Michael Palmer, former Speaker of Parliament

The resignation came as a shock to Singapore, setting the blogosphere abuzz with speculation.

Alex Au questions Palmer's resignation:

Yes, I know he has admitted that he had an affair with a officer of the People’s Association who was indirectly related to his constituency, but if having extra-marital affairs alone disqualifies one from political office, then I think we’re going down a slippery slope. Politicians should not be expected to be saints. If we narrow the qualifications for office to such throttling moralistic standards, then we deprive ourselves of possible talent.

There are enough reasons why a politician should step down, for example, for romantic affairs that create a conflict of interest, abuse of power or a breach of confidentiality. Did Palmer’s affair give rise to one of these situations? The problem at this point is that we don’t know.

Palmer's resignation has also left Punggol East SMC without an elected representative in Parliament. However, the power to call a by-election rests with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, whose press statement was non-committal.

This episode has echoes of an earlier issue in the year, when Workers’ Party member Yaw Shin Leong was expelled from his party amidst allegations of an extramarital affair. The prime minister had also been hesitant in calling for a by-election, although one was eventually called in May.

In its editorial, The Online Citizen criticises the prime minister for not promising a by-election:

Still, blissfully unaware or choosing not to care, the PAP then ignored the key question that its institutional memory should have found impossible to forget: When would a by-election be called? Instead, Teo opted to side-step the question, deferring it to the PM to decide on whether to call a by-election or not. His stand was further supported by the PM.

In the aftermath of the Hougang SMC by-election, the PAP should have guessed that this would have been the question on everyone’s mind. It should have come to the table prepared with a clear yes or no. Being elusive does it no favours and insults the people’s intelligence.

Ng E- Jay praises Low Thia Khiang – Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party – and his reaction to Palmer's resignation:

The relentless attack on WP conducted by both the PAP and the state-controlled media during the Yaw Shin Leong affair contrasts deeply with the fair-handed approach adopted by Mr Low Thia Khiang in the recent Palmer episode.

Mr Low did not take the opportunity to put down the PAP or engage in mud-slinging, but highlighted Mr Palmer’s contributions to Parliament as Speaker, and expressed regret that such an incident had occurred. Mr Low was scrupulously fair to all parties concerned and did not seek to score cheap political points on the back of the personal crisis of another human being.

This is what politics can — and should — be.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (2)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

SMRT Bus. Photo from Flickr page of TIB1218R used under CC License

The strike was denounced by Acting Minister of Manpower Tan Chuan Jin as “illegal”, a statement that was backed up by the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), who added, “It is important to send a clear signal to all workers that as a nation ruled by law, there are proper ways of dealing with issues and disagreement.”

Until the Ministry of Manpower had labelled it a strike, the mainstream media had refused to use the word in their coverage, prompting Twitter users to find other euphemisms:

@mrbrown: Alternative names for a Singapore#busstrike : Co-ordinated Smoke Break

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Led by the Our Singapore committee, the national conversation will take place online as well as in various dialogues and meetings. Our Singapore Conversation has both a website and a Facebook page, and urges people to share their views on Twitter using the #oursgconv hashtag.

The exercise has been met with positivity from some Singaporeans. Petunia Lee writes about her experience of attending a dialogue session:

From the Facebook page of Our SG Conversation

I must say that my experience of the SG Conversation opened my eyes to other Singaporeans. For one, I didn't realize that the elderly in Singapore felt such a sense of dispossession and rejection until one elderly gentleman from my group said his piece. For another, I had had the wrong assumption that harmonious race relations are so much a part of us that we don't need to work at it. It was a Malay lady doctor who in her impassioned speech convinced me that race relations can cause today, as much rawness as in the 1960s.

So yes… I think if, as explained by Mr Tan, the aim of the SG Conversation is to teach each of us some truths about our own country, then it did achieve that aim with me.

However, many others are wary of the exercise, seeing it as nothing more than a public relations endeavour. Molly Meek believes that the whole national conversation is simply a ploy to change the ruling party's image:

The PAP’s [ruling party] strategy is intelligent—one even wonders if they have consulted professionals on the matter before proceeding with their efforts—and one cannot helped but be impressed by their measurable success. The strategy employed  is perhaps fairly simple—target a few citizens, including prominent ones and lesser-known ones, that are moderately against the PAP, give them a different impression, and let them spread the news that the PAP really is not what its detractors have made it out to be. In fact, these do not even need to say anything—a mere talk with the PAP that leaves them with nothing to criticize will be effective enough for others who can still be convinced to support the PAP.

An editorial at publichouse.sg points out that the conversation may not lead to real change:

Even if it is assumed that the ministers leading the current initiative are of a keenly liberal bent, the older guards in the Cabinet remain likely to have a veto over the final product.  It is instructive that a majority of the more liberal suggestions made by the Remaking Singapore Committee – such as for the government to define the out-of-bounds markers for political debate, creating an Economic Relief Scheme for the structurally unemployed and subsidising the MediShield premiums of low-income groups – went unheeded.

‘Join the Singapore Conversation’ website

We simply do not want to see a Conversation that is dominated by people who might be sympathetic of the ruling party's position on national issues, and are hence more likely to be part of the ancient echo chamber. How would we look forward, if so?

In other words, Wong and others like him need to realise that the ball is in the PAP's court to prove that they can be non-partisan, rather than lambast those who are raising the red flag on partisanship as ‘politicised'. Proof is in actions, not words.

We want diverse voices, even oppositional ones that sit at the far ends of the fence of logic and possibility, to get to the bottom of matters and stimulate a hearty, if not heart-felt, discussion, rather than another consensus building show-and-tell. And Singaporeans have the right to expect the National Conversations to be like that.

