It is a rare combination in a society which worships materialism and connections.
Seen from that perspective, civil society activist Constance Singam is a poor cousin to many of her fellow citizens.
But seen from another — and more satisfying and enduring — angle, she is a rich citizen, having combined the intellectual and the ethical centres to launch her many fights to correct the wrongs she saw and still sees in her country.
The mother of Singapore’s civil society — as she is described by Alvin Tan, founder and artistic director of The Necessary Stage — has a disarming charm about her.
Behind that charm is a fighter who couldn’t close one eye to being “alienated as an Indian, a woman and activist.”
Her baby steps into the world of activitism started when her husband of 18 years, journalist N.T.R Singam, died of a heart attack in a private hospital because of a cardiologist’s bad judgment.
A letter she wrote to The Straits Times, A Rest In Hospital Became A Nightmare, triggered a debate about the standard of patient care in private hospitals with the government moving in to act.
“I had no idea that the letter …was going to be the first of hundreds of letters I would write to the press. But life has been like that for me, thrusting me into situations that I would never have thought of entering,” she writes.
The big steps were to come soon after. Her husband’s death in 1978 when she was 42 lead to searching questions about her identity, loneliness and future.
She decided to get a driving licence, something her husband was not in favour of. “The day I drove on my own remains the most liberating experience of my life,” she writes.
The next decision — to go to Melbourne to do an honours degree in literature — opened up a new world of intellectual curiosity and discovery that finally lead her to Aware, the Singapore women’s group.
“Its agenda demanded intellectual work, which appealed to me…Equally important were its broader goals, which went beyond the movement against sexism to embrace the liberation of our society from racism and other behaviour that demumanise certain segments of society,” she says in her book.
One year after she joined Aware as a member came the numbing ISA arrests of 1987 when a number of her friends were detained.
Would she be the next target, she feared. “For the first time, I experienced what it was like to live in fear…
“I am not fearless and am actually a coward,” she writes with candour.
Fear continued to haunt her as she went on to head Aware for a total of six years and to confront issues frowned upon by the state.
One of them was domestic violence against women. The official line was that it was a domestic issue. It took 10 years of lobbying for that mindset to change to one where the victims were given legal protection.
It was not just female-oriented issues that Aware concentrated on. In 1989 Constance and an Aware colleague wrote about the under performance of Indian students and called for government intervention.
Two years later, the government formed the Singapore Indian Development Association to tackle the educational and socio-economic issues facing the community.
“I was appalled that yet another race-based organisation was being set up, reinforcing the attitude that underachievement was race-related and not an outcome of disempowerment, as I suspected,” she writes.
Don’t politicise issues, she and her team were told.
The fear was made worse by friends and relatives who kept asking about it.
Did you ever get over this, I ask.
“I don’t think I ever did. But then I am single, not rich, have no status. And I am from Kerala,” she says matter-of-factly.
Peter Lim, who has known Constance for more than 40 years, said: “Her blossoming was totally unexpected by me. It is a testimony to the way Singapore society was transitioning that it took the death of a doting husband to liberate her and give her the freedom to eventually respond to her conscience and take the path towards socio-political activism.
Constance is passionate about her roots. Whether it is Kerala, that narrow-strip of land in south India where everybody has an opinion on everythihg and where she lived for seven years as a child, or Singapore, where she spent almost all of her 77 years, she is a patriot.
She could have decided to make Australia her home, disappointed with the events back home.
But she is a concerned citizen, she tells me when I bring up the two interlocking personalities in her book and ask: Which comes first — the veteran activist or the concerned citizen.
“The concerned citizen first because of the treatment of the minority in Singapore, the arrogance of the people at the top that they know best.”
That is the Constance Singam Singaporeans have come to know and admire. No mincing of words, true to her cause and a fiercely independent soul.
Mother of Singapore's civil society
Is anguish over new ‘authoritarian moves’ unfounded?
Talks between the Singapore government and the bloggers broke down this week following the MDA’s announcement about the new
Internet regulation for news portals.
The Online Citizen’s editor Mr Choo Zheng Xi said, “There is a need for this physical protest because numerous dialogues with the government over the last five years about liberalisation and deregulating the Internet have actually concluded in the opposite.”
