Why Singapore's recent spate of scandals have rocked the country
A series of recent scandals — including allegations of serious corruption — have rocked the Singaporean government and tarnished the city state's squeaky-clean image.
Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong conceded the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) had "taken a hit" but said incidents involving ministers were rare and the government had "zero tolerance" for corruption.
"We will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so that trust is maintained," he said.
Most commentators agree that the ruling party has been wounded by the scandals, but nowhere near fatally.
But does this episode show that the system is working as it should, or that without independent checks and balances more corruption is inevitable?
Corruption allegations and inappropriate relationships
In the space of a few days last month Singaporeans were shocked to learn that the Transport Minister, S Iswaran, had been arrested in connection with a corruption investigation, and then that two politicians — House Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and MP Cheng Li Hui — were stepping down because of an inappropriate relationship.
Few details have been released about the case against Mr Iswaran, who was arrested along with billionaire Singapore Formula One GP promoter and hotel magnate Ong Beng Seng before both were released on bail.
Mr Lee said the MP had also been stood down and given reduced pay of S$8,500 ($9,640) a month until further notice.
Two other cabinet ministers had only just been cleared by the corruption watchdog in June, ending what was labelled the "Ridout Road Saga".
The pair were accused of misusing their positions to secure premium state-owned property at below market rates.
Meanwhile on the other side of the political divide, the opposition Workers' Party (WP) also lost two senior members, who also admitted last month to an inappropriate relationship despite earlier denials.
The WP said MP Leon Perera and youth wing president Nicole Seah handed in letters of resignation after a video circulated on social media showing them holding hands.
The flurry of misconduct is surprising because government scandals are rare in Singapore.
The repudiation of corruption has been a core principle since founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew took office in 1959 dressed with his team in white and vowing that leaders must be "whiter than white".
Ministers are paid more than S$1 million ($1.13 million) a year to discourage corruption and attract the best and brightest.
The last criminal corruption investigation was in 1986 — the accused MP took his own life before he could be charged — and the most recent resignations of members of parliament were in 2012 and 2016.
Government's handling questioned
In the wake of the scandals, the ruling PAP's leaders have promised transparency.
Still, many Singaporeans have been poring over the details and raising questions on social media.
During a press conference, Mr Lee said he knew about the relationship between the two parliamentarians in 2020, leaving many wondering why they were stepping down now.
He last week admitted he "should have forced the issue earlier".
Questions have also been raised about why it took a number of days for it to be revealed that Mr Iswaran had been arrested.
What will be the fallout for the ruling party?
National University of Singapore (NUS) political scientist Chong Ja Ian told Reuters that voters would judge the ruling party's actions at the polls, due by 2025.
"The unknown is how many voters find [the PAP's] actions have addressed issues of authority, restraint, position, privilege, oversight, and transparency to their satisfaction," he said.
"These events appear to have created some public speculation about the PAP's approach to privilege, restraint, and authority."
He added there was a danger Mr Lee's legacy could become associated with these events as he neared the end of his term.
Scandals Test Singapore’s ‘Thin-Skinned’ Approach to Public Criticism
Rough waves, politically speaking, have swept the shores of sunny Singapore over the last month, and sweating in the eye of the storm is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Lee, the 71-year-old son of the country’s late founding father Lee Kuan Yew whose People’s Action Party (PAP) has ruled Singapore since even before its independence in 1965, spoke before parliament on Wednesday to address a slew of scandals that have rocked the city-state in recent weeks—and that have threatened to dent public confidence in a government that has cultivated a reputation for ethical and effective leadership.
Speaking before the country’s lawmakers, the Prime Minister reflected on the controversies, from a clandestine affair between the former Speaker of the Parliament and a fellow MP—which coincided with the surfacing of a past affair between two opposition politicians—to a corruption probe against the country’s transport minister to the conspicuous state-owned bungalows that house two other top ministers.