While the conversation continues in dialogue sessions and on Facebook, the Twitter hashtag #oursgconv appears to have been hijacked by anti-opposition spam:

@SGSilentMaj : Freedom of expression is bad for #Singapore #sgpolitics #sgelections  http://bit.ly/REUBsd http://bit.ly/TJjDZX

@SGLaoBaiXing : WP taking credit for PAP's work #sgpolitics #sgelections http://bit.ly/TcBoTM  http://bit.ly/R4RV9G

@theonlinesg : WP have no vision #sgpolitics #sgelections #oursgconv http://bit.ly/T1qhqo http://bit.ly/RWyvlo

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

After 52 years of “suffering” (according to Straits Times reporter Terence Voon), Singapore has finally got another Olympic medal in an individual sport. Table tennis player Feng Tianwei won a bronze medal at the London 2012 Olympics last week, and finally the Singapore flag was raised over the podium and the national anthem blared throughout the stadium.

Yet back in Singapore, not everyone was celebrating. It was pointed out that Feng Tianwei is not a native Singaporean, but a Chinese-born athlete brought to Singapore under the Foreign Sports Talent Scheme where talented athletes are identified and given citizenship so they can represent Singapore at international sporting events.

A Yahoo! SG online poll found that almost eight in ten of respondents did not feel proud of medals won by foreign talents. Many see the Foreign Sports Talent Scheme as an effort to “buy” medals, rather than earn them through Singapore's own efforts.

@rlychill: Ah feng tian wei……. What would we be without foreign import

@3mozslayer: The awkward moment when the national anthem of china plays and feng tian wei does not know whether to sing it.

Feng Tianwei won a bronze medal in the 2012 London Olympics. Photo from Wikimedia

Lucky Tan criticises the government's policy, saying it reflects a lack of faith in local talent:

When you import sporting talent just to win, you have given up on your own people and it represents the “cannot do” spirit …a confirmation that you  don't believe in your own people and their talents. No surprise to me that the sports association that is most active in importing sporting talent to win is led by a PAP [ruling party] MP….it reflects the faith and confidence they have in our own people.

Some also disapproved of Singapore's Multi-Million Dollar Awards Program, which means that Feng Tianwei will receive S$250,000 for winning the bronze medal.

@ButterJingers: Can you imagine? Feng Tian Wei is gna receive 250k from the nation as well as the medal.

LIFT thinks that people should not blame Feng Tianwei for coming to Singapore:

Now Feng is not a banker, she is a table-tennis player. There are not many people who can employ her – her potential employers are basically countries she can represent, compete for and win medals for. Whilst she is undoubtedly a highly skilled specialist in her field, her employment prospects are very limited compared to say a banker, an engineer or a teacher. By that token, Feng must've looked at the few options opened to her and she picked the best possible option: Singapore.

The Lycan Times says that although Feng Tianwei's achievement is impressive, it is difficult to feel pride because of an emotional disconnect:

Beyond the politics, it was a personal achievement – one that her own hard work has paid off. I wouldn’t deny I would have felt a lot more pride had a local-born Singaporean won. An old primary school classmate and I had a discussion separately on this matter, and one of things that came up during the discussion was that a lot of Singaporeans had no reason to feel pride in her win because they felt Feng does not represent us. He has a good point, and from a certain perspective I agree because I also felt Feng does not represent the Singapore that I grew up in – i.e. the Singapore where we have our emotional attachment as our place of birth. Above that, it is the Singapore that we grow up in it and one we felt grew up together with us. When we feel proud of the person we grow up into, we also feel proud of Singapore. Feng Tianwei, unfortunately, cannot and will never be able to represent that emotional Singapore – the one in our hearts is very different from the one we lived in. She represented a Singapore that we could no longer feel emotionally attached to.

Andrew Loh asks people to think about what makes a “true” Singaporean:

The criticisms flow fast and furious, and they are repeated ad nauseum each time someone who is seen as “not a true Singaporean” wins some accolades. While these sentiments are understandable because of our immigration policy, and others like the Foreign Talent Scheme (under which, incidentally, Feng was brought in), perhaps it would be best if we could move beyond launching diatribes against her and her colleagues, and ask ourselves a deeper, more meaningful question: what, really, makes a Singaporean?

This post is part of our special coverage London 2012 Olympics.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (8)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

On July 16, 2012, opposition politician Kenneth Jeyaretnam – who was in court with Mr Ravi and his client Mdm Vellama – tweeted:

@KenJeyaretnam: Law Society attempting to have M. Ravi declared unfit to practise law and sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

He later followed it up by posting a copy of a letter Mr Ravi's psychiatrist had written to the Law Society. The post has since been removed, but has been picked up by other online outlets such as The Online Citizen.

Mr Ravi had been in court that morning for an open court hearing on the discretionary powers of the Prime Minister in calling a by-election. Mr Wong Siew Hong, who is on the council of the Law Society, then appeared in court, wanting to address the judge. Lawyer Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss describes what she saw:

I sat in the public gallery, which was packed. Reporters were also present.  The Hearing started with M Ravi going first. The Judge asked M Ravi some probing legal questions.  M Ravi understood the Judge's questions, and replied them in a manner which the Judge seemed satisfied with.  The exchange between M Ravi and the Judge was pleasant, courteous and mutually respectful.

If M Ravi is under any mental illness, it was not apparent to me that morning. Justice Pillai did not look like he found M Ravi to be anything but mentally normal. When M Ravi had finished speaking, it was the Attorney-General lawyer's (whom I shall call “AG”) turn.