Calling themselves #FreeMyInternet, the group is organizing a protest on the 8th of June 2013 at 4pm at Hong Lim Green. They have also planned a “blackout day” on Thursday 6th of June where their blogs will be blanked for a period of 24 hours.
#FreeMyInternet is carrying on with the protest despite the government’s assurance that blogs are not affected by this new regulation.
“We want the government to know that the people need to be consulted, and that parliament needs to be consulted before sweeping changes are made to legislation,” said Choo.
There also seems to be some disagreement about whether the new ruling is a regulation or legislation.
A regulation is the manner in which a particular legislation is enforced. In this case, the new Internet regulation seems to be the enforcement of NPPA online. MDA said that it wants to create the parity between traditional and online media.
Pre-emptive strike on aspiring media companies
Some media watchers in Singapore, however, view this new regulation as a pre-emptive strike on aspiring media companies.
Currently, the media landscape in Singapore is dominated by two government linked companies – The Singapore Press Holdings (SPH) and Mediacorp. According to an earlier report in The Independent Singapore, SPH’s latest quarterly results showed a double dip in readership and revenue of its papers, “including The Straits Times, declining by S$2.4 million and advertising dollars going down by S$13.9 million.”
Some Singaporeans feel that there is some fatigue among Straits Times consumers and they are seeking alternative online news outlets.
While self-styled blogs have had a lot of traction recently, Dr Cherian George says that existing online players, often run by volunteers, have yet to develop into a viable alternative news outlet. They also do not have the broad base news that is currently offered by the traditional media. At best, online blogs are good supplements to traditional media in Singapore, he says.
That leaves a yawning gap between what is demanded and what is currently available in the media landscape in Singapore. Given the shift in readership and the desire to consume news from non-state media, the online space is left vacant for an upstart news media.
Climate of fear
The latest move by the government has created an environment of fear. #FreeMyInternet seems to be of the opinion that government is out to get them, to effectively shut them down and to silence them indefinitely.
The government does have a history of clamping down dissent though. In 2001, a popular socio-political site, Sintercom.com was asked to apply for a media license with Singapore Broadcasting Authority and ten years later, The Online Citizen was gazetted as a political association.
One PAP grassroots member said that strategy now is to give the netizens the rope; “Let them protest and overreact about the new Internet regulation. The people will soon know that they are just crying wolf!”
Their fear and anguish is not unfounded – the new Internet regulation’s rules are so broad that most blogging platforms like TOC, TRE and TRS fall into this new regulatory framework. The government has not made its intentions clear and has left much to be speculated, creating an environment of fear and anguish.
We do not know what the government’s real motivations are, whether their real target is the aspiring media company or the blogger sphere. As for now, we can only speculate – but one thing for sure, the government moves-in to not only protect its monopoly on the media; they also want to shape public opinion by controlling the mass media and most importantly hold their grip on power.
But who is the real target?
Predictability suffers as PM No 4 remains elusive
By PN Balji
Who would have thought that this piece would still be relevant a decade later?
Way before Mr Lee Kuan Yew stepped aside as Singapore’s first Prime Minister in 1990, the world knew who would take over. And as Mr Goh Chok Tong warmed the seat, everybody knew that he was keeping it nice and sweet for his deputy and Mr Lee’s son, Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
These were perfectly-scripted handovers of power, something that must have been envied by administrations the world over. Today, nine years after Lee Junior became the country’s third PM, a major unpredictablity has crept into the smooth and sanitised succession process that has been part of the Singapore government’s bragging rights.
For the first time in Singapore’s post-independent history, there is no clear clue as to who will become the country’s fourth PM.
With another seven years left for a new leader to take over — PM Lee has set a target of 2020 to step aside — the succession issue will get more vexing.
The bumps on the road to a predictable succession are many, some are self-made, some reflect the changing political times.
There is an archaic obsession among the elite that the person taking over must be in his late 40s or early 50s. Mr Goh became PM at the age of 49 and the present PM took over at 52. If the political bigwigs are still stuck in this mindset, then even the three front runners — Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing and Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan Jin — are unlikely to hit winning post.. Mr Heng is 53, the other two are 42.
They have had a fast track into politics and into the Cabinet. Leading the pack is Mr Heng. He has an impressive track record: he started his career in the police force as a front-line officer, spent three years as Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s principal private secretary, moved up to become the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and went on to become Managing Director of the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
As Education Minister, he is already making a name for himself by pushing through subjects like character-building and values-immersion in a school curriculum fixated with excellence in examinations.
