He Jun Ling and Liu Xiang Ying had granted interviews to Lee after they had been charged for inciting bus strikes in late 2012 that saw over 100 SMRT bus drivers from China refusing to go to work.

In the interviews, they alleged that they had been beaten and threatened by their interrogators. Lee then posted their allegations on her blog, saying that they were “serious allegations” that had to be “addressed urgently”.

The videos sparked an investigation led by the Internal Affairs Office (IAO) of the Singapore Police Force. Lee herself spent hours at police headquarters, had her hard drive seized, her laptop taken apart and her phone records sifted through.

The MHA released a statement on Saturday saying that He and Liu’s allegations were “baseless”, saying that, prior to the video, they had not raised any complaints about police abuse “despite having had ample opportunities to do so”. The statement also said that He and Liu had later retracted their allegations, although He maintained that they were true.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Teo Chee Hean said, “We take allegations of Police abuse very seriously, especially when they are formally lodged, and investigate them thoroughly. Where there is wrong doing, the officers will be dealt with. … The investigations have vindicated the officers in this case and protected their reputations.”

In its article, regional news network Channel NewsAsia wrote:

Separately, the Attorney-General’s Chambers said it is considering whether to take action against the producer of the online video, Lee Seng Lynn, which contains the allegations made by the two ex-SMRT bus drivers.

Lee has since published a short blog post responding to the results of the investigation. With regard to the AGC’s considerations, she wrote,

…some friends have alerted me to a CNA report stating that the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) is considering taking action against me for releasing the videos in which the allegations were made. If they do so, I have no doubt all the issues raised above [in her blog post] will be fully and openly addressed and that He and Liu will be brought back to Singapore to be witnesses. In the meantime, I have written to the AGC to seek clarification on the report.

In 2012, Yuan hijacked a taxi at Changi Airport and crashed it, killing an airport worker. He was given his sentence on Monday.

Pic: AP.

Comments then appeared on websites and Facebook pages questioning the sentence. Many felt that it was too lenient. Others claimed that the courts had been soft on Yuan because he was a Chinese national, and that a Singaporean would have received a harsher sentence.

“These and similar comments pose a real risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined,” a spokesman of the AGC told AFP.

It’s unclear how many websites received the AGC’s letter, but Facebook page ‘EDMW Loves Singapore’ posted an apology and has taken down all offending posts and comments. The Real Singapore later wrote a post on their website, refusing to apologise for Facebook comments made. Their post also included the letter from the AGC, which demanded that all posts and comments be removed, that reproduction and republishing be stopped, and an apology containing the names of administrators be published on a prominent page. If the administrators do not comply within two days, action will be taken against them.

It’s a strange move from the AGC that has many implications on free speech in Singapore. Are people not allowed to comment on or criticise court decisions? How much discussion is allowed? Or will any sort of disagreement be considered contempt of court?

The AGC sent the letters over concerns of losing public trust and confidence, yet it is unlikely that such an action will gain the judiciary or the state prosecution more trust. Such a move will likely only give the impression of the state trying to create a chilling effect online, deterring Singaporeans from speaking up and questioning decisions.

After all, one can’t threaten others into trusting them.

In 2006, Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty bought housing projects in Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village (both in Lower Manhattan) for US$5.4 billion. Built in the 1940s, it was meant to provide affordable housing in a city where costs were constantly going up. Laws were enacted to stabilise and regulate the rent.

Pic: AP.

The two real estate companies thought that money could be made from buying the housing projects, getting the rent-regulated tenants out and moving new tenants in at market rates. But when they were blocked after the tenants association went to court, the whole deal fell apart.

(READ MORE: Asia’s super rich swept up in tax haven data leak)

In its report, the NPR interviews Charles Bagli, a journalist who covered the purchase and went on to write the book Other People’s Money:

“They pretty much went through it unscathed,” Bagli says, “but CalPERS [the California Public Employees' Retirement System], the largest pension fund in the country, lost $500 million. Poof — gone. … Another pension fund down in Florida lost $250 million. The government of Singapore, well, they lost the most — over $600 million. It all just went poof.”

