Two Ministers, a blogger, and an infuriated Singaporean

Ok, I totally did not agree with Mr Brown's article. I didn't even find it funny. But this response to the article--

"It is not the role of journalists or newspapers in Singapore to champion issues, or campaign for or against the Government. If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics." - K. Bhavani, Press Secretary, Ministry of Information, Communication, and the Arts.

--is the clearest expression of the anti-free press position of the current Singapore government I have ever seen. It's really quite, quite amazing. 2 claims are being made here: 1) It is not the role of journalists to criticise the government. 2) If you criticise the government and thereby undermine the government's standing with the people, you are partisan. And here I was naively thinking that partisanship meant placing party loyalty over loyalty to the people. But in Singapore, when you are so loyal to the people that you are willing to stick your neck out to criticise the government, you are partisan. I cannot believe it. More Bhavani:

"They are polemics dressed up as analysis, blaming the Government for all that he is unhappy with. He offers no alternatives or solutions." - ibid

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that it was the job of civil servants to come up with solutions to citizens' criticisms, not to tell citizens to stop criticising if they have no solutions. A Minister defends the government's position:

"The Government was merely exercising its right of reply" - Lee Boon Yang, Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts.

Let's assume very optimistically for a second that the suspension of Mr Brown's column immediately after the fateful article was a decision made by an overzealous editor, not the result of a directive coming down from up high. Let's assume that the government had really, really not intended to shut him up, but to engage him in debate, to draw him into "constructive" criticism. Well, they've not done very well, have they? They've failed to engage Mr Brown's arguments entirely. I could have come up with a better response. Instead, by throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, you haven't got any solutions either, have you?", they've implicitly accepted his criticisms. If they're so interested in holding Mr Brown "accountable for [his] opinions" (-Vivian Balakrishnan, Second Minister for Information, Communications and the Arts), why did they not even try? Telling someone he shouldn't even have said what he said in the first place is not a way of rebutting his arguments. But that's what our government has chosen to do. And what if, what if one of our elected leaders (or worse still, a civil servant--I shudder at the thought) actually rang the editor and said, suspend his column? Everytime something like this happens, my faith in this government is eroded some, but when everything blows over, they make conciliatory noises (witness the lifting of the podcast ban after the elections), I think, maybe this government does want change, maybe I should give it time. But I've written this post mainly for my benefit, so I do not forget the times that I have been disappointed.

On upgrading, again

Anyway, I wanted to respond to comment no. 3 of the previous post [on the previous incarnation of this blog, hosted on a different site].

also, i think the issue with upgrading becomes problematic because doesn't the money that is used to upgrade belong to the state and not the ruling party? so how can a constituency be denied upgrading solely because they're not voting the "right" way?

Start of response:

.: Yes, you're right, that's the first order argument one would make. But the PAP could respond to that argument by saying, well, it's not like we're denying them upgrading; they don't want upgrading to begin with, as demonstrated by their vote for the opposition. It was that argument I was responding to.

And while I'm at it, I might as well say: right up to yesterday I was going to draw two unhappy smiley faces against both boxes on my ballot slip. But judging from the response of the crowd at the Aljunied GRC rally yesterday, the opposition has to fight for the bread and butter vote just like the PAP does if they are to have the ghost of a chance at winning. So as much as I don't like the anti-foreign worker and anti-free market noises coming from the WP, I sort of understand why they have to make them. What's important is what they say and do while in Parliament, when nobody is watching anymore, and for that we will have to wait and see.

By the way, a surprisingly large number of people seem to think that "Your vote is secret" means you can't tell anybody who you're voting for. You can!

Why the PAP needs to upgrade its arguments and its integrity

The argument for denying constituencies that vote for the opposition upgrading is so bogus that surely even those who make it know full well that they are talking rubbish. Not the argument from political expediency, of course; that's a perfectly valid (though unsound) argument. [A valid argument is one whose conclusions follow logically from the premises. A sound argument is one that is valid and has true premises. But I digress.] But that's not the argument that has been made.

The argument is roughly that the denial of upgrading is justified because residents in SMCs or GRCs who vote an opposition candidate into power are thereby showing that they do not like the ruling party's policies, including upgrading. Therefore, these residents should be denied upgrading.

The sleight-of-hand should be obvious. Yes, when you vote against a party you show that you like its policies less than at least one alternative. But, more specifically, you like the package of policies the party promises to put in place or maintain less than you like the next best alternative package.

In fact, if you believe the argument, may I suggest that in the coming election we deny those who vote the opposition the privilege of our defense policies? After all, wouldn't they have clearly demonstrated that they do not like the ruling party'a policies concerning national defense? So, declare to neighbouring countries indicating that their armies should be free to rape and pillage Potong Pasir because they do not want their government's protection and their government is more than happy to oblige.

Rubbish. Unless you are willing to hand over the entire business of governing a particular constituency to whoever is voted into parliament by that constituency (or, in the case of countries that operate on a federal system, the business of governing that is within the domain of the state or relevant political sub-unit), you do not get to make that argument. You do not get to withhold upgrading or national defense while continuing to tax and in other ways impose your model of governance on the residents.

Oh wait. Of course you get to. What I mean is that you don't get to make the argument and make sense at the same time. And who gives a shit about that sort of thing, right?

***

Did you know that in Singapore, undischarged bankrupts cannot speak at political rallies? Or have messages read at rallies on their behalf?

Did you also know that, in Singapore, taking pictures of people standing next to each other wearing T-shirts that have the names of organisations on them alongside other people wearing other T-shirts with names of disgraced organisations on them may be illegal, because in so doing you assert that the un-disgraced organisations are in disgraceful ways similar to the disgraced organisations?

I mean, just FYI.

***

Let me just say that I'm not any more disillusioned with Singapore politics than I am with politics elsewhere. It's just that I'm disillusioned with politics in general. The difference is that, here, it actually affects me, and one naturally holds those closer to them to higher standards. And, being a citizen and all, I may actually have greater power to change things here. But that, we have seen, is in question.