Lee acknowledged that the PAP has “taken a hit” from the scandals and clarified that he should have acted sooner in certain instances, such as addressing the affair among his own party’s members, which he had known about for two years. Still, as public concerns mount, Lee’s main message remained the same: that the PAP would be fully transparent and hold itself accountable for any wrongdoing in its ranks.
“Systems are composed of human beings. In any system, however comprehensive the safeguards, sometimes something will still go wrong,” he said. “But we will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so trust is maintained and the Singapore system continues to work well.”
However, as the PAP works to regain trust, some observers point out that the government continues to struggle with handling public criticism in any other way than blanket refutation or legal retaliation.
Last week, after an Economist article questioned the independence of anti-graft probes by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Singapore’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Lim Thuan Kuan furiously rebutted the magazine’s claims in a public letter to its editor.
“If indeed the CPIB is so lacking in independence as The Economist makes out, how could it be possible that Singapore has consistently ranked high in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?” Lim wrote. “In the latest 2022 CPI, Singapore was ranked fifth … The UK was ranked 18.”
In a place that already has little room for political dissent, this characteristically “thin-skinned” approach may serve to suppress unflattering discourse in the short run. But, experts warn, it may also amplify discontent simmering below the surface, which may one day actually threaten the PAP’s grip on power.
“Instead of persuading people, what it does is it makes people feel that their sense of injustice, their sense of unfairness, is not taken seriously,” Donald Low, a professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology who studies Singaporean governance, tells TIME. “Dissent doesn't go away. Dissent just gets channeled into voices or parties that are more populist.”
A touchiness that goes back decades
“I think the PAP are finding themselves in rather uncharted territory,” Terence Lee, a professor at Australia's Sheridan Institute who researches media and politics in Singapore, tells TIME about the recent wave of scandals. “Right now the strategy is to stop [the scandals] from being a topic in the news. I think they want it to go away. They want the media [and] they want people to stop talking about it.” But the government is starting to see the limits, he says, of “their tried and tested methods” of achieving that.
In Singapore, authorities have long made clear that when it comes to dealing with critics, there is no such thing as overkill. Bloggers have been sued for sharing unproven allegations on social media and activists arrested for quiet lone protests. But sometimes, experts say, such hamfisted attempts at controlling the narrative can ultimately backfire, drawing even more attention to the criticism or questions raised in the first place.
“The Singapore government has always been thin-skinned,” Terence Lee says.
For decades, foreign publications have had their circulation in Singapore restricted—or what’s locally known as “gazetted”—for unfavorable coverage. (This included TIME in 1986, after it rejected authorities’ requests to publish a “correction” to an article on fraud charges against the leading opposition politician.) In 1993, the Economist was gazetted after authorities claimed that the magazine had denied them the right of reply by refusing to publish letters from Singapore’s High Commissioner in London in full.
In 1971, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told the International Press Association in Helsinki: “Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”
Media have also been penalized through other means. In 2006, the now-defunct magazine Far Eastern Economic Review published an article referencing Singapore’s propensity for using libel threats against its critics, only to be promptly sued for defamation by Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew. And in 2010, the New York Times was seemingly pressured to publicly apologize for breaching an agreement a writer had made with Singaporean leaders more than a decade earlier. He had promised authorities in 1994 to not suggest that Lee Hsien Loong had attained his position through nepotism, but he included the Lees in a 2010 list of Asian political dynasties.
The government’s reactivity to bad press—which many times, experts say, merely echoes speculations and sentiments on the ground—has given rise to a culture where self-censorship looms over public discourse, where few dare to say what most may be thinking.
“Every government wants to be in control of information,” says Terence Lee. “But the PAP government’s weakness is that they attempt to close down on alternative information far too much.”
Modern-day cracking down on criticism—and its costs
“Attempting to monopolize the ‘truth’ is a longstanding PAP government strategy of maintaining political dominance and control,” says Kenneth Paul Tan, a politics professor at Hong Kong Baptist University. “In the past, it was more common to propagandize through the mainstream media, demand right of reply in foreign media, censor or ban inconvenient claims, and sue for libel. These days, with social media fracturing this monopoly, a new addition to this arsenal of thought control is POFMA.”