A source who attended one of his closed-door sessions said: “He gives the impression that he means business. He
seems to be someone who doesn’t want to be bogged down by his predecessor’s policies. He is in a hurry to get things done.”
But, and this is a big but in Singapore politics, he might be considered too old to be groomed for the top job. He has already breached the 50-year age barrier.
Next in the pecking order are two top army men: Mr Chan and Mr Tan.
The military men, together with Mr Heng, were introduced into politics in the last elections in May 2011 and, more or else immediately after, thrust into Cabinet positions.
Of the two, Mr Tan seems to have a little edge so far. His Manpower Ministry is a hot political potato as Singapore tries to shift away from a free-wheeling immigration policy that became the single biggest and sharpest lightning rod at the elections. The flip side of the immigration debate is a big push to improve this modern economy’s low productivity, which again comes under Mr Tan’s ministry.
He has had to deal with a crisis when some SMRT bus drivers went on strike last year. Although found to be shaky initially, Mr Tan managed to tackle the repercussions of the country’s first strike in 26 years with a firm and fair hand. Firm in taking the strikers to court and fair in blaming SMRT for not being nimble enough to detect the drivers’ grievances and avoiding the industrial action, a sharp blow to Singapore’s proud record for labour peace and harmony.
Mr Tan has also made it a point to reach out to NGOs and journalists of the online media, not always successfully.
A source who met him a couple of times said: “He indicated that his efforts were not very successful. Some of the NGOs, he said, had played him out by saying one thing in front of him and doing just the opposite in the public arena.”
What is more tangible is his ministry’s efforts to go after employers who treated their foreign workers in a way which brings shame to a First World country. Just this week, on Tuesday, 20 officers inspected dormitories after a tip-off. The accommodation was in a bad state. “This is clearly wrong…and the ministry has given the employers notice to move the workers to proper housing,” it said in its blog.
It also threw the book at 1,062 bosses last year and this year alone it has hauled up 428.
Employers who put their foreign charges through Third World conditions has been a sore point with many Singaporeans. Nothing much was done until recently, a situation the government wants to change.
As for the other front runner, Mr Chan helms what the PM expects to be a game-changing ministry. It has to bridge the ever-growing gap between the haves and the have-nots, another troublesome political topic. The same source said: “Mr Chan seems to be very comfortable when it comes to one-to-one chats. He follows up to fix meetings and engage on issues.”
When it comes to public speaking, Mr Chan has still a very long way to go. A source who attended one of his public speeches said: “He lacks charisma, and is not sure-footed enough to stray away from a prepared text. Even when reading from it, he comes across as being a dull speaker.”
But Mr Tan and Mr Chan do not seem to have time on their hands to prove themselves in the next seven years, when PM No 3 is likely to step aside. In contrast, Mr Goh had 14 years and Mr Lee 20 years, although many would say that if not for being stricken by cancer, the latter would have made it to the top much earlier.
If PM Lee sticks to the script of giving the young blood the normal gestation period to show their mettle, then it is possible that one of the two present deputy prime ministers will be asked to manage the ship for a few years until one of the young stars are ready. That is, have an interim PM. If that decision was left to Singaporeans, then Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam will be the man. He has the right mix of empathy, intellect and international standing (he is the only Singapore minister who chairs as high-powered a committee as IMF’s policy steering group) that voters now demand of their leaders. The obstacle is that he is from a minority community in an overwhelmingly Chinese society. Even as recently as five years ago, in an effort to blunt the Obama wave hitting Singapore, PM Lee said publicly that the country is not ready for a non-Chinese.
There are also other possibilities. Some observers are beginning to look at a dark horse: Foreign and Law Minister K. Shanmugam. The man who was catapulted into the Cabinet after remaining in the sidelines as MP for 20 years seems to be putting his finger in many pies. From animal rights to gay issues to blowing the whistle on stall holders selling beef as mutton to having a heavy media presence, Mr Shanmugam is becoming a new player in a country where politicians are known to keep strictly to their portfolios.
His charm is also being displayed at private functions. A source who attended a recent charity dinner was touched to see him moving from table to table, shaking hands and displaying a perpetual smile.