Over $600 million. This was Singapore’s loss from a deal that collapsed in 2010. In fact, an article published in January 2010 in The New York Times said:

The Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, which made a $575 million secondary loan, and invested as much as $200 million in equity, stands to lose all of that.

This is not the only time Singapore’s sovereign wealth funds have lost money; plenty more have been written off through failed investments like in Wall Street banks.  In 2008, Temasek Holdings – the country’s other sovereign wealth fund – admitted to losing over US$46 billion in just eight months, from March to November. GIC is expected to have lost at least the same amount.

(READ MORE: Singapore and her millionaires – does it matter?)

Every time such a loss occurs, a small fuss – usually online – may or may not occur. Coverage in the local press will probably come in the form of a straight report without much more – after all, Singapore’s press doesn’t usually subscribe to the ‘Fourth Estate’ role. Then the whole thing will fade away and things will continue with little or no significant change.

It’s a situation that may work out very well for those who have escaped taking the rap for botched investments, but doesn’t help Singapore or Singaporeans in the long run. The lack of accountability makes it a dangerous game – large amounts of money have already been lost without anyone really being the wiser, making one wonder if we will ever hit that moment when too much money is lost. If that ever happens, it will be far too late for us to demand accountability.

All we’ll be able to do then will be to ask ourselves, “Why didn’t we pay attention sooner?”

Lo had been investigated in May 2012 for spray-painting on public roads and pasting stickers on traffic light controller boxes. She could potentially have been charged with vandalism, which carries a heavier sentence. If found guilty of her current charges, both Lo and Chong could be fined and/or serve a jail term of up to two years.

Samantha Lo. Pic: Facebook.

The investigation against Lo had sparked an outcry last year; many felt that the authorities had acted too harshly against what they saw as harmless pranks and artistic expression. The stickers – which said things like “Press Once Can Already” – referred to Singaporean habits and expressions, something that many were able to relate to and found humorous. The action taken against Lo was seen as that of an authoritarian state clamping down on free expression and creativity.

Law Minister K Shanmugam, who is also the MP of Nee Soon where one of them is living, had met the pair and made an appeal on their behalf.

Although they are no longer as harsh as vandalism, Lo’s charges have still been met with criticism from Singaporeans, who feel that she should not have been charged at all. Comparisons have also been made between Lo and Amy Cheong, who had caused a huge controversy last year for making racist comments against Malays on social networks. It was recently reported that Cheong had received a stern warning from the police, leading to say that she had got off even more lightly than an artist who had merely spray-painted a few phrases on roads.

Regardless of what the details of the charges of mischief may turn out to be, Lo is not without her supporters. BooksActually, a local book store, posted a photo of the words “My Grandfather’s Bookstore” stuck on their window; a reference to the words Lo had spray-painted on the road (“My Grandfather Road”), and a show of solidarity.

The Straits Times has also highlighted Singapore’s policies on abortion in a feature published on March 17 (‘Experts feel the law could be changed to make those seeking abortion think harder and longer’). The article states:

There is mandatory pre-abortion counselling if the women are Singapore citizens or permanent residents; have passed the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE); have at least some secondary education, and have fewer than three children.

There is no counselling for foreigners, rape victims or Singaporeans with three or more children, and those who have not passed the PSLE. If they seek an abortion, they get it right away.

Although one may understand why there is no mandatory counselling* for rape victims, what is the rationale behind not counselling those who have not passed the PSLE?

In the absence of justification from the relevant body who came up with this policy, one can only conclude that while Singapore is very eager to persuade more highly-educated mothers not to have abortions, they don’t really care about the less educated. There is a strong suggestion that the policymakers have ascribed different values to the offspring of different Singaporeans even before birth.

This level of social engineering is hypocritical at best – especially at a time when the government is desperately finding different ways to cajole Singaporeans into having babies – and despicable eugenics at worst.

Why are policymakers discouraging low-income, lowly-educated Singaporeans from having children? Is Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) not dismal? Are we not plowing money into more and more “pro-family initiatives“?

Is this just the ugly laziness of a nation that does not want to be responsible for children that may need more help and support from the state? Do we really believe that every child is precious, or are some children more precious than others?

* A reading of The Straits Times‘ article suggests that “mandatory counselling” should be interpreted as “trying to persuade you not to have an abortion”.