Initially touted as a fake news law for preventing misinformation during COVID, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) has come under fire from critics who have noted how it has been used against the ruling party’s political opponents.
Most recently, Lee Hsien Yang, the Prime Minister’s estranged younger brother, has found himself battling legal threats from Singaporean authorities over a Facebook post on July 23 that outlined a list of alleged abuses of power and betrayals of public trust. In the post, he referenced Ridout Road—the prime housing district where Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan live, which has now become metonymic with the political saga that centered on the exorbitant state-owned bungalows they rent. An investigation by anti-graft authorities ultimately cleared the ministers of wrongdoing, but their spacious estates, which have been thrust into the public spotlight, continue to dominate public chatter in Singapore, where ministers are among the world’s most well-paid government officials and where housing has at the same time become increasingly unaffordable.
Lee Hsien Yang was quickly POFMA’d: Authorities asked him to put up a correction notice on Facebook saying that several of his claims were untrue. He complied, but added that he stood by his words. He was also slapped with lawyer letters from the two ministers demanding an apology, the retraction of his allegations, and damages (which the ministers said would be donated to charity).
Lee Hsien Yang isn’t alone. Last month, local online magazine Jom had to issue correction notices under POFMA on an article about Ridout Road that authorities said failed to include important details of the senior minister’s speech in parliament. Jom disagreed with the POFMA order in a statement and encouraged readers to come to their own decision on the fairness of their claims.
According to Tan, these types of nitpicking reactions to public discourse could fan the flames of distrust and resentment. “As Singaporeans become increasingly skeptical of the ruling elite, the selective use of POFMA and other censorious instruments against politically inconvenient claims can lead to an unintended consequence,” says Tan. “People may come to see any efforts to achieve factual accuracy as desperate attempts to cover up or modify a basic truth.”
The issuance of POFMA orders and rebuttals have also, ironically, given scandals more airtime and the government’s critics more publicity. “When you POFMA someone, it draws attention to what the person said in the first place,” says Terence Lee.
It also reinforces the image of the PAP as a delicate bunch, says Low, the Hong Kong-based academic.
“They may protect their own reputation, but the externality that is created is that the party comes across as irascible,” says Low, who himself was rebuked in 2017 for a Facebook post that a minister claimed “seriously misconstrued” his statements. In an article that he co-wrote in 2020, Low argued that “a more mean-spirited society led by a more irritable and irascible PAP may become a long-term feature of politics in Singapore.”
“I think what we’ve seen in the last few weeks,” he says now, “is ample demonstration of that.”
Singapore in a mess as PM admits politics not as clean as country’s image
Singapore: Singapore has placed as much stock in the cleanliness of its politics as it does in that of its famously spotless streets.
Most damagingly, a senior minister has been arrested over a corruption probe while two governing-party MPs – one of them the speaker of parliament – were forced to resign after failing to end their extramarital affair.
Lee said he first became aware of the affair in November 2020 and asked Tan to end it, and in February urged both parties to end the relationship. He said he had learnt last month that his instructions had been ignored and the pair were still in a relationship.
“Regrettably, in the end, Mr Tan and Ms Cheng did not stop the affair and both had to go.”
Two members of the main opposition party also resigned last month after vision of them holding hands at dinner came to light.
In a 20-minute address, Lee also referred to another recent case in which two ministers were alleged to have received preferable treatment in renting luxury, state-owned bungalows but were ultimately cleared after an investigation.
Singapore is due to hold an election next year and the PAP has been planning for Lee’s transfer of power.
The government laid down the facts of the case to try to explain why there was nothing untoward in the leases, that there was no conflict of interest despite Mr Shanmugam helming the ministry in charge of the agency overseeing the property, and that proper due process had been adhered to.
I believe the widespread public disquiet wasn’t mainly about actual or potential conflict of interest or corruption or due process though they are important issues and needed to be investigated. The reason why so many people were agitated when the news first broke out had to do with something more emotional and deep-seated.
