As the whole Committee of Privileges (COP) saga involving the lies told by former Workers’ Party MP Raeesah Khan was going on, the internet was alight with memes and debates.
What was visibly lacking, though, was seemingly objective and balanced reporting by any established media or broadsheet.
While mainstream media such as The Straits Times, Channel News Asia and TODAY reported on the developments of the COP, it is probably fair to say that these MSM accounts toned down the WP’s account but emphasised the Peoples’ Action Party angle.
Let’s take the latest example of a piece published by TODAY entitled “WP’s woes underline pivotal choice facing Singaporeans”. Just the title itself is telling. It suggests that Singaporeans are facing some kind of crisis of conscience if they are supporters of WP or considering supporting WP. In reality, the next general election is probably not till 2024 at the very earliest and there is nothing imminently for the public to decide.
Secondly, if the writer had taken the time to scroll through the internet, it would be pretty obvious that a not-too-small segment of the population believes this whole COP was a drain on public resources and an utter waste of time! It isn’t even difficult to find such sentiments expressed. It is blatant and open that many consider this whole episode as a way to “fix” the opposition rather than a genuine exercise to seek the truth.
Here we have it in a nutshell: the PAP-dominated COP has decided to rely on the words of a known liar to prove that the WP leaders lied.
This is the misshapen and tenuous logic that is now shaping the narrative. But no one in the MSM has spotted this giant elephant in the room – that countless hours and God knows how much has been spent on this exercise and we have come up with this ridiculous conclusion!
The article by TODAY has cited “observers” marking this as “the demise of the WP”. Yet who are all these so-called observers? TODAY has all the resources to interview academics. It also has the ability to easily scroll through social media and yet, all it has come up with is anonymous “observers”?
Unless we are living on two completely separate planets, it is a gross oversight for the writer of the article to completely ignore the thousands of comments on social media slating the COP from start to finish, calling it “wayang”, “bullying” and a waste of time and money.
Why is TODAY disregarding the opinions of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands, of Singaporeans who have clearly expressed their disdain for the COP and its findings? Does this lend credence to the already widely held opinion that the MSM will always do the bidding of the authorities?
Yet, even with the COP being overwhelmingly PAP-dominated and the MSM putting out the sole narrative, there are still so many Singaporeans speaking out about their anger at the COP. This in itself is a force to be reckoned with. But of course, TODAY has completely ignored this. Either, TODAY has no access to social media and is appalling at research or it has no intention to provide even a vestige of objectivity – just the authorities’ approved slant to paint WP as some sort of discredited party.
The TODAY piece also saw fit to drag up the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council court case, implying that the WP is frequently in trouble with the law. Of course, yet again, the article fails to mention that at that time, just as it is now, members of the public had voiced their disquiet at the court case, viewing it as a waste of time and resources just to “fix” the Opposition. The article also failed to mention the overwhelming success of the WP’s crowdfunding exercise for legal fees on that matter.
While the article mentioned that the court cases did not appear to affect the WP in the 2020 general elections, it goes on to suggest that somehow the Raeesah Khan matter is different from the town council matter:
“The current situation highlights the two competing forces at play — the need for integrity among MPs, and the desire for a credible opposition. In an ideal world, we would have both. But if voters are eventually forced to choose, will rationality or emotion triumph?”
This statement requires some dissection because it implies that the WP does not possess integrity. Yet it does so without examining the undercurrents of the political landscape in Singapore where there is a generally held belief that opposition politicians are held to a far higher standard than those of the ruling PAP which runs on the model of “ownself check ownself”.
Who is then to say that the PAP has more integrity than the WP? Is there an objective test that holds both parties to objective and publicly transparent scrutiny for a comparison?
Looking at the political landscape of other democratic developed countries as a comparison, the WP is run much like any of the political parties in those countries, with its ups and downs and crisis management. But, it finds itself in all this quagmire because it operates in Singapore where the PAP is largely shielded from the in-depth scrutiny of the public!
It has the overwhelming majority and those in power appear to have a habit of using the legal system to crush the opposition who have shallower pockets. The authorities also have a virtual monopoly over the public narrative because of the seemingly pliant nature of the MSM.
While the piece carried by TODAY attempted to anatomise the situation, it made no mention of the particular circumstances that make up the political landscape in Singapore as part of the equation. That in itself corroborates the belief that the MSM will never offer the objective coverage that can be relied upon to tell the whole story.
I wish I could say I am surprised or disappointed. In truth, it is a hollow “I told you so” that brings no triumph.