Everyone seems to have an opinion, but one can broadly break it down into two camps:

Camp #1 – Singaporeans are getting more and more xenophobic and racist, and this needs to be countered ASAP!

Camp #2 – We should not be so quick to label people as ‘xenophobic’ or ‘racist’. We should understand why people are this upset, before jumping to labels.

At times it appears as if both camps are getting angrier and angrier, flinging accusations at one another. It feels a little silly, really, because – when you really think about it – no one is really disagreeing with anyone here.

(READ MORE: Analysis: Singapore and its rare ‘political’ protest)

Both camps agree that xenophobia is a problem. No one is arguing that xenophobia is a good thing. We’re just arguing about what to do about it.

Camp #2 appears to be worried that the labelling will hurt rather than help, and that we should cut those who have participated in xenophobia some slack.

But if someone has said or done something specifically to target, exclude and belittle another group of people, do we really still have to worry about hurting their feelings? What about the feelings of the object of their xenophobia?

Singaporeans gather at Speakers' Corner in a protest against the Population White Paper last September. Pic: AP.

There are plenty of people out there who participate in xenophobia (and no, you don’t have to be an out-and-out xenophobe to participate in xenophobia). I count many of them among my friends and family. They are decent people, fun to hang out with and speak to. But that doesn’t make them less xenophobic when they spout anti-foreigner sentiment. And it’s important to point it out to them when they do, so they have the opportunity to reflect.

It is important to know the root causes behind the rise of xenophobia; those are crucial issues that need to be addressed. But we cannot cut people so much slack that they are absolved of responsibility over the things they say or do. That would be giving too much credit and power to the government or the system when the reality is that everyone has his or her own agency.

We aren’t sheep. External factors may affect us, but at the end of the day it’s up to us to be aware of the prejudices and assumptions behind our own beliefs, and reflect upon our own actions.

Parents are entitled to six days of childcare leave for children below seven years old, and two days for children between seven and 12-years-old. Parents of children who are below two-years-old will also be entitled for another six days of unpaid infant care leave.

Pic: AP.

Single parents may have been previously excluded due to the government’s desire to encourage marriage and nuclear families, but it’s better late than never. It is also the first time in a long while that I’ve seen the government respect personal choice when it comes to family and child-rearing, taking a step away from the discrimination of unwed parents.

Such a measure will probably be much more appreciated and useful than pouring tons of money into “pro-family initiatives” that focus on getting (heterosexual) couples hooked up and hitched before having children. Beyond the problematic definitions of “pro-family” (especially seen in the light of the government’s willingness to collaborate with conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family), it is unclear how effective such brow-beating will be.

While it’s good to put resources into helping businesses become more family-friendly for their employees, money and “Family Day”-type activities are not enough. True change will require the close examination of Singapore’s work culture and the demands of the high-paced lifestyle. It will become necessary to explore different ways of working and doing business, such as job-sharing and working from home. Singaporeans have to be convinced somehow that it is okay to leave their offices and desks on time every day, rather than feeling the pressure to stay on for as long as possible as a show of dedication and hard work. Employers need to also evaluate if they are making too many demands on the lives of their workers.

Solving such a problem cannot just fall to the Ministry for Social and Family Development. It has to do with everything from the economy to education to housing to healthcare to gender relations. All the obstacles that prevent couples who want to have children (note the emphasis on the couple’s own desire) from doing so must be scrutinised, taken apart and put back together in a fairer, better way.

One might wish it were a cruel, cruel joke, but it isn’t. A write-up recently appeared in The Sunday Times, entitled ‘Active While Single: It’s OK to be single but it’s not OK to be passive’. In it, single Singaporeans are encouraged to put themselves out there; in other words, “circulate”.

It reads like a bizarre nightmare involving an over-zealous auntie at Chinese New Year, but it’s actually a sponsored piece by the Social Development Network, the government-linked matchmaking/dating organisation.

Written by Dazzling Chong – whose personal website promises that she will “make you laugh with her wit” and “help you with her insight” – the piece is out of this world. “I am all for action and ready for procreation,” she declares, referring to all the “unborn babies” and the “time bomb” in her ovaries.

'Good'. Pic: AP.