It is about how they hold political leaders to account in their personal conduct, which has to do with values and ethos.
This is a very Singaporean idea but one which the ruling party cultivated from the very beginning, the belief that the country has done well because it has good leaders, not only the ablest and most committed, but of unimpeachable character and integrity, and not given to excesses and showmanship.
It is so ingrained it is in black and white in the code of conduct for ministers which has been enforced since 1954:
“The position of a Government Minister is one of trust. It is vital that Ministers do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in themselves or bring discredit to the Government. Therefore, all Ministers are expected to act at all times according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their public duties.”
People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers have consistently argued that without men and women with these qualities at the top, Singapore would perish.
In no other country are political leaders held in such regard - whiter than white, and akin to a priesthood, as former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee put it.
Such an extraordinary notion of leadership defined the party and its relationship with the people.
The idea persists till today, which is why PAP leaders can sometimes appear high-minded when they lecture others, including the opposition, on the importance of maintaining high standards of character and integrity.
You have to be very white to continue adopting this political stance.
Hence ministers avoid driving flashy cars and are sensitive to being photographed (including with their spouses) wearing expensive watches and jewellery.
There is an emotional disconnect that isn’t easy to bridge with facts and figures, which is what the government sought to do in the six-hour debate in parliament.
It may well be that times have changed and Singaporeans should not expect their ministers to live as frugally as the earlier generation and be more accepting of their wealthy lifestyle including when it is openly displayed.
I think it is inevitable that this change will take place, but the PAP has to be careful that when it does, it will not overturn the party’s carefully nurtured idea of what makes for a good political leader.
If it does, it will change the party and how it relates to the people in a fundamental way, and I don’t think the party is ready for this.
But there is one issue worth raising that goes beyond this particular investigation, and it is about how close ministers should get in their personal lives with wealthy individuals.
Billionaire Ong Beng Seng and Mr Iswaran worked to bring the annual F1 race to Singapore, one a colourful entrepreneur known for his deal-making, the other the minister overseeing the project for Singapore.
If corruption was involved, it is a straightforward matter of applying the law and looking at the evidence.
But there is a greyer area to do with the ministerial code of conduct on influence peddling by businessmen.
This is how the code puts it:
“Ministers are more than ordinarily open to undue pressures from persons who would like the Minister to use his position to gain some undue advantage for themselves. A Minister must reject any such attempts, especially where accompanied by gifts of any kind (including any intangible benefits, hospitality, tickets, concessions or free or undervalued services).”
This problem is bound to grow as more wealthy people are attracted to Singapore and the government expands its role in the economy, either directly or through government-linked companies (GLCs).
It can also be exacerbated by the common practice of appointing successful businessmen to head grassroots and community organisations, partly because of their ability to raise funds through their business connections.
The growing ties between the public and private sector has its benefits, helping public servants understand better how the business world works.
But how close is too close?
It may be time to update the code with greater clarity on what is acceptable or not and how to better protect ministers when they are expected to work closely with their private sector counterparts.
Why Singapore's recent spate of scandals have rocked the country
A series of recent scandals — including allegations of serious corruption — have rocked the Singaporean government and tarnished the city state's squeaky-clean image.
Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong conceded the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) had "taken a hit" but said incidents involving ministers were rare and the government had "zero tolerance" for corruption.
"We will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so that trust is maintained," he said.
Most commentators agree that the ruling party has been wounded by the scandals, but nowhere near fatally.
But does this episode show that the system is working as it should, or that without independent checks and balances more corruption is inevitable?
Corruption allegations and inappropriate relationships
In the space of a few days last month Singaporeans were shocked to learn that the Transport Minister, S Iswaran, had been arrested in connection with a corruption investigation, and then that two politicians — House Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin and MP Cheng Li Hui — were stepping down because of an inappropriate relationship.
Few details have been released about the case against Mr Iswaran, who was arrested along with billionaire Singapore Formula One GP promoter and hotel magnate Ong Beng Seng before both were released on bail.