Andrew Loh and Richard Wan later interviewed Mr Ravi, who said that the letter was “ridiculous”. It was also pointed out that the letter had been dated the day of the hearing, when the doctor had actually seen Mr Ravi two days prior:

Mr Ravi has worked on numerous high-profile cases in Singapore. He is an advocate for the abolishment of the death penalty and has represented several death row inmates. Recently, he has also been representing Ms Vellama Marie Muthu in her application for the Supreme Court to determine the discretionary powers of the Prime Minister in calling for a by-election, as well as Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam in his application to stop the government from pledging US$4 billion to the International Monetary Fund.

The Law Society later issued a statement clarifying that they had not made an application to prevent Mr Ravi from appearing in court, as reported in Temasek Review Emeritus.

The news of the psychiatrist's letter has led to much speculation and criticism online, as Singaporeans raise suspicions of efforts to silence or discredit a vocal lawyer.

Hendra Lee: They are finding excuses to prevent him from practising. If I rem correctly, M Ravi pleaded guilty and was fined several times for causing trouble at the mosque and hindu temple and South Bridge Rd. But that doesn't mean he is not a brilliant lawyer.

Luo Han: This is wanton victimization of the lone lawyer in Singapore who is brave enough to tell the State when laws are unjust or manifestly oppressive against the ordinary Singaporean. I know M.Ravi personally. He is the champion of the man or woman with no voice, of the marginalized and the disadvantaged. If the Law Society succeeds in this attempt to strip M.Ravi of his livelihood, it will be a sad day for the voiceless Singaporeans who have NO recourse or are unable to afford legal assistance especially in criminal matters. It will also be a sad day for the Law Society because it will lose its standing of respectability and any claim to a non-partisan reputation will be flushed down the toilet bowl.

Many also called out the psychiatrist, Dr Calvin Fones, for breaching doctor-patient confidentiality in writing to the Law Society without his patient's knowledge or consent.

Betty Teo: Why would a psychiatrist write to the law society about his patient in the first place, unless he is ordered to do so?

Balaji Narashimhan: I am hoping this leter is not true because if it is, this I absolutely disgusting. A flagrant and completely unethical breach of a doctor and patient's confidentiality. How can any person be safe with this doctor knowing that if he feels like it he can wantonly diagnose a person without a one to one interview or a thoroug review of his medical history with a mental illness or a relapse? He should be reported to the Singapore medical association and have his licence suspended. Bipolar people are NOT crazy and simply having bipolar disorder does not mean you're unfit for working.

On July 18, 2012, the Law Society released a statement dismissing suspicions of a conspiracy and saying that Mr Wong Siew Hong had been acting of his own volition:

LSS believes that it is important that the public has confidence in LSS as an independent professional body which has always balanced the interests of the public and individual lawyers. Unsubstantiated criticism of LSS is unfair to its volunteers, and does the public a grave disservice. Any suggestion of a conspiracy involving the LSS is untrue and irresponsible.

Some bloggers have found the Law Society's statement unsatisfactory. Ng E-Jay questions whether Mr Wong had really been acting “on his own”. Bertha Henson feels that the Law Society should take care of its own operations before censuring others:

What kind of outfit is the LawSoc running when one  of its own can go running  to the courts armed with a letter to the LawSoc? Was the “representative” Wong Siew Hong really so silly as not to even keep any of the  LawSoc bosses informed that he was going to do so? Surely, there are procedures in place in the LawSoc before any lawyer can go running to the courts or come up with a statement on behalf of the LawSoc? So, I say Mr Wong Meng Meng: Go shoot your own messenger.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PFL-C2Lsaig

Investigators allege that the Church has misused up to S$50 million, and that a portion of it was used to fund the pop music career of Kong's wife Sun Ho, who has had some success singing Mandarin and English songs in Hong Kong, Taiwan and the United States.

City Harvest Church launched The Crossover Project in 2002, with the idea that Sun Ho's secular music would reach out to non-Christians and bring them to the church. After news of the arrests emerged, attention was drawn towards Ho's music and her YouTube videos gained thousands of new hits.

One of the most viewed videos was a track Ho recorded with Wyclef Jean and Elephant Man, entitled ‘China Wine':

Ho's music was criticised by some for not reflecting Christian values and being in bad taste. Michelle from syntaxfree writes about the inappropriateness of ‘China Wine':

Out of the clusterfuck of nonsequiturs that make up this song, the biggest one may be why the hell a Singaporean is calling herself “Geisha” to sing a song about how much “we” in “China” love to dutty wine. Perhaps Sun hit her head after being slain in the Spirit one day and it affected her geographical knowledge.

The song also attracted comments on Twitter such as this one:

@desdcool: Just watched ‘China Wine'…Hahah…Oh my! We're pushing piousness to a whole new level aren't we. http://bit.ly/LB0mZG  ‪#CHC.

Critics have also hit out at the Church after local media reported that Kong Hee and Sun Ho are currently living in a high-market bungalow in Sentosa Cove, worth a hefty S$9.3 million. While working on her career in the US, Sun Ho lived in a house in the Hollywood Hills where the rent was about USD20,000 a month.

Abraham writes to Singapore Hall of Shame, questioning Kong Hee and Sun Ho's sources of income:

Pastor Kong Hee and his wife stay in a $10mil Sentosa apartment, drives expensive cars, wears high fashion, got capital to run high-end boutiques and live like multi-millionaires. Sun burnt tens of millions in Hollywood trying to launch her Geisha image. Even if they did not misused church funds like their fervent supporters would like to believe…where did they get the rest of the money from? Drop from the sky?