It would be absolutely hilarious if it weren’t so outrageous at the same time. The piece has zero respect for personal choice; it does not even stop for a moment to consider the possibility that there are some people who are single because they like it that way. It automatically assumes that if you are single, if you are alone reading books on a holiday, you are sad and deprived, and doing yourself a disservice. It assumes that all women want to be a “SG New Independent Princess”, whatever that is.

'Bad'. Pic: AP.

It is a maddening piece of badly-written fiction, only it’s endorsed by the government.

The message in the piece was nothing new. The government wants babies, and is flinging money at the problem, paying people to write, to campaign, to cajole Singaporeans to punch some kids out. Throughout all these efforts they have forgotten that Singaporeans have the right to choose whether they want to remain single or not, and it’s really no one else’s business.

What makes it really worrying is that the piece was written with Focus on the Family Singapore. Focus on the Family is a conservative, evangelical organisation that originated in the USA. It is famously anti-LGBT, anti-abortion, anti-divorce and anti-pre-marital sex, advocating for abstinence-only sexual education and the enforcing of strong gender roles. It’s troubling to find such a group – which has been criticised and described as a “hate group” – in Singapore, but even more troubling to find that the government is actually willing to collaborate and let them play a role in social engineering.

A former journalist, Dr Cherian George is currently an associate professor in the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information (WKWSCI). His first tenure application had been rejected in 2009. Dr Benjamin Hill Detenber, chair of WKWSCI, revealed to concerned students that the school had endorsed both of Dr George’s applications, but that they had been rejected at higher levels. Going by NTU’s system, Dr George will now have to leave the institution within a year.

Dr George has gained prominence in Singapore for his research and critiques on politics and the media. On top of publishing two books on Singapore’s media landscape – ’Contentious Journalism and the Internet’ in 2006 and ‘Freedom from the Press’ in 2012 – Dr George has also spoken at forums and blogged on Journalism.sg.

Many, including external reviewer and Cardiff University professor Karin Wahl-Jorgensen, suspect that political considerations had come into play in denying Dr George a tenure contract.

As a reviewer, Cherian George’s tenure case was watertight – must be all about politics and repressing academic freedom. Shame and scandal.

— Karin Wahl-Jorgensen (@KarinWahlJ) February 25, 2013

The news led to four of Dr George’s final-year students starting a petition urging the university to explain its decision.

“In light of Professor Wahl-Jorgensen’s comments, we urge the university to shed more light on the reasons behind its decision to deny Dr George a tenure contract,” the petition reads. “Her allegations are serious as they suggest an overt curtailment of academic freedom and a policy of political discrimination in NTU. They not only dramatically affect the global reputation of NTU and WKWSCI, but the value of our degrees as well.”

The petition has now gathered 948 signatures from former and current students, academics and members of the public. But the story doesn’t end there – almost 100 Singaporean academics, public intellectuals and civil society members have also released a letter questioning the criteria employed by universities in accessing tenure applications and the role of academics in Singaporean society.

The letter states: “Singapore universities have made impressive strides of late and have drawn faculty and students from all over the world. They have adopted international benchmarks in faculty assessment that emphasize teaching and research excellence. However, commentators worldwide have noted that such benchmarks, which measure academic publication in specialist journals and expensive scholarly books, discourage the engagement of academics with their immediate social context.”

Dr George has so far declined to make any public comment about his case, but this has now grown far beyond just one man’s tenure application; the discussion has now extended to the way we interact, and the role academics can play in an organic national conversation.

The YouthQuake forum, which had litigation lawyer Terence Tan and civil activist Nizam Ismail on its panel, brought up policies such as the ethnic quota in public housing, the listing of race on identity cards and the Group Representative Constituency (GRC) system in elections.

School children visit the Jalan Sultan Mosque, also one of Singapore's tourism icons, as part of Singapore's school curriculum to educate youth about other cultures and living in a multi-racial society. Pic: AP.

Nizam pointed out that the government’s traditional ‘CMIO’ model – representing Chinese, Malay, Indian and Others – was fast breaking down and becoming meaningless in the face of increasing globalisation, migration and intermarriage.