Mr Lee said the MP had also been stood down and given reduced pay of S$8,500 ($9,640) a month until further notice.
Two other cabinet ministers had only just been cleared by the corruption watchdog in June, ending what was labelled the "Ridout Road Saga".
The pair were accused of misusing their positions to secure premium state-owned property at below market rates.
Meanwhile on the other side of the political divide, the opposition Workers' Party (WP) also lost two senior members, who also admitted last month to an inappropriate relationship despite earlier denials.
The WP said MP Leon Perera and youth wing president Nicole Seah handed in letters of resignation after a video circulated on social media showing them holding hands.
The flurry of misconduct is surprising because government scandals are rare in Singapore.
The repudiation of corruption has been a core principle since founding prime minister Lee Kuan Yew took office in 1959 dressed with his team in white and vowing that leaders must be "whiter than white".
Ministers are paid more than S$1 million ($1.13 million) a year to discourage corruption and attract the best and brightest.
The last criminal corruption investigation was in 1986 — the accused MP took his own life before he could be charged — and the most recent resignations of members of parliament were in 2012 and 2016.
Government's handling questioned
In the wake of the scandals, the ruling PAP's leaders have promised transparency.
Still, many Singaporeans have been poring over the details and raising questions on social media.
During a press conference, Mr Lee said he knew about the relationship between the two parliamentarians in 2020, leaving many wondering why they were stepping down now.
He last week admitted he "should have forced the issue earlier".
Questions have also been raised about why it took a number of days for it to be revealed that Mr Iswaran had been arrested.
What will be the fallout for the ruling party?
National University of Singapore (NUS) political scientist Chong Ja Ian told Reuters that voters would judge the ruling party's actions at the polls, due by 2025.
"The unknown is how many voters find [the PAP's] actions have addressed issues of authority, restraint, position, privilege, oversight, and transparency to their satisfaction," he said.
"These events appear to have created some public speculation about the PAP's approach to privilege, restraint, and authority."
He added there was a danger Mr Lee's legacy could become associated with these events as he neared the end of his term.
More at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-08/corruption-allegations-affairs-rock-singaporean-government/102686612
Scandals Test Singapore’s ‘Thin-Skinned’ Approach to Public Criticism
Rough waves, politically speaking, have swept the shores of sunny Singapore over the last month, and sweating in the eye of the storm is Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Lee, the 71-year-old son of the country’s late founding father Lee Kuan Yew whose People’s Action Party (PAP) has ruled Singapore since even before its independence in 1965, spoke before parliament on Wednesday to address a slew of scandals that have rocked the city-state in recent weeks—and that have threatened to dent public confidence in a government that has cultivated a reputation for ethical and effective leadership.
Speaking before the country’s lawmakers, the Prime Minister reflected on the controversies, from a clandestine affair between the former Speaker of the Parliament and a fellow MP—which coincided with the surfacing of a past affair between two opposition politicians—to a corruption probe against the country’s transport minister to the conspicuous state-owned bungalows that house two other top ministers.
Lee acknowledged that the PAP has “taken a hit” from the scandals and clarified that he should have acted sooner in certain instances, such as addressing the affair among his own party’s members, which he had known about for two years. Still, as public concerns mount, Lee’s main message remained the same: that the PAP would be fully transparent and hold itself accountable for any wrongdoing in its ranks.
“Systems are composed of human beings. In any system, however comprehensive the safeguards, sometimes something will still go wrong,” he said. “But we will show Singaporeans that we will uphold standards and do the right thing, so trust is maintained and the Singapore system continues to work well.”
However, as the PAP works to regain trust, some observers point out that the government continues to struggle with handling public criticism in any other way than blanket refutation or legal retaliation.
Last week, after an Economist article questioned the independence of anti-graft probes by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, Singapore’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom Lim Thuan Kuan furiously rebutted the magazine’s claims in a public letter to its editor.
