The fiasco that distracted us from the bigger SMRT fiasco

I was away for most of December, so I missed the two big recent news stories, namely the SMRT fiasco and Seng Han Thong’s appearance on BlogTV. I’ve been in two minds about writing on the latter incident, but finally decided to do so thanks to the remarks by Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam and the TNP article on Boxing Day. I was away at the time and so feel that I am quite distanced from this entire affair, even given my affiliation with TOC.

[disclaimer: I am a member of the core team behind The Online Citizen, but I do not have editorial duties and pretty much see my role as doing what it takes to let the editors get on with their jobs. I weigh in on articles only when asked, and primarily from a legal perspective, although I do tend to give my two cents worth when asked.]

Alex Au does a good job at a quick recap, so I won’t reinvent the wheel. A lot has already been said, so I will only make three points in this posting.

Firstly, nobody can dispute that whatever Seng said on TV, it was incredibly garbled. This is his transcript:

“I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.”

As I said, I was away when it all happened, and so I had no idea what was going on when I started being copied on emails within the TOC core team about this incident. I must confess that when I finally read the TOC article that broke the story (which by then had the 2 updates and the editor’s note), I was quite confused.

Even when I read the transcript of Seng’s remarks (reproduced in the editor’s note), I couldn’t precisely figure out what he was trying to get at. I had to re-read Seng’s statement of apology (in update 1 in the article), which explained the point he was trying to make, before I stopped feeling like the ADSL guy in that StarHub ad.

So my first point is: putting aside all this stuff about whether or not the remarks were racist in nature, the sheer irony of a politician speaking in broken English on national TV about broken English was striking (and fodder for satire, as Mr Brown has shown us in his inimitable way).

My second point is about the failure in the article to attribute Seng’s comment about Malays and Indians to SMRT PR, which some seem to be trying to make hay from. Yes, the TOC article could’ve made that attribution, in which case I wouldn’t be writing this particular post.

But frankly, Seng’s words were so garbled, it’s not so easy to tell where the SMRT portion ended and where Seng’s own thoughts began. After Seng posted his explanations, we now know what he was trying to say and why he said what he did. But it was a little difficult before Seng explained. Hindsight is perfect, but there’s no hindsight when you break a story.

Having said that, my third point is that my second point is actually quite beside the point. That’s because even though Seng was quoting a SMRT spokesperson, he seemed to have adopted the SMRT spokesperson’s point (or rather, what he thought the point was); in any case, he did not contradict it. I personally think this is critical.

If you read Seng’s words carefully, you’ll see that he basically said:

1. SMRT person said some staff, being Malay and Indian, can’t speak English well, and hence this deters them from … (I suppose Seng meant to say “making announcements” here, or maybe “making announcements without scripts”)
2. We can accept broken English in announcements. (Presumably, Seng’s point was that staff with broken English should have made the necessary announcements anyway.)

Seng could only have gotten from (1) to (2), if he had agreed with and adopted (1). That’s because if there is no question of broken English, then there is no question of announcements in broken English. And Seng at no time indicated any disagreement or any hesitation about the reference to Malay and Indian drivers only, so (2) must surely only relate to them.

In other words, Seng must have, in his mind when he made the statements, been thinking only of Malay and Indian drivers who cannot speak English well. And he displayed no reluctance to make, or problems with making, those statements on that basis.

Minister Shanmugam did acknowledge that Seng did not contradict what he thought he heard the SMRT spokesperson say, but the Minister still seemed (based on news reports at least) to have focused his attention on the TOC article instead of the comments themselves. I would disagree with the Minister that the failure in the TOC article to mention the SMRT spokesperson made the article “false”, because it’s clear that Seng had adopted the SMRT spokesperson’s words (or what Seng thought those words were) for himself.

I do wish that the TOC article had mentioned the reference to “SMRT PR”, so that there wouldn’t be all this brouhaha. But that does not detract from the substance of the article. And I think the fact that other PAP MPs came out to criticize Seng, even after reading his explanations, speaks volumes about Seng’s comments. Kudos to the likes of Madam Halimah Yacob and Inderjit Singh.

I have no reason to think that Seng is a racist at heart, and it’s good that Seng explained things quickly and apologized to Singaporeans. I had been a little reluctant to post on this because of that. But I wanted to give the perspective of someone who was distanced from the events as they unfolded, and to do some justice to the hardworking editorial team at TOC. After all, nobody seems to disagree that this was an important story that TOC broke.

Face to Face 2 challenged all preconceived beliefs about the Presidential Candidates

This first appeared on The Online Citizen on 22 August 2011 (and I take no credit for, and am not guilty of the clunky headline!).

