News this week included: a shortage of blood donors; seniors visiting the dentist less often; concerns over bus stop construction at Serangoon River forest; how ube became the new matcha; how a veteran teacher is using technology to teach Tamil; rising memory chip prices affecting computer upgrades and Sim Lim Square retailers; an explainer on PSLE bootcamps; and a story about those who go missing—about four people every day—in Singapore.
Below are the issues we chose to explore in more depth.
Politics: The fog of war
Does accepting a court’s judgement mean you necessarily agree with it? No. In Parliament this week, Pritam Singh, WP chief, made clear his position on his conviction for lying during Raeesahgate. He was responding to a motion that, among other things, stated that his conduct was dishonourable and unbecoming of an MP, and that his continuation as leader of the opposition (LO) would undermine public confidence in the integrity of Singapore’s political system. “[M]y conscience will always be clear” on both charges, he said, even as he reiterated his “responsibility for not responding quickly enough to correct [Raeesah] Khan’s lie”.
Singh referenced the criminal conviction of Tharman Shanmugaratnam, president. In 1992, Shanmugaratnam was director of the Economics Department at MAS, when he and others were charged under the Official Secrets Act in a news leak case. Like Singh, he pleaded innocence. Acquitted of the more serious charge of communicating secrets, Shanmugaratnam was eventually found guilty of a lesser charge of negligence, and was fined. In 2023, on the eve of the presidential election, his pithy dismissal of the case was “they got the wrong man”. Is any judiciary, error-prone as humans are, the final arbiter of “the truth”? Only god is, the religious might contend.
And what impact should a judgement have on an individual’s conscience, their standing in the community, and their ability to perform their role? Surely in the court of public opinion, at least, the nature of the crime matters. Tharman’s sympathisers might suggest that a growth projection is a relatively innocuous secret to leak, whoever did it. Singh’s might say that any leader—when faced with a subordinate who's both admitted to lying and being a rape survivor—may fumble, stuck between condemnation and empathy, between the interests of the group and the individual.
The opportunity to meditate on these philosophical questions was the saving grace of an otherwise predictable session. All PAP MPs present voted in favour. So did the fresh batch of (allegedly non-partisan) nominated MPs, which would’ve pleased the PAP-dominated committee that chose them. Singh lifted the party whip, but all 10 WP colleagues present also proved their loyalty to him. In concluding remarks, Indranee Rajah, minister and leader of the house who tabled the motion, broadened her attack to all WP MPs, characterising their position as “[t]he rules don’t apply to us”. (Singh rejected this.) Yet there is a whole gamut of recent incidents overseen by the current ministerial crop—from the TraceTogether debacle and the Tan Chuan-Jin affair to the recruitment of supposedly non-partisan NMPs—that critics are equating, rightly or not, on similar grounds of timeliness and integrity: well the rules don’t apply to you either.
Lawrence Wong, prime minister, yesterday stripped Singh of his LO title, and asked the WP to name a new one. The PAP will hope that this sows discord within the only opposition party in Parliament. The WP had earlier initiated internal disciplinary proceedings to conclude by April, though events may now accelerate broader decision-making on a raft of issues. (For now they’re as united as ever, brandishing a new #WeContinue slogan.) Will any new presumptive LO have to first succeed Singh as party secretary-general? Some supporters believe the WP, more cohesive and well-resourced than it’s ever been, should simply thumb its nose at a position that is not constitutionally enshrined, but at the behest of the prime minister. (“FO with your LO.”) Whether in dispensing vouchers or titles, the PAP relishes its role as benefactor to the huddled masses. What if some actually snapped back?
A marvellous riposte for the popcorn-munching gallery, though it’s uncertain if it’ll help the WP broaden its appeal to the middle ground. Does being a “responsible and loyal” opposition mean accepting any handout under any circumstance—or pushing back under perceived oppression? PAP fans will cheer the demotion of one of Singapore’s most popular politicians, and will again clamber up their sanctimonious high ground in defending it. Eugene Tan, law professor and dependable commentator, buttressed the party’s talking points “at a time when there are real and growing concerns about the eroding integrity of political leaders around the world.” Will non-partisan Singaporeans buy into the equivalence of Singh’s lie with the worst excesses, say, from the US? Or will they perceive the PAP’s machinations as simply the latest in decades-old efforts to maintain its hegemony, now wrapped in a saccharine, strumming, serenade about alternative views and inclusivity?