However, members of City Harvest Church also took to social media to voice their support and faith in their church leaders. Daphne Ling at Mother, Inc. reaffirms her trust in her church:

I have absolute trust in the fact that none of the money was embezzled for personal gain. I believe in the Crossover Project and there was certainly no intent to deceive, as had been alleged. Pastor Kong and all the other 4 individuals on trial have not breached the trust of the church members.

I make no apologies for giving every dollar that we gave and we will continue to do so knowing that the funds will not be misused.

City Harvest Church is my family. It has been for the last 15 years and I don’t think anything will ever change that.

Ed at Ed Unloaded refutes claims that the congregation was coerced into giving money to the church:

Some people have the impression that CHC is all about money, where members get brain-washed into giving and pledging loyalty to the church. Well, I’m a committed CHC member and my family & friends who are not from CHC know that I’m a regular guy, of sound mind and not hypnotized. I have my share of opinions and make decisions based on my faith and convictions.

I made numerous monetary contributions to the church, and I fully believe in the church’s vision and cause. To me, it is a worthy investment, and I wasn’t coerced or forced to give, and I definitely have no regrets giving. The fruits of my giving are seen in the thousands of lives changed and impacted by the ministry of CHC.

The Church has also responded to the allegations, saying that the Crossover Project is a mission fundamental to the church and its congregation, and that the board has acted in accordance to government codes.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (10)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Last week a photo was posted on STOMP by a contributor identified only as ‘wasabi', showing a Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) train with its doors wide open. The article alleged that the doors had been open while the train was moving – a serious safety issue. The story was then picked up by tabloid newspaper The New Paper.

SMRT, the company responsible for the MRT service, promptly undertook investigations into the incident, which they claimed to be impossible as the trains all come with safety features preventing them from moving if the doors are open. The contributor ‘wasabi', identified as STOMP content producer Ms Samantha Francis, turned up to assist SMRT officers in their investigation.

However, both CCTV footage reviewed by SMRT and Ms Francis’ ez-link card showed that she had not been at that particular station the night the photograph was supposed to have been taken. This discovery led Singapore Press Holdings to do its own investigation. Ms Francis eventually admitted that she had not been at that station that night, and had actually found the photograph on Twitter. The original tweet has since been removed.

SPH has apologised to SMRT. Ms Francis was sacked on the same day.

This photograph was uploaded on STOMP last week.

SPH has always made a big deal out of STOMP, marketing it as a “citizen journalism” platform powered by contributions from members of the public. But the site has been rejected by many prominent members of Singapore's online community, and is more known for photos of couples indulging in public displays of affection than for grassroots reporting of local issues.

Lee Kin Mun points out that there is more than one issue at play here:

I am not sure if she was fired because she posted a fake photo, or because she posted it as an anonymous member of the public, or both.

Is it the practise of SPH to allow their staff to post “scoops” as anonymous “STOMPers”. I wonder?

Following the government's persistent efforts to characterise alternative media as being skewed and untrustworthy, this episode has severely undermined their efforts to get Singaporeans to put their faith in the government-linked mainstream media.

Alex Au at Yawning Bread writes that the credibility of the government's pro-mainstream media claims has now been considerably weakened:

Nor is anyone within official circles going to revisit their claims that only SPH (and its twin, government-linked Mediacorp) stands for responsible journalism. But the damage has been done. From now on, anytime the government tries to paint new media as untrustworthy, they’re going to have this incident thrown back at them like so many cream pies. Pflaphtt.

He goes on to question a possible double standard:

Oh, and by the way, why aren’t we hearing anything about damages?  If a blogger had tried to pull the same stunt, would SMRT or any government-linked body not have been quick to send lawyer’s letters and so forth?

Ex-journalist Bertha Henson criticised Ms Francis for her lack of ethics and professionalism:

But the current Stomp case takes the cake. The woman (I would never call her a journalist) was sacked. She conned her editors, posted a picture that she said was from a netizen named wasabi about an opened door at a station she never was at. Then she brazenly tried to tough it out when SMRT came checking. Hey, opened door/moving train…safety issues no? She even stood by her story when her editor asked her about it. It was egg on the face for everyone.

Twitter users have also criticised STOMP and Ms Francis:

@ackabr: Perhaps ‪#SPH‬ should do the right thing and rethink the concept and purpose behind‪ #STOMP‬.

 @woonhian: When you're in a hole, Ms. Samantha Francis, you try to climb out, not dig deeper. (SMRT aren't always the bad guys, you know.)

@liangkaixin: It's not citizen journalism if it's not submitted by random people but erm stolen by ur content producers. ‪#stomp ‬‪#justsaying‬

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The Straits Times’ editor Warren Fernandez was quoted as saying: ”We want to give the young in these families a precious gift: access to information and a window to the world and all its possibilities. That will help them get ahead in life. We sincerely believe a daily copy of the ST delivered to their homes will do that.”

Some pointed out that by doing this, The Straits Times was not actually doing any charity or donating anything to low-income families; instead they had simply sold 1,000 subscriptions of their newspaper, paid for by the auctioned car which was in turn donated by Volkswagen.

Gwee Li Sui wrote on his Facebook page that if the paper was really sincere in helping low-income families, it should offer the subscriptions for free:

Dear Warren Fernandez, if you truly believe that The Straits Times is a precious gift to the young of low-income families, then you should put your own money where your mouth is. Sponsor your own free subscription.

Lee Kin Mun tweeted an image of the online news report, showing that 90% of the readers felt disgusted by the news:

@mrbrown: Readers let SPH know what they think about their “charity” auction.

In response, New Nation has launched its own charity drive to benefit the Singapore Children's Society:

…starting today, we’re launching a charity drive of our own, and our chosen beneficiary is the Singapore Children’s Society.