“If indeed the CPIB is so lacking in independence as The Economist makes out, how could it be possible that Singapore has consistently ranked high in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?” Lim wrote. “In the latest 2022 CPI, Singapore was ranked fifth … The UK was ranked 18.”
In a place that already has little room for political dissent, this characteristically “thin-skinned” approach may serve to suppress unflattering discourse in the short run. But, experts warn, it may also amplify discontent simmering below the surface, which may one day actually threaten the PAP’s grip on power.
“Instead of persuading people, what it does is it makes people feel that their sense of injustice, their sense of unfairness, is not taken seriously,” Donald Low, a professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology who studies Singaporean governance, tells TIME. “Dissent doesn't go away. Dissent just gets channeled into voices or parties that are more populist.”
A touchiness that goes back decades
“I think the PAP are finding themselves in rather uncharted territory,” Terence Lee, a professor at Australia's Sheridan Institute who researches media and politics in Singapore, tells TIME about the recent wave of scandals. “Right now the strategy is to stop [the scandals] from being a topic in the news. I think they want it to go away. They want the media [and] they want people to stop talking about it.” But the government is starting to see the limits, he says, of “their tried and tested methods” of achieving that.
In Singapore, authorities have long made clear that when it comes to dealing with critics, there is no such thing as overkill. Bloggers have been sued for sharing unproven allegations on social media and activists arrested for quiet lone protests. But sometimes, experts say, such hamfisted attempts at controlling the narrative can ultimately backfire, drawing even more attention to the criticism or questions raised in the first place.
“The Singapore government has always been thin-skinned,” Terence Lee says.
For decades, foreign publications have had their circulation in Singapore restricted—or what’s locally known as “gazetted”—for unfavorable coverage. (This included TIME in 1986, after it rejected authorities’ requests to publish a “correction” to an article on fraud charges against the leading opposition politician.) In 1993, the Economist was gazetted after authorities claimed that the magazine had denied them the right of reply by refusing to publish letters from Singapore’s High Commissioner in London in full.
In 1971, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew told the International Press Association in Helsinki: “Freedom of the press, freedom of the news media, must be subordinated to the overriding needs of the integrity of Singapore, and to the primacy of purpose of an elected government.”
Media have also been penalized through other means. In 2006, the now-defunct magazine Far Eastern Economic Review published an article referencing Singapore’s propensity for using libel threats against its critics, only to be promptly sued for defamation by Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew. And in 2010, the New York Times was seemingly pressured to publicly apologize for breaching an agreement a writer had made with Singaporean leaders more than a decade earlier. He had promised authorities in 1994 to not suggest that Lee Hsien Loong had attained his position through nepotism, but he included the Lees in a 2010 list of Asian political dynasties.
The government’s reactivity to bad press—which many times, experts say, merely echoes speculations and sentiments on the ground—has given rise to a culture where self-censorship looms over public discourse, where few dare to say what most may be thinking.
“Every government wants to be in control of information,” says Terence Lee. “But the PAP government’s weakness is that they attempt to close down on alternative information far too much.”
Modern-day cracking down on criticism—and its costs
“Attempting to monopolize the ‘truth’ is a longstanding PAP government strategy of maintaining political dominance and control,” says Kenneth Paul Tan, a politics professor at Hong Kong Baptist University. “In the past, it was more common to propagandize through the mainstream media, demand right of reply in foreign media, censor or ban inconvenient claims, and sue for libel. These days, with social media fracturing this monopoly, a new addition to this arsenal of thought control is POFMA.”
Initially touted as a fake news law for preventing misinformation during COVID, the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) has come under fire from critics who have noted how it has been used against the ruling party’s political opponents.
Most recently, Lee Hsien Yang, the Prime Minister’s estranged younger brother, has found himself battling legal threats from Singaporean authorities over a Facebook post on July 23 that outlined a list of alleged abuses of power and betrayals of public trust. In the post, he referenced Ridout Road—the prime housing district where Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Foreign Affairs Minister Vivian Balakrishnan live, which has now become metonymic with the political saga that centered on the exorbitant state-owned bungalows they rent. An investigation by anti-graft authorities ultimately cleared the ministers of wrongdoing, but their spacious estates, which have been thrust into the public spotlight, continue to dominate public chatter in Singapore, where ministers are among the world’s most well-paid government officials and where housing has at the same time become increasingly unaffordable.
