News this week included: HDB resale prices dip (slightly) for first time in almost seven years; free (for now) autonomous public shuttle rides begin operations in Punggol; “quiet cracking”, when employees show up to work but internally struggle with pressure and uncertainty, affects 30 percent of workers here regularly; medical cost inflation is projected to hit a record high of 16.9 per cent in 2026; seizure of a record 830kg of Asian pangolin scales, from some 2,200 pangolins, enroute from Indonesia to Cambodia; a pre-school teacher responds in CNA to a proposal by the WP’s Gerald Giam to keep preschools open later; an explainer on universal basic income by the WP’s Jamus Lim, arguing that Singapore should raise the threshold for Workfare to S$3,500; an analysis of UMNO’s Rumah Bangsa and the quest for ‘Malay unity’ in Malaysian politics by Ariel Tan of RSIS in ST; an ST story about why Terengganu’s residents are content with just the mosque, the river and the sea; an NYT investigation into the links between Binance and Iran, featuring, but of course, a Singaporean bungalow; and Singapore’s plans to become a gold trading hub. (Yes, we’re the hub of hubs.)
Below are the issues we explore in depth.
Politics: Assistance or interference?
“Hi mr baey.
I urgently need some help.
My girlfriend/fiance was denied entry into SG by ICA for no given reason. She is of Thai nationality and a graduating university student.”
Thus began a 6am plea in July 2024 by a Singaporean man to Baey Yam Keng, then MP and now minister of state in the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth and the Ministry of Transport. Baey interacted with the then stranger over Instagram, collected details over e-mail, and then forwarded an appeal to the commissioner of the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA). The Thai woman was soon allowed entry into Singapore. And last week, Baey shared a heartwarming story, with ultrasound images, of the transnational couple’s pregnancy in Singapore. The man messaged Baey on the day they married, and invited him to their child’s one-month celebration. (Their baby is due this June.)
Reactions to Baey’s post were generally positive, including from somebody who’s “not really a fan of your party but I like what you did”. But there was also the inevitable criticism about political interference in the work of civil servants. This harks to the unique triangular relationship between citizen, civil servant, and politician in Singapore’s democracy. Singaporeans have direct access to politicians, even the most senior, through weekly meet-the-people sessions. They can raise all manner of issues, from problems with mosquitoes, parking fines or electricity bills, to, and good luck with this one, gripes with Singapore’s position on the genocide in Gaza. When the MP feels the concern is one that warrants an appeal—usually for a so-called “bread-and-butter” issue—they might send a letter on the appellant's behalf to the relevant government agency.
Fans have long cheered the access, and, even if said issue isn’t resolved, at least the comfort of being heard by one’s elected representative. Sceptics have criticised the culture of patronage it fuels, and the implicit deification of the political elite. Why does Singapore’s supposedly efficient bureaucracy need guidance in its daily work from politicians? Is theirs the only power that matters? There will also always be the suspicion of political bias. Does an appeal from a PAP MP carry more weight than that of a WP MP? A related concern is around which people and issues are deserving of godly grace. Baey’s post came in the same week that Fadiah Anwar, Malaysian lawyer and NUS PhD graduate, was denied entry by ICA (for alleged radicalism and incitement to violence). Presumably any appeals for help there might have fallen on deaf ears.
Yet Baey’s post will confound liberals because he was addressing an apparent systemic prejudice close to our hearts. He included a screenshot of the man’s interpretation in 2024 of their problems. “We have not broken any laws, she just fits under the profiling for Thai women and it’s really a disgrace to Singapore’s image for tourism.” Ouch. Has the efficient machinery been primed to watch out for South-east Asian women who visit often, as she did, because they’re suspected of sex work? Who knows. Whatever the case, the system, like those elsewhere, can run roughshod over individuals in the name of “the greater good”. Even as we strive for more transparent immigration processes and decisions, and a more egalitarian distribution of power in society, perhaps it’s worth cheering a political intervention that helped one woman, her new husband, and their child-to-be.
Some further reading: In “Backwards SG: the past and future of public deliberation in Singapore”, Max Yeo assesses many forms of citizen-state engagement, including “the Meet-the-People-model of representative government, where one’s MP is seen as either a glorified letter-writer or a vehicle for airing policy grievances in Parliament.”
When Facebook introduced its News Feed in 2006, it ignited a firestorm of protests from college students, then the platform’s main users. Some didn’t care much about John and Amy getting together; others didn’t want Facebook time-stamping their status updates at 11am when they were supposed to be in class. Company chief Mark Zuckerberg urged users to keep calm and carry on. “All the most interesting stuff that’s going on is presented to you,” he said helpfully. The feed mutated: personalisation arrived in 2008, the insidious “Like” button began feeding its algorithm in 2009, and when native ads—sponsored posts mimicking regular ones—popped up alongside the infinite scroll a few years later, Facebook’s enshittification was well under way.