We’re doing this because we believe charity drives should be sincere, and not borne of a desperate attempt to market your own products.

They are aiming to raise $107,500 – the value of the car donated by Volkswagen to The Straits Times.

We’re not sure how much we can raise, but we’re going for broke: $107,500, which is the cost of the Volkswagen car. The campaign will last until 15th July, the same time Straits Times will announce the winning bidder.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The PAP tried their hardest to win over voters, with their candidate Desmond Choo giving out free porridge at a temple, setting up free legal clinics and promising all sorts of upgrading work to be done in the estate. Even Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean stepped into the fray, doing his best to highlight the shortcomings of the WP and to question the ability of their candidate Png Eng Huat, asking why Png had not been chosen by his party to be a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) after the general election.

Hougang by-election. Photo from The Online Citizen

When Png replied that it was because he had indicated that he did not want to be an NCMP, a leaked copy of the minutes of WP's ballot for NCMP was published in the mainstream media showing that Png's name had been on the ballot sheet, although he had only received one vote. DPM Teo then took this opportunity to question Png's integrity. WP's Secretary-General Low Thia Khiang labelled DPM Teo's comments as an attempt to “sabotage” Png's campaign.

Despite the PAP's efforts, Png won the election by 62%. Singapore's socio-political bloggers began to analyse the results, and what it may mean for both parties and Singapore in general.

Alex Au from Yawning Bread feels that this result will further damage PAP's ability to recruit:

The PAP’s defeat in Hougang with hardly a budge in vote share only underlines the fact that electoral calculations have now changed irrevocably.

Potential candidates approached by the PAP will be asking themselves whether the investment the party expects of them – in time, energy, loss of privacy, suffering possible attacks in new media – will pay off. What if the party places them in Aljunied or Hougang at the next election? Or some other constituency that suddenly becomes a hard fight, such as East Coast or Tanjong Pagar?

The Online Citizen praised Desmond Choo for having run a good campaign, but felt that his own efforts had been undermined by that of his party bosses:

At a youthful 33 years of age, Mr Choo unflinchingly took on decades of Hougang history where even more seasoned politicians would have blanched. The energetic Mr Choo has certainly been an improvement from the forgettable (indeed, now very much forgotten) Eric Low.

Mr Choo’s campaign had much to commend it, but he must surely be rueing the day his party bosses put their foot in it.

Dr Wong Wee Nam disagreed with the PAP's attempts to characterise the result of the by-election as being specific to Hougang rather than a reflection on Singapore as a whole:

Much as they would like to think so, how can the results not be partly the result of national sentiments? With the PAP promising the voters many programmes that are likely to be fulfilled by the resources at their disposal, purely local considerations could have given the PAP a resounding victory.

The PAP would be seriously mistaken if they believe that the result of the Hougang by-election does not reflect the unhappiness of Singaporeans in general.

Every Houganger has relatives or friends living outside Hougang. The problems these people face in their daily lives are the same. With the thousands of Singaporeans thronging the opposition’s rallies, the collective support must have had some strong influence on the minds of Hougang voters.

This election is, therefore, also a referendum on the PAP’s policies and its style of management. The PAP must take the bitter pill and change if they are going to make any future headway. The message from the result is clear. In the eyes of the voters, the PAP has not changed much since the last general election as reflected by the vote.

Ng E-Jay criticised the mainstream media for their double standards when it comes to reporting on different political parties:

I have just a couple of questions for Mr Wu. Would he have done the same thing had the issue concerned a PAP candidate and the leaked minutes concerned a PAP internal meeting instead? Or would he have waited for the PAP’s clarification before proceeding to publish the story?

I think the answers to these questions are pretty obvious. The MSM’s track record is very clear: they have never crossed the line with the PAP before, and if the issue concerned the alleged conduct of a PAP candidate or alleged information about internal PAP matters, they would most assuredly NOT have published anything until and unless due clarification came from the PAP.

I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever that the MSM would have given the PAP enough time to respond, at the PAP’s own discretion, should the issue have involved a PAP candidate.

But once it involves an opposition candidate, such rules no longer apply. Suddenly, the media is free to speculate, rumour-monger, and publish stories from anonymous sources who in some instances could very well be telling lies.

Tang Li at publichouse.sg highlights that the PAP seems unable to adapt to the change in Singapore's electorate:

If one looks at the by-election, it seems that the PAP remains unaware of how times have changed. Previous tactics of promising money and threats or challenges to sue might have worked in the past. Unfortunately, the public no longer accepts these sort of things.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

A writ of election has been issued, naming 16 May as Nomination Day, with Polling Day to follow ten days later. Both the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) and the Worker's Party quickly announced their nominated candidates: Desmond Choo for the former and Png Eng Huat for the latter. Although this can only be confirmed on Nomination Day, it is likely that there will not be a multi-cornered fight in the by-election.

Choo contested Hougang SMC in the 2011 General Election, losing to Yaw. Png stood as a candidate in Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency (GRC) during the 2011 General Election.

Hougang By-Election. Photo from The Online Citizen

WK writes in The Blue Sweater that the Hougang by-election could be used as a litmus test of Singaporean's support for the PAP – the party which won majority of the votes in 2011 General Election, as it has every elections since 1959:

One might question the fairness and objectivity of using an opposition stronghold as a litmus test, but the results will demonstrate whether the government's promises for change following the previous election has been acknowledged. If the WP wins by a wide (or even wider) margin, it demonstrates that there is a fundamental rejection of the PAP's governing philosophy. Not to mention that this is an election that the whole country is watching. The results matter as much to the residents of Hougang as it is to us.