Lee Hsien Yang was quickly POFMA’d: Authorities asked him to put up a correction notice on Facebook saying that several of his claims were untrue. He complied, but added that he stood by his words. He was also slapped with lawyer letters from the two ministers demanding an apology, the retraction of his allegations, and damages (which the ministers said would be donated to charity).
Lee Hsien Yang isn’t alone. Last month, local online magazine Jom had to issue correction notices under POFMA on an article about Ridout Road that authorities said failed to include important details of the senior minister’s speech in parliament. Jom disagreed with the POFMA order in a statement and encouraged readers to come to their own decision on the fairness of their claims.
According to Tan, these types of nitpicking reactions to public discourse could fan the flames of distrust and resentment. “As Singaporeans become increasingly skeptical of the ruling elite, the selective use of POFMA and other censorious instruments against politically inconvenient claims can lead to an unintended consequence,” says Tan. “People may come to see any efforts to achieve factual accuracy as desperate attempts to cover up or modify a basic truth.”
The issuance of POFMA orders and rebuttals have also, ironically, given scandals more airtime and the government’s critics more publicity. “When you POFMA someone, it draws attention to what the person said in the first place,” says Terence Lee.
It also reinforces the image of the PAP as a delicate bunch, says Low, the Hong Kong-based academic.
“They may protect their own reputation, but the externality that is created is that the party comes across as irascible,” says Low, who himself was rebuked in 2017 for a Facebook post that a minister claimed “seriously misconstrued” his statements. In an article that he co-wrote in 2020, Low argued that “a more mean-spirited society led by a more irritable and irascible PAP may become a long-term feature of politics in Singapore.”
“I think what we’ve seen in the last few weeks,” he says now, “is ample demonstration of that.”
https://time.com/6300630/singapore-scandals-criticism-thin-skinned/
Singapore in a mess as PM admits politics not as clean as country’s image
Singapore: Singapore has placed as much stock in the cleanliness of its politics as it does in that of its famously spotless streets.
Most damagingly, a senior minister has been arrested over a corruption probe while two governing-party MPs – one of them the speaker of parliament – were forced to resign after failing to end their extramarital affair.
Lee said he first became aware of the affair in November 2020 and asked Tan to end it, and in February urged both parties to end the relationship. He said he had learnt last month that his instructions had been ignored and the pair were still in a relationship.
“Regrettably, in the end, Mr Tan and Ms Cheng did not stop the affair and both had to go.”
Two members of the main opposition party also resigned last month after vision of them holding hands at dinner came to light.
In a 20-minute address, Lee also referred to another recent case in which two ministers were alleged to have received preferable treatment in renting luxury, state-owned bungalows but were ultimately cleared after an investigation.
Singapore is due to hold an election next year and the PAP has been planning for Lee’s transfer of power.
More at https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/singapore-in-a-mess-as-pm-admits-politics-not-as-clean-as-country-s-image-20230802-p5dt8k.html
PAP: 9 WP: 2
New PAP logo kym?
Commentary: A horrible July for PAP but party leaders need to seize the moment to put things right
SINGAPORE: Politics in Singapore is unexciting? After July 2023, the answer will no longer be a big yawn.
More importantly, many other things changed in ways that affect the essence of political life here.
It may never be the same again.
I am getting ahead of myself so it is best to take each of the three issues in turn.
The Ridout Road saga involving ministers K Shanmugam and Vivian Balakrishnan renting government-owned bungalows was debated in Parliament on Jul 3.
The government laid down the facts of the case to try to explain why there was nothing untoward in the leases, that there was no conflict of interest despite Mr Shanmugam helming the ministry in charge of the agency overseeing the property, and that proper due process had been adhered to.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no evidence of corruption and an internal review by Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean concluded that all was in order.