“I have never seen such a display of warmth by a Singapore politician in recent times,” she said.
There is also a wild card that cannot be discounted. A potential long-term leader might emerge in the next election — that must be held by 2016 — and fast-tracked into the Cabinet and into the No 1 position.
Who said Singapore is a dull place for political watchers? Look beneath the surface and you will see signs of impending changes emerging every now and then. Political unpredictability is the big running story here.
Netizens told to put their money where their mouth is
Talk used to be cheap but not anymore. It will cost you $50,000, no less, to express your point of view on the Internet. Even if you had a great idea, or a better way of doing things or a feedback to the government, the Internet is not the place to raise it.
MDA announced a new Internet regulation to rein-in free speech on the Inte
rnet. The new regulation apparently applies to all socio-political “news” sites. However, there seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what that means and how it will affect websites like TRE and TOC. According to the latest MDA press statement, “the content guidelines apply to all content on the news sites, including readers’ comments on the news sites.”
Leading bloggers in Singapore are up in arms over the new Internet regulation. They are concerned as voluntary based organizations and free news site, they will not be able to operate in such an oppressive environment and to raise the $50k performance bond would be too onerous.
There also seems to be a wider concern that this is used as an effective tool to stifle dissent and to clip the wings of opposition political parties on the rise. Both NSP and SDP have made their press statements expressing their concerns and regret.
According to media observers, the PAP hardliners have won over those who have championed for a more open and consultative society.
Nevertheless, the latest move did not come without warning. Kishore Mahbubani, the current Dean of NUS’ LKY School of Public Policy recently said: “I am extremely worried about the cynicism that the Singaporean blogosphere is developing towards these public institutions. Over time this cynicism could act like an acid that erodes the valuable social trust accumulated.”
On the contrary, a leading blogger in Singapore Alex Au argues in his blog that the best way to counter cynicism and irresponsible speech is for the community to build immunity. He says, “The best defence a community has against irresponsible speech is to firstly acquire an immunity to it and secondly for many individuals to feel empowered to speak up against it. Government playing nanny again is the surest way to thwart this maturing process. A government that puts on iron gloves disempowers citizens from doing their bit.”
Just as we were discussing this, one political observer said that this may have wider ramifications for Singapore in the global setting. A quick research on the Internet shows otherwise.
Global crackdown on dissent
It seems Singapore is not alone in curtailing free speech. Apparently, some member countries in the United Nations have been lobbying for stricter control of the Internet with the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Some 42 countries filter and censor content out of the 72 studied by the Open Net Initiative. This doesn’t even count serial offenders such as North Korea, China and Cuba. Over the past two years, Freedom House says governments around the world have enacted 19 new laws threatening online free expression: “Accustomed to media control, these governments fear losing it to the open internet. They worry about the spread of unwanted ideas. They are angry that people might use the internet to criticize their governments.”
Like Singapore, several authoritarian regimes reportedly propose to ban anonymity from the web, making it easier to find and arrest dissidents. In Singapore, we have several incidents of bloggers and opposition politicians who have either paid damages or have been intimidated with a defamatory suit.
It is also quite likely that the responsibilities of the private sector system that manages domain names and internet addresses may be transferred to the government.
Other measures may include the internet content provider, small or large, to pay new tolls in order to reach people across borders, meaning to say sites like TRE and TRS that have servers hosted in foreign countries may have to pay toll to reach our readers in Singapore.
Oppression is counter-productive
Contrary to the views of our leaders, freedom of speech has a stabilizing effect on our society. According to Thomas I. Emerson, freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. It acts as a “safety valve” to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that “The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus.” Emerson furthermore maintains that “Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay.”
Perhaps it is the bureaucratic decay that we should worry about for it is the same decay that is standing in the way of progress. Our ruling elite think that they can stop regression through oppression; that they can stop bureaucratic decay through regulation.
Putting a price tag so that we can speak cheapens, not us, but the very bureaucrats who have committed this travesty. Our words are worth their weight in gold for our feedback is pensive.
The crackdown has just started and this government, the very guardian of our democracy, is using the power that we have bestowed unto them to regulate and put an end to free speech on the Internet. They are supposedly our spokespersons – they speak, they act and they execute – just to persist for their own political ends.