Face to Face 2 challenged all preconceived beliefs about the Presidential Candidates

by Siew Kum Hong

Viswa Sadasivan asked me if it was ok to start. It was 8.35pm, about 15 minutes ahead of the scheduled start-time for filming. The four Presidential candidates were seated, the crowd had introduced themselves, and Viswa the moderator was raring to go. All eyes turned to me.

I gave Viswa two thumbs up, and the cameras started rolling.

It was The Online Citizen’s Face to Face 2, a studio discussion with the four Presidential candidates. I was not part of TOC when it organised the first Face to Face with political parties. This time round, I helped out in the organisation – and am very glad to have been part of such a special event.

We made a special effort in selecting the audience. We wanted an audience that was consistent with TOC’s DNA, and so we had academics as well as activists like Alex Au and representatives from groups like AWARE, the Challenged People’s Alliance Network, Function 8, MARUAH and We Believe in Second Chances.

But we also wanted to make sure that the views of ordinary Singaporeans were reflected, and so we had a cross-section of Singaporeans including young adults, a retiree, a civil servant, a taxi driver, a journalist-turned-real estate agent, and a lecturer. I think we did well in terms of presenting a balanced, diverse and representative audience that also reflected TOC’s values.

The heated exchange between Mr Tan Jee Say and Dr Tony Tan has predictably grabbed headlines. The forum has also focused attention on the Internal Security Act, much in keeping with TOC’s DNA. But here are some other nuggets about the candidates that caught my attention.

I noted with interest Dr Tan Cheng Bock’s description of homosexuality as a “lifestyle choice”. I was surprised by his comment that women had to obtain their husbands’ “permission” to enter politics.

And I was taken aback by his firm “yes”, in response to Viswa’s question about whether he would resign as President if he had a strong disagreement with the Government. After all, Dr Tan Cheng Bock points to his criticisms of the Government when he was an MP as examples of his independence, and yet he did not resign then; were those disagreements not strong?

More importantly, if the people have elected you as their President, would you not be letting Singaporeans down if you resigned in the face of disagreement instead of sticking to your guns and pushing on?

As for Mr Tan Jee Say, I was struck by his passion and conviction. I particularly liked his clear and consistent positions on the death penaty and the ISA. But his outburst when interrupted by Dr Tony Tan concerns me. I want a passionate President who can inspire Singaporeans, but I also want a presidential President who can fulfil the ceremonial duties of the post.

Dr Tony Tan’s courage in agreeing to participate in the forum will be under-appreciated, but must nevertheless be acknowledged. It would not have been surprising if he had decliend our invitation; after all, the People’s Action Party did not turn up at TOC’s first Face to Face forum either. So kudos to Dr Tony Tan for wanting to engage with TOC’s audience in the first place.

I also consider myself fortunate to observe a touching moment shared by Dr Tony Tan and his wife, just before the second half of the forum began. He had just returned from the washroom, and she went up to him and put her arms around him and asked if he was all right; he answered yes.

These personal moments are an important reminder that the candidates are persons first and foremost. They have feelings and families too. Debates can and should be robust, questions can and should be tough and probing, but we can and should remain civil and respectful. And I think the Face to Face 2 forum checked all of those boxes.

But something about Dr Tony Tan’s statement that he could not discuss the 1987 ISA detentions nagged at me, and it only crystallised the morning after the forum. He cited the Official Secrets Act as the reason why he could not comment; but the OSA did not seem to prevent Dr Tony Tan from disclosing that he had disagreed with the graduate mothers scheme and that he had successfully persuaded his Cabinet colleagues to reverse the policy when he became Education Minister.

That being the case, surely Dr Tony Tan should be able to tell us whether he had disagreed with the 1987 detentions, and whether he had sought to persuade his Cabinet colleagues not to proceed with the detentions. The 1987 detentions were a Cabinet decision, just like the graduate mothers scheme; so if his personal disagreement with the decision on the graduate mothers scheme, as well as the fact that he had argued against it in Cabinet, can be shared today, then surely he could share the corresponding facts in relation to the 1987 detentions.

Finally, I was surprised when Mr Tan Kin Lian said that he was not familiar with Section 377A, and needed a brief explanation from Alex Au. Considering how it had hogged headlines leading up to the petition to Parliament and the subsequent Parliamentary debate in 2007, this is a huge surprise. Otherwise, he stayed very close to his campaign messages.

The test of a successful forum is whether it challenges one’s preconceived beliefs. I have no doubt that Face to Face 2 was definitely a success on that basis. Just speaking for myself, before the forum began, I was convinced that I could possibly vote only for one of two candidates. By the end of the forum, one of those names had been replaced by another.

Who knows? Maybe by 27 August, the names would have changed again. But one thing I know for sure: I am very proud to be part of The Online Citizen. Here’s to more such groundbreaking initiatives in future.

Kum Hong is a former Nominated Member of Parliament, and a member of the core team behind The Online Citizen.