In response to comments made by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam – who said that the by-election would solely be on local issues rather than national policy – Jackson Tan points out that Singapore is too small for elections to only focus on local issues, and that Hougang voters are affected by the same policies as the rest of Singapore:

…given the fact that Singapore is really a ‘small red dot,’ even by-elections on a constituency level can be viewed as a national election. This is because elections don’t come often (in fact, it’s once every five years or so), thus the chance to vote may indicate voters even consider national issues such as public transport, education and costs of living. In addition, the extent to which policies by the ruling party affects people cuts across all constituencies, be it GRCs or SMCs. The ongoing train breakdowns, for example, also affect Hougang residents, thus it is definite that they take it into consideration when voting. Perhaps the term ‘local election’ is more appropriate in bigger countries such as the US where states are governed differently.

On Twitter, H.Y. agrees:

@tanhuiyi: I don't see the logic of #HougangByelection focusing solely on local issues. Local issues are related to national issues. No?

A publichouse.sg editorial predicts that the Worker's Party will be able to hold on to Hougang, as it has done for over 20 years:

The PAP thus faces a daunting task of trying to reverse at least 15% of the vote in Hougang in order to wrestle it back from the WP. Even if the PAP sent out its big guns ministers to the ground to canvass for its likely candidate, Mr Desmond Choo, they would not carry much weight, especially in the prevailing political climate. In fact, the ministers themselves are seen as the causes of the ills which Singaporeans perceive in matters such as housing, jobs, wages, and the frequent breakdowns of the transport system.

The PAP’s battle encompasses a wider national sentiment of unhappiness with these bread and butter issues. One would think that it is no different in Hougang, and the WP can be expected to play these up to deflect attention from the Yaw saga.

…

It would thus seem that the WP will have a relatively comfortable victory in Hougang, its integrity intact.

Some Singaporeans are distrustful of the state-owned mainstream media's coverage of the by-election:

@sochris: and so the propaganda starts #HougangByElection

A photo posted by Channel NewsAsia, a mainstream media network has gone viral, shared by Singaporeans who found it hilariously ironic:

@mrbrown: PAP's tagline for #hougangbyelection is “Always Here for You”. This CNA photo captures it.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (1)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

After the General Election of 2011 – the first elections in which blogs and social media made a huge impact – the government is now proposing an Internet Code of Conduct to combat issues of anonymity, false rumours and even extremism and terrorism. Government ministers are calling on prominent members of the online community to come forward and create a code of conduct to regulate the Internet.

Most socio-political bloggers, however, have come out against this proposal, asking that the government leave the Internet alone. Many feel that the government's constant harping on this issue betrays a desire to control Singaporeans’ freedom of expression online just as they do offline.

Ng E-Jay is unconvinced of the logic or feasibility of a Code of Conduct:

How is anyone going to enforce such a code of conduct given the free-wheeling nature of the internet that knows no geographical boundaries? How is any organization supposed to develop a code of conduct that will reflect the overall sentiment of netizens without incurring vast skepticism pertaining to their political neutrality or lack thereof?

And what is the purpose of it all, when there are already adequate laws in place to deal with destructive behaviour like incitement to violence, sedition, sowing racial hatred, defamation, or spreading malicious rumours?

Siew Kum Hong writes that those who want to make their views heard online should also be ready and willing to stand up against any potential onslaught, just like those who have spoken out against the establishment in the past:

Yes, I fundamentally believe that it is better to have more voices speaking up than less. But people have to be willing to stand up for their views — and I have to question the commitment of anyone who thinks that being flamed and criticised is too high a price to pay, and that growing the thick skin that is really just the ante for online participation today is too difficult for them.

Those of us who have stood up and spoken up on views deemed anti-establishment and anti-Government bear our own risks in doing so. Defamation lawsuits, sniping and flaming, cyber-harassment, invasion of privacy, police complaints, possible threats to employment prospects, and yes the Internal Security Act — these threats and risks all come with the territory.

An online code of conduct will do nothing to protect us from those risks. And yet we continue to do what we do. I cannot speak for others, but I have very limited sympathy for those with such thin skins that they shy away from speaking up just because of the risk that they may be flamed. Compared to what some have experienced and undergone, that almost sounds trivial.

Andrew Loh asks the government to leave the online community alone, explaining that there is a lack of trust between the bloggers and the government:

It is woeful that, after 5 decades of this so-called “nation building” mainstream media, Singaporeans feel more disenchanted with it than ever. It can laud itself with all the (in-house) awards it wants, or even win international awards for design and paper quality, the truth is that our mainstream media lacks the kind of top quality journalism a first world country like ours desperately needs.

…

Yet, Yaacob Ibrahim, like ministers before him, continues to bury his head in the sand and praises the mainstream media to the high heavens.

It just tells me, and everyone else, how woefully inadequate his understanding of public sentiments is.

It is this which makes me reject any intrusion into the online space by the government, no matter how well-intentioned its purpose may be. There is a great distrust of the government among online practitioners.

Elaine Ee believes that the Code of Conduct will not be a solution. Instead, the government should free up the mainstream media:

What we need instead is a new journalistic environment, where the mainstream media are as free to tackle issues and make opinions as new media. Mainstream media needs to be allowed to move with the times, and be released from its public relations role of helping with “nation building” and social cohesion, which should never have been its job in the first place. Even if Mica stubbornly clings to this top-down media model it doesn’t mean readers will, and unless the mainstream media is opened up, new media will always have the edge.

This means both allowing existing mainstream media to cover things more openly and critically as well as allowing more mainstream media channels to emerge that represent different points of view. So we end up with a media landscape where there is space for, say, a range of newspapers that represent a spectrum of views, from conservative to liberal.