The new-found freedom as we know it, that we are so fond of; that gave us hopes of a better tomorrow; that rekindled our spirit of nationalism expires on the 1st of June.
Singapore's new internet rules
LIGHT TOUCH WITH A HARD KNOCK
Singapore is a strange country, politically speaking that is. The signals it sends out one day can send you the wrong way the very next 
day if you follow them blindly.
Like this one: Just one day after a smiling Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had tea and a tete-a-tete with 15 guests from the online world, a government press release announced rules to license news websites.
As the rules began to sink in, the light touch the authorities had kept insisting on that it will use in its internet policy began to morph into a sinister hard knock that can be used if these websites step out of line.
Although opacity was written over most of the rules, three areas were clear enough to have a chilling effect on netizens and opposition politicians.
Such websites will have to apply for individual licences if they have more than one news story on Singapore per week and attract more than 50,000 unique visitors from Singapore per month — all this over a period of two months.
There is also a Sing$50,000 performance bond they have to put up with the government.
Questions there were many: What is a news story? Who decides what is one? Aren’t there enough laws to deal with outlets that cross the strictures on areas like race, language and religion?
And finally, what is the real intent of this new licensing regime?
The government’s explanation is that the rules are intended to put the websites on some kind of an equal footing with the mainstream media, which has been governed by licensing rules soon after the ruling People’s Action Party established its grip on politics in Singapore in the 1970s.
But many see other motives. One, the coming general election — which must be held by 2016. The 2011 election and the two by-elections after that were game changers for a political oasis called Singapore.
In 2011, PAP’s popular vote hit a historic low of 60.1 per cent and three ministers in a Group Representation Constituency were booted out. In the two by-elections after that, a sitting Opposition MP’s sacking because of an extra-marital affair had no real effect on the standing of the Workers’ Party and its girl next door candidate who handsomely defeated a high-flying surgeon representing the PAP.
The latter result caused such a stir that even the Opposition party had to temper voters’ expectations when it said it was not ready to run the country.
Despite a think tank and other establishment figures trying to douse the enthusiasm and jubilance of an internet world’s reporting of the election and by-elections, there was no doubt that it played a major role in the embarrassment for the ruling party.
The mainstream press tried to keep pace with its election coverage, but the political genie was already out of the bottle.
Two, uncertainty. The real sting in the new rules is the sword that hangs over those running the websites. The announcement names 10 websites that qualify to be licensed — the nine websites of the two mainstream media powerhouses and that of yahoo.
The others have not been touched, yet. But the announcement made it clear that it was not ruling out other popular socio-political sites if they meet licensing criteria. That is government speak for those who misbehave.
The net result is likely to be an online world that is likely to second guess the government and maybe even err on the side of caution when it comes to putting out its content.
Three, money power. Putting up a Sing$50,000 deposit is a huge undertaking for many of these websites as they are run on a voluntary basis with concerned citizens coming together for a cause and a passion.
One has already reacted by saying it might have no choice but close down if it is licensed. Others are already talking about going underground or putting up servers in places untraceable and unreachable.
Four, mainstream media’s plight. Readership and advertising decline is beginning to take hold as Singaporeans, especially the young, are dumping print and advertisers are asking serious questions about the high cost of advertising in mainstream papers,
It was a political master stroke by Mr Lee Kuan Yew to give both print and TV a monopoly, with The Straits Times riding a profit wave for the last 40 years. That was one way to buy the print giant’s loyalty.
The gravy train is now under threat with the Singapore Press Holdings’ latest quarterly results showing a double whammy: readership revenue of its papers, including The Straits Times, declining by Sing$2.4 million and advertising dollars going down by Sing$13.9 million.
For the government, this is a big worry because it does not have another strong platform to get across its messages.
But what should really worry many Singaporeans is how the rules were introduced with no debate in Parliament, no discussion outside of it and no regard for public sentiment.
This especially after the Prime Minister kickstarted a Singapore Conversation soon after the GE 2011 seeking views from all sections of society on the nation they want to build. Yes, Singapore is a strange country.
Separation of powers and roles lead to better governance
There is a moral outrage over how the AIMS-FMSS deals were concluded. The jury is still out and one should not trivialize what has transpired so far. The larger socio-economic implications of these transactions are basically anti-competitive in nature; it may also be perceived to be politically partial and ultimately, it is the man on the street that loses most.
