kingdom) itself represents a value statement about the importance of personal liberty. But I would argue that that is a universal value, and is irrelevant.

The question is the extent to which personal liberty should be limited by the law, and so it falls on those who argue for criminalising homosexuality to demonstrate convincingly that private consensual homosexual sex results in external harm that merits it being criminalised.

There has always been a sense that societal norms here should evolve at the pace of the most conservative members of society. Do you agree? What sort of pace should society proceed at in terms of discussing this issue?

Actually, that’s not the case. I think Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has previously stated that we should not move at the fastest (most liberal) or the slowest (most conservative), but with the mass in the middle. So far, the Government has identified the mass in the middle to be against the decriminalisation of homosexual sex.

But should that be the sole consideration? Surely the moral sensibilities of the mass in the middle should be balanced against the implications of the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex: the intolerant message sent by society, the lack of dignity or respect shown to a segment of our society (estimated at maybe 4 to 6 per cent), the inexorable exodus of homosexual Singaporeans overseas never to return, and the unquantifiable number of foreign talent who are homosexual and so simply decline to come to work in Singapore.

Law-making is a balancing act, to balance the different interests at play. I am not convinced that the continued criminalisation of homosexual sex strikes a balance that is most beneficial to Singapore and Singaporeans.

Not a recipe to win hearts over

This was published in yesterday's (Friday's) edition of TODAY. It was a strange coincidence that I ended up at Singapore Day. It was warm and crowded -- not just packed, but crazy crowded. Long, snaking lines for a small serving of food. I met someone who queued for 2 hours for a small plate of nasi lemak (which did look really good, to be honest).

To be honest, the food wasn't as good as the mass media made it out to be. But I don't blame the hawkers at all. Firstly, the volumes involved were massive -- I think the estimated turn-out was 5000 to 7000 people. Secondly, it seems that many ingredients requested for were not available. Worse, the hawkers did not bring their own cooking implements, and had to make do with whatever was available (which obviously was not everything they wanted).

Anyway. Turns out I wasn't the only MP there. Baey Yam Keng was also there, and he blogged about the event on the P65 blog.

Not a recipe to win hearts over

More intrinsic appeal needed to woo overseas locals back

Friday • May 4, 2007

Siew Kum Hong

I WENT to Singapore Day in New York a couple of weeks back. I was there for work, was with a Singaporean friend living in the city who wanted to go, and eventually found myself in Central Park on a bright, sunny Saturday.

The event was undoubtedly a success. The hawkers were a big hit, with some queues taking up to two hours. Still, some Singaporeans I spoke to had reservations, even as they enjoyed the food.

Some queried the registration requirement and amount of information requested, and wondered if the Government is using the event as an excuse to gather data on overseas Singaporeans. Others found the tone of the event — which included National Day songs belted out by homegrown entertainers — off-putting, as it reminded them why they had left Singapore in the first place.

While I applaud the idea of Singapore Day, I think these views are nevertheless valuable and interesting. There was a certain fuzziness around what the event sought to do, but I doubt it was a sinister effort to track overseas Singaporeans, a theory I find borders on paranoia.

Was it a disguised attempt at getting Singaporeans to come home? If so, it needs to be more sophisticated in its approach. The performance of the National Day songs came across as being over-the-top and contrived.

A Singaporean who liked the idea of re-connecting with her country was turned off by the hardsell and rolled her eyes at the brochures on integrating returning Singaporeans' kids into our education system. I also met more than one gay Singaporean, who, regardless of however much he or she enjoyed the event, were all convinced that they would never return home.

I prefer to take the Government at face value and think that the event served to refresh connections with overseas Singaporeans, to remind and update them about Singapore.

However, I also noticed certain unflattering aspects. There were no activities for kids. The American husband of another Singaporean noted the irony of flying in Singaporean bands that sounded exactly like many other bands in New York. (The highlight for me was the getai skit from Royston Tan's upcoming film 881.) There was a lack of recycling bins despite the number of Yeo's-sponsored canned drinks being guzzled down.

And, as pointed out by another Singaporean, it was a "typically Singaporean" event, with a singular emphasis on food.

I was bothered by this display of food as the overarching — and apparently sole — factor that unifies Singaporeans. (And I am at least as greedy as the next food-loving Singaporean.) The identification of eatables as being at the core of "Singaporeanness" betrays a certain pragmatic consumerism and materialism. If being Singaporean is so intimately tied to something extrinsic, what will happen when it is gone?

Singapore Day hinted at the troubling answer. The crowds thinned considerably as the stalls ran out of food. Few stayed for the entertainment flown in from home. Fewer paid any attention to the displays and booths touting the developments at home and that of overseas Singaporeans. In fact, there was a lack of interest in anything other than the food — and when the food was gone, there was little interest in anything at the event at all.

Food can be replicated, even if it is difficult to do so authentically. New York-based movie director and foodie Colin Goh said all the local fare at Singapore Day was available in New York except for the chwee kueh. That was the first item to run out.

The sad truth is that while food is the easiest and surest way to tie Singaporeans' minds to Singapore, it is a tie that does not bind tightly, if at all. We would do well to develop and emphasise other ties that are far more intangible and emotional — and hence tighter and less easily displaced and replaced.

This will require greater subtlety, creativity and resources. Perhaps Singapore could be "recreated" through miniature replicas of familiar landmarks. Instead of including rubber bands in goodie bags with instructions on how to play "zero point", a zero-point competition could be held for children and adults. Another suggestion I heard was to have people register for a Friendster-type social networking service, to tease out connections between people.

The aim of events such as Singapore Day should be to engage people's hearts and minds, not just their stomachs. Otherwise, overseas Singaporeans may flock to future Singapore Days, but the events will not deepen or strengthen their links with Singapore.

The writer is a Nominated Member of Parliament and corporate counsel, commenting in his personal capacity.