Case closed?
That would be to miss the crux of the matter.
IT IS ABOUT VALUES
I believe the widespread public disquiet wasn’t mainly about actual or potential conflict of interest or corruption or due process though they are important issues and needed to be investigated. The reason why so many people were agitated when the news first broke out had to do with something more emotional and deep-seated.
It is about how they hold political leaders to account in their personal conduct, which has to do with values and ethos.
This is a very Singaporean idea but one which the ruling party cultivated from the very beginning, the belief that the country has done well because it has good leaders, not only the ablest and most committed, but of unimpeachable character and integrity, and not given to excesses and showmanship.
It is so ingrained it is in black and white in the code of conduct for ministers which has been enforced since 1954:
“The position of a Government Minister is one of trust. It is vital that Ministers do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in themselves or bring discredit to the Government. Therefore, all Ministers are expected to act at all times according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their public duties.”
People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers have consistently argued that without men and women with these qualities at the top, Singapore would perish.
In no other country are political leaders held in such regard - whiter than white, and akin to a priesthood, as former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee put it.
Such an extraordinary notion of leadership defined the party and its relationship with the people.
The idea persists till today, which is why PAP leaders can sometimes appear high-minded when they lecture others, including the opposition, on the importance of maintaining high standards of character and integrity.
You have to be very white to continue adopting this political stance.
Hence ministers avoid driving flashy cars and are sensitive to being photographed (including with their spouses) wearing expensive watches and jewellery.
Which is why the thought of such a leader living in a black and white bungalow of mind-boggling size that the average Singaporean cannot possibly imagine is jarring to many people.
There is an emotional disconnect that isn’t easy to bridge with facts and figures, which is what the government sought to do in the six-hour debate in parliament.
It may well be that times have changed and Singaporeans should not expect their ministers to live as frugally as the earlier generation and be more accepting of their wealthy lifestyle including when it is openly displayed.
I think it is inevitable that this change will take place, but the PAP has to be careful that when it does, it will not overturn the party’s carefully nurtured idea of what makes for a good political leader.
If it does, it will change the party and how it relates to the people in a fundamental way, and I don’t think the party is ready for this.
HOW CLOSE IS TOO CLOSE?
The case against Mr S Iswaran isn’t fully known yet and, to be fair to him, one should not speculate over his guilt or otherwise.
But there is one issue worth raising that goes beyond this particular investigation, and it is about how close ministers should get in their personal lives with wealthy individuals.
Billionaire Ong Beng Seng and Mr Iswaran worked to bring the annual F1 race to Singapore, one a colourful entrepreneur known for his deal-making, the other the minister overseeing the project for Singapore.
Both are now being investigated by the CPIB. Did they get too close for comfort?
If corruption was involved, it is a straightforward matter of applying the law and looking at the evidence.
But there is a greyer area to do with the ministerial code of conduct on influence peddling by businessmen.
This is how the code puts it:
“Ministers are more than ordinarily open to undue pressures from persons who would like the Minister to use his position to gain some undue advantage for themselves. A Minister must reject any such attempts, especially where accompanied by gifts of any kind (including any intangible benefits, hospitality, tickets, concessions or free or undervalued services).”
This problem is bound to grow as more wealthy people are attracted to Singapore and the government expands its role in the economy, either directly or through government-linked companies (GLCs).
It can also be exacerbated by the common practice of appointing successful businessmen to head grassroots and community organisations, partly because of their ability to raise funds through their business connections.
The growing ties between the public and private sector has its benefits, helping public servants understand better how the business world works.
But how close is too close?
It may be time to update the code with greater clarity on what is acceptable or not and how to better protect ministers when they are expected to work closely with their private sector counterparts.
More at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/pap-july-controversies-iswaran-cpib-tan-chuan-jin-cheng-li-hui-party-put-things-right-3645756
Same same but different - no thanks to the power of $900m in state funding?
FUCK THE PAP!!!!!!