It does not seem as if the government is going to give up on its idea of establishing a Code of Conduct despite such resistance from the online community. But if they want it to be a project willingly undertaken by the online community, it seems like they have much more convincing to do.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (6)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

Lucky Tan describes getting stuck in the Circle Line breakdown:

I was on a Circle Line train when it broke down. My train which was very crowded  stopped at one of the stations and there was an announcement saying that the train was delayed. 20-30 minutes later we were told the Circle Line was down and everyone scrambled out. I took a bus (not the emergency one but normal service)  to a satellite town where I tried to get a cab at a taxi stand.  Waited more than half an hour before I was able to get one. The train failed and the effects cascaded into the taxi system because everyone would be trying to dial for a cab and the availability falls to zero- I tried calling Comfort-Delgro but the system wasn't able to allocate a taxi after 20 minutes.  Got to work about 1 hour 15 minutes late.

Overcrowding in a train station. Picture by Kirsten Han from The Online Citizen website

So many people have been affected by delays that SMRT has begun to issue train delay chits:

@sochris: LOL #SMRT issues timeslips for commuters caught in train disruptions! where else in the world will you find this?

@FakeSMRTCEO, a satirical Twitter account, compared riding the trains to current blockbuster The Hunger Games:

@smrtceo: I've decided to change #SMRT‘s motto from “Moving People, Enhancing Lives” to “May the odds be ever in your favour”

Some Singaporeans have also begun to crack jokes, making a pun out of the name of Land Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew:

@TheJohnnyBoy: Lui Stuck Yew #circlelinedown #smrt

The Minister has also announced that there will be weekend disruptions to train services from now on so that maintenance work can be carried out. Although the authorities have promised that measures will be taken to deal with these scheduled shutdowns, Alex Au thinks that we should look into alternative solutions:

I am not going to say that temporary closures should not happen. Experience in other cities shows us they are essential. Nor am I saying that bridging services aren’t part of the solution: they certainly must be. However, I am cautioning against an over-reliance on bridging services because it is user-unfriendly, and will still not be able to cope with heavy passenger loads.

He goes on to propose that there should be more duplication of routes between the buses and trains:

…the most natural way to obtain such redundancy, yet balanced with reasonable attention to cost and profitability, would be to have different companies run bus and train services. Let the bus company judge  how much to duplicate the train routes, and therefore compete for the same traffic. The worst outcome would be for the same company to run both the train and bus routes through the same corridor. The result will tend to be a determination to maintain high load levels on the train by cutting away bus services. This may increase the company’s profitability, but it also increases social vulnerability.

The latest occurrences of train breakdowns are happening at a time when the bidding for the Certificates of Entitlement (COE) allowing people to purchase cars hits an all-time high: S$92,000. For many middle class Singaporean families, this makes buying a car simply too expensive to be an option.

Lucky Tan feels that the bidding system for the COE is tilted in favour of the rich:

The main problem with the COE system it allocates a scarce resource based on a person's ability to pay rather than his needs. A middle income parent who has to ferry his children to school and take his parents to hospital can be out-bidded by a multi-millionaires's son who uses the car for dates and clubbing. The disadvantage of such a system is it causes an ever widening gap of unfulfilled demand among those with the greatest need for a car. In Singapore, where the income gap is so wide, over time more and more COEs will just go the rich rather than people who need it.

In his letter to the Straits Times forum, Chan Tau Chou agrees, and suggests that a balloting system be adopted instead:

The number of cars sold can at most match the number of COEs available, regardless of the COE price. This means it is unnecessary to have a price beyond an administrative fee required to run the system, which is meant to control car ownership and not generate revenue.

If important aspects like housing and education can be subject to balloting, surely a system can be designed to ballot for cars.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (2)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

In no time at all Singaporean tweeples began to contribute their observations of Singaporean culture and foibles.

Mr Brown refers to the expensive naming competitions Singapore had for the Budget Terminal and Marina Bay, which ended up in the two places being named the Budget Terminal and Marina Bay:

@mrbrown: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket The rocket would be named, after a million-dollar naming exercise, The Singapore Rocket.

@jeffcheong: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket & failed it will be known as air survey. Singapore never fail one. Like how ‘ponding’ is used to cover ‘flood'.

@contrabandkarma: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket that failed, Lui Tuck Yew would say that breakdowns are unavoidable.

@dingneng: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket it would be near GE, so politicians can brag about it.

@kixes: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket that failed, @STcom‘s headline would read, “Min of Defense says Singapore Rocket good first effort”.

JohnnyBoy refers to Yam Ah Mee, who shot to fame after announcing the results of the 2011 General Elections:

@MrJohnHoHoHo: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket Yam Ah Mee will be the one to do the countdown.

@visakanv: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket we would have a cheesy song with hand-gestures, like YOG's Oh Yeah x3

@weizhu: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket Must get aunties to pat the launchpad first.

Adine refers to the Singaporean penchant for taking note of auspicious numbers so that they can bet on them in the lottery:

@axixe: #ifSingaporelaunchedarocket people would be asking if it had a number plate.. For auspicious reasons.

These tweets from Singaporeans are just yet another example of the Singaporean aptitude for trolling, turning events and memorable quotes into memes for satire and amusement.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The new regulation was announced by Minister of State for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin in Parliament on 8 March 2012, and instantly attracted many responses from people on both sides of the argument.

The campaign for a weekly day off for domestic workers – many of whom come from less developed or poorer countries such as Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia – was started in 2008 by migrant worker non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as TWC2, HOME and Unifem Singapore.

