SINGAPORE: Singaporeans online have criticised the Finance Ministry’s decision to enter into a paid partnership to promote PM-designate Lawrence Wong and the Budget statement he delivered last week.
The controversial post features an image of a couple gazing at a baby, with the father saying he has named the child after “someone who’s been supporting us through the hard times!”
When the mother asks who that would be, the father replies, “Lawrence Wong”.
SGAG added in the caption to the post: “okay I’m also gonna name my future kid that! But for real, with the recent Budget 2024 announcements, Singaporeans can expect support with the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme Voucher, reduced monthly childcare fee caps and enhanced existing preschool subsidies.”
Linking to MOF’s official Budget website, SGAG added that “These measures will help young couples start a family with less worries.” The meme page disclosed that this post is in paid partnership with MOF, in the last line.
The revelation that the post is a paid partnership with the Government sparked a wave of criticism.
Many Singaporeans found the use of taxpayer funds for what they deemed a political promotion to be inappropriate. Some users even expressed their intention to unfollow SGAG due to the perceived misuse of public resources.
Facebook user Patorikku said: “Somewhat funny, yes, but I’d rather the Government didn’t use our tax money to commission otherwise meaningless memes. As difficult as it may be for the Government to separate the two, it is not the Ministry of Finance’s job to campaign for the PAP.”
Another netizen, Nicky Lee added: “When u know carry ball is the easier way to earn money … Lol…”
Some others commented on the post with gifs showing that they feel the post is cringy, with some even posting the “vomiting” emoji in response to the post.
The discontent among citizens centers on the perception that taxpayer dollars should be allocated to more essential and non-partisan government functions rather than funding sponsored content that could be interpreted as political campaigning. The controversy raises questions about the appropriateness of government bodies engaging in such partnerships and the potential impact on public trust in the use of public funds.