Town Councils were formed in 1989 to empower local elected representatives and residents to run their own estates. As a result, elected Members of Parliament are permitted to lead Town Councils and decide on local estate management matters. Emphasizing this point, Minister Khaw Boon Wan in his Parliamentary sitting on the 13th of May 2013 said, “As MPs, we are given a lot of latitude to run TCs. “
However, our point of contention is that MPs do not have a carte blanche on this matter. We still have rules, even it is not explicitly spelled out in the Town Council Act there are procedures that the MPs could have referred to under the Singapore Government Procurement Regime (SGPR) prescribed by the Ministry of Finance when awarding TC contracts.
Shifting political landscape
Our political landscape has changed; there is a greater awareness of politics and scepticism that those in power may not always get their house in order. There is greater awareness of politics, good governance and policies that provide opportunities for upward movement for the individual in the society.
What is troubling though are arguments put forth by the main stream media that politicizing town councils are perfectly fine as long as it is not broke. Proponents of this argument are missing the point altogether. We elect MPs to represent us in the highest legislative body in Singapore – the Parliament. Town councils are not only an unnecessary distraction and it conflates the role of decision making with managerial authority.
As we have probably come to see, in both cases, mixing the policy making body with the executive body may lead to poor governance. It appears that poor governance is legalized in our political system through legislation, and we see no point in crying foul when parties have been doing what is considered “proper” based on our outmoded laws.
Lapses in Governance
Mr Teo Ho Pin, the Organizing Secretary of the People’s Action Party made serious allegations of lapses in governance in the way AHTC (Aljunied-Hougang Town Council) contracts were awarded. Netizens were quick to point out that he is out to fix the opposition. Is that the case or is there any merit to what he said?
Using the SGPR as a yardstick, the FMSS procurement has failed to meet two basic criteria:
- The WP failed to call for an Open, Selective or Limited Tender for the AHTC contracts. The SGPR states that tendering processes are used for any value in excess of $70,000.
- The WP failed to pre-qualify FMSS as prescribed in Government Supplier Registration where the supplier’s capability and financial standing are evaluated.
Financial Standing of FMSS
FM Solutions & Services was incorporated four days after WP won the Aljunied constituency in May 2011 by WP supporters Mr Danny Loh and his wife Ms How Weng Fan.
Given that Mr Loh and Ms How are officers of AHTC, the key question is where did they find the money required as capital base i.e Net Tangible Asset of $1.5 in order to qualify for a project of this size?
The image below is a screen grab of the financial requirements for companies bidding for government projects under the guidelines for government supplier relations. Deriving from the chart below, FMSS needs to have a Paid up Capital of at least $1.5M and a revenue base of $10M to execute the projects by AHTC.
It is obvious that FMSS being a new outfit would not have met the financial criteria of projects tendered in the public or private sector space, let alone meet the minimum requirement of paid up capital.
This beckons the question of why the Workers’ Party selected FMSS and the basis for awarding such a large contract.
As Teo suggested in his Facebook post, this transaction raises “serious questions.” The fact is, in the absence of any selection criteria and a formal tendering process, WP is left exposed to allegations of impropriety and lapses in governance.
However, Ms Sylvia Lim of the Workers’ Party stands firm that the party leaders have done no wrong and has challenged the PAP to report this matter to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. We’ll leave it to the relevant agencies to determine if there was any wrongdoing.
It is apt, perhaps, to remind one that the Service and Conservancy Fees are a form of taxation and therefore any disbursement of those funds ought to be subjected to the same rigour and scrutiny as we would with any other public sector projects. The question we’re raising is, and it applies to both AIMS and FMSS, why should there be an exception with town councils?
Maybe it’s time to revert our town councils as public institutions. Separation of powers is the key to good governance. One thing for sure, it will definitely prevent future occurrences of such lapses.
M’sian politician campaigning in S’pore – why only an “assessment” by S’pore police?
On 16 May, filmmaker Mr Martyn See filed a police report about the alleged electioneering activities of Malaysian politician, Mr Abdul Ghani Othman, on Singapore soil. Mr Ghani, who was the Menteri Besar (Chief Minister) of Johor, was reported to have crossed the Causeway on 2 May, during the height of the Malaysian General Election, to “canvass for votes” among Malaysians in Singapore.