From the Facebook page of TWC2

Andrew Loh writes in publichouse.sg that a weekly day off is a basic right for workers in many countries around the world:

To the ordinary person, it was puzzling and indeed embarrassing to see that there was even a need to champion such a cause – a day off for workers is a norm in countries around the world. Singapore, sadly, was among the exceptions.

Joses Kuan also contributed an article to publichouse.sg, and applauds Tan Chuan-Jin for his actions:

In my time volunteering with TWC2 back in Singapore, I had not seen a member of the government, much less a full minister, meaningfully engage migrant worker NGOs and try to effect change. BG Tan has, however, made trips down to TWC2’s Cuff Road Project for displaced, injured and exploited workers, sensitized the everyday Singaporeans to the heinous existence of “repatriation companies” (euphemism for legal thugs), among other substantive actions. This move to codify in law a mandatory off-day is therefore not just a simple exercise in window-dressing and BG Tan should be applauded for his work and direction.

However, he also warns against “premature enthusiasm”:

This new move begs more than a few questions which remain unanswered. How enforceable is this legally-binding piece of legislation? Who’s going to police and scrutinize employers and make sure they comply? What about reprisals for transgression? How qualitatively different is it going to be from the current “standard contracts” which already are instituted (that disproportionately favour employers who can “buy off” discretionary off days)? How about bargaining power or employer-employee dynamics in a new milieu which usually gravitate towards the employer; and are compounded by issues of bad debt, agent loans to service and the impounding of passports.

Complaints and criticism began to pour in from employers opposed to the weekly day off. A number of them wrote in to the Straits Times forum, citing different reasons from extra pressure on Singaporean employers to increased social ills.

Thng Tien Guan also suggested that weekly day off for domestic workers might be detrimental to Singapore's tourism industry:

Many maids gather in big groups along Orchard Road on their days off, and some of these groups can be rowdy. What would be the impact on tourism?

The sudden government decision on having a weekly day off for maids, an important issue affecting families, is disappointing.

The stream of anti-weekly day off sentiment from certain employers were harshly criticised on Twitter:

@Giles_iPresume: The global coverage of Singapore legislating one day off for maids is embarrassing, but don't tell that to the Straits Times letters page

@woonhian: This is appalling. Singaporeans hate being labelled dogs, but they sure as hell like treating others as such.

@kj_nash: @kixes I have no sympathy for employers who will have their routine interrupted by having to treat a maid like a real person.

Some have noted that the option to compensate workers with a day's pay to work on their off day leaves room for abuse, and said that $15 – the suggested amount – was far too little.

@BeccaDBus: @kixes @STcom The value of a day off is all the days you have to work to get it. Therefore, it should be about $100 give or take

@leyandrea: HOW DARE U ASSUME YR $15 IS JUST COMPENSATION RT @STcom: #Maids 'should get about $15 each time they work on day off’

Eddy Blaxell pointed out that it would still be possible for domestic workers to not receive a growth in income:

One article claimed that maids would be paid 15% more, because most maids are paid monthly and compensation for rest days would have to be paid on top of their monthly salary.

But these changes don't apply to existing contracts. They apply only to workers on work permits issued after 1 January 2013. And wages for those workers haven't been set yet. An employer who wants to continue hiring a maid on exactly the same basis as he is currently doing faces no obstacles. He reduces the maid's monthly salary by 15% and gives it back as compensation. It's as simple as that.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (2)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper

The campaign includes a series of four posters depicting social workers and examples of cases in which they have helped. Words such as “ruined”, “destroyed”, “abandoned” and “hopeless” have been highlighted. These posters can be seen online, as well as in public areas such as bus stops.

These ads have been widely criticised by Singaporeans, who felt that they were offensive.

@flubberzz: WTF is wrong with you MCYS and Starlight Advertising?? Who in the right mind would come up with this kind of campaign?

Popular local blogger mrbrown expresses support for the social workers, but points out that the ads send the wrong message about people with disabilities:

I love social workers and what they do but come on, MCYS, people with disabilities are not hopeless.

This kind of message just perpetuates the idea that the disabled are liabilities who need rescuing and sympathy, rather than a valuable part of our society who are differently-abled.

As a father of a special needs child, I am deeply offended by this kind of messaging.

In an article for The Online Citizen, Ghui observes that these posters may serve to alienate those in need from the rest of society:

While MCYS may not have intended it, these posters serve to fuel society’s prejudice towards the handicapped or people who have fallen through the cracks. Instead of positive encouragement, it has reinforced the idea that the handicapped or infirm are somewhat lacking and ought to be pitied. I am not at all suggesting that these individuals do not need help but our assistance should stem from a communal desire of mutual assistance rather than a need to help “objects of pity”.

The Society for the Physically Disabled did not comment specifically on the ads, they expressed happiness that MCYS was doing a campaign “to attract people to the profession.”

Some see these ads as representative of attitudes towards disability – both of this region as well as of the Singapore government:

@sonnylebythebay: Asia still has a way to go in dealing/working with people w/disabilities & the mentally ill. RT @kixes http://mrbrwn.co/yDkF53

@ambarvalia: The MCYS ‘hopeless’ ads indicate the govt's usual high horse by implying tt the people shld be grateful for e govt's “help”.

In response, the MCYS spokesman clarified that the word “hopeless” in the poster did not refer people with disabilities, but to the sense of hopelessness that they feel about their condition. The ministry said that the campaign was simply trying to encourage more people to take up social work as a profession.

Written by Kirsten Han · comments (0)
Share: Donate · facebook · twitter · reddit · StumbleUpon · delicious · Instapaper