“I am appalled that Dato’ Ghani was allowed to import Malaysian politics into Singapore,” Mr See wrote in his police report, “and in the process promoted his political cause in the full presence of our media. I hereby file an official complaint against Dato’ Hajji Abdul Ghani Bin Othman for violation the Public Order Act. Members of the media who had knowingly contributed in the promotion of his cause should also be investigated.”
Mr See’s allegations seem to be supported by local media reports here in Singapore.
Channel Newsasia said:
“Meanwhile, outgoing Johor Chief Minister Abdul Ghani Othman on Thursday took his electoral fight to Singapore – by taking a bus down to meet factory workers in the Republic.”
The TODAY newspaper reported:
“Johor Mentri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman yesterday took his campaign across the Causeway when he made a surprise trip on board the Causeway Link public bus from Gelang Patah to Jurong East Bus Terminal.”
The Straits Times said:
“Mr Abdul Ghani took a bus on Thursday morning to Singapore to experience what it was like for Malaysians who travel daily to the city state, and to canvass for votes.”
The reports seem to be quite unequivocal in their assertions that Mr Ghani, accompanied by supporters, did indeed campaign in Singapore, which may have contravened Singapore’s Public Order Act (POA), mentioned by Mr See in his police statement.
However, the joint-statement by the Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs (MFA) on 17 May, dismissed Mr See’s report.
The two-paragraph statement by the ministries reads [emphasis added]:
“The Singapore Police Force confirms that a report has been lodged regarding Mr Ghani’s visit to Singapore on 2 May 2013. The Police’s assessment is that no offence is disclosed from this report. The acts referred to in the report such as arriving in Singapore, having breakfast or speaking to reporters do not constitute an offence. In the case of Mr Ghani, it would appear that there was no campaigning, although some members of his team were wearing campaign shirts.
“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has registered with the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore that campaigning activities by foreigners are not allowed in Singapore. In particular, the wearing of campaign shirts by some of Mr Ghani’s team in Singapore during the Malaysian General Election period could be misconstrued and such cases should not recur.”
It is commendable that the authorities acted in such a swift fashion, issuing the statement just a day after Mr See made his police report.
However, there are a few points which bear questioning.
The ministries’ statement seems to be based entirely on an “assessment” of Mr See’s police statement, instead of an actual investigation into Mr Ghani’s activities during his visit here.
Why did the Police not conduct an investigation instead?
There does seem to be grounds to believe that Mr Ghani had indeed campaigned on Singapore soil. For example:
- At least 3 local media outlets here reported Mr Ghani’s intention to campaign in Singapore, and even report that he had indeed campaigned whilst here, as the Channel Newsasia report above shows.
- Mr Ghani was accompanied by supporters who were wearing “campaign shirts”, according to the MHA/MFA statement itself.
- The news had reported Malaysian opposition politician Mr Lim Kit Siang saying that “he might match his opponent’s footsteps by taking his campaign for the Gelang Patah seat to Singapore, home to thousands of Malaysian voters. “Since he has taken this path, I am considering it too,” he had told the media.
While there is no “smoking gun” to confirm that Mr Ghani had in fact campaigned in Singapore, the evidence would suggest that an investigation is warranted by the S’pore Police, instead of an “assessment” based on what Mr See had written in his police report.
It is puzzling how the ministries could thus conclude that “it would appear that there was no campaigning, although some members of his team were wearing campaign shirts.”
On the contrary, what would appear to have taken place is that Mr Ghani made plans to campaign in Singapore, and had made this known to the media and public, and in fact “took his electoral fight to Singapore – by taking a bus down to meet factory workers in the Republic”, accompanied by supporters wearing “campaign shirts”, and met with Malaysians working in Singapore to “canvass for votes”.
One would imagine that the media and reporters would also have video and audio recordings of Mr Ghani’s visit.
As such, the police should interview the news media outlets and the reporters involved who had reported that Mr Ghani had taken his electoral fight to Singapore.
Why the need to rush out a statement barely a day after the police report was filed by Mr See, and to dismiss the report with an “assessment” of the police statement instead of an actual investigation into the alleged illegal activity?
Perhaps the police should clarify.
Join us on The Independent Facebook page