“If we see 6.9 million people by 2030 or more, it will be a very different Singapore,” Yahoo!SG reported him as saying. “There will be a very cosmopolitan society, there’ll be people from all over the world, and your CMIO model, which is already so problematic at this stage, will become utterly meaningless in 2030, because there’s no way you can put people in CMIO. So what happens to the rest of your race-based government policies that you have? It makes it even more meaningless.”

With the breakdown of the CMIO model, Singapore’s ethnic quota for public housing is on its way towards irrelevance. As the number of interracial families increases, things become more and more arbitrary and pointless. As Nizam highlighted: ““If you call yourself Chinese-Indian, you are treated as Chinese for the purposes of the EIP, but if you call yourself Indian-Chinese, then you are treated as an Indian.”

Beyond these policies, both panellists also found ethnic community self-help groups problematic, worrying that they re-enforced a “cultural deficiency fallacy”, which suggests that particular ethnic groups are inherently weaker and in need of more help than others.

“Could we have a slightly more homogenous construct where potentially any Singaporean is deserving of financial or educational assistance?” Tan asked.

These suggestions are a long time coming. Like numerous countries around the world, Singapore’s population is quickly moving beyond old-fashioned racial classifications. With more mobility and interaction, such labels are losing their relevance. The government would do well to respond to these changes.

A road network connecting Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin with mainland Singapore was included in a recently released Land Use Plan. Cyberita published an article (English translation to be found here) speculating over possible development of the island. The article sparked alarm and outrage among Singaporeans, especially after reading the following comment from a realtor:

Meanwhile, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of PropNex, Mr Ismail Gafoor, said while he agree that the plan is still far in the future, Pulau Ubin has the potential to be a “dream waterfront residential address, like Sentosa”.

“Waterfront towns with unblocked coastal water view, not crowded and windy are often able to command premium prices of 20 per cent higher.

“Housing on the island is able to attract the same premium,” he said.

Although a spokesperson from the Ministry of National Development was also reported as saying that the road network is part of a “long-term plan” to provide continuity in the event of the two islands being developed in the future – therefore suggesting that there are no current plans to develop Pulau Ubin – many Singaporeans are already rejecting the notion of developing yet another natural space.

It’s a common enough; as Singapore grows increasingly crowded, the government grows hungry for land and further development. Bukit Brown has already fallen victim to development, with graves being exhumed to make way for an eight-lane highway. For many Singaporeans, it’s disheartening to see more and more natural green spaces with historic value disappear.

What really angers Singaporeans, though, is the suggestion that Pulau Ubin could be developed into a luxury waterfront town like the notoriously expensive Sentosa Cove, where housing can command “premium prices” that most Singaporeans will never be able to afford. Such a suggestion once again implies to Singaporeans that their country is not necessarily being developed for everyone’s benefit, and that one day the island might just be a playground for the rich.

All four had pleaded guilty in court. Choo Zheng Xi, lawyer for He Junling, presented a mitigation plea, saying, “It was never Jun Ling’s intention to startle or alarm the public, nor was it a calculated plan of his to unsettle labour relations in Singapore for personal gain. His actions came from a place of deep desperation and despair at his living conditions, discriminatory pay, and a lack of an outlet to express his grievances.”

The second of two protesting Chinese national workers is escorted by Singapore Civil Defense Force officers after descending from the top of a 10-storey high crane on Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012, in Singapore. The incident followed the Nov. 26 strike by a total of 171 Chinese bus drivers. Pic: AP.

It was reported that Judge See Kee Oon had described the strike has having the potential to ”severely affect the daily lives of all commuters”, therefore requiring the sentences to be ”of sufficient duration to signal its deterrent intent”.

The strike and subsequent events has been cause of much controversy in Singapore, where a significant strike has not been seen in over two decades, encouraging people to talk about labour relations, freedom of assembly, rights to protest, and even police brutality and the intimidation of journalists. Singaporeans have argued over whether strike action has any place in Singapore, and whether the bus drivers should have resorted to such action. Human rights groups have criticised the government’s reaction to the strike, demanding that the charges against the bus drivers be dropped.

In an interview with independent journalist Lynn Lee, He and Liu alleged that they had been threatened and beaten during interrogation. The allegations triggered an investigation by the Internal Affairs Office of the Singapore Police Force, during which Lee had her hard drive seized and computer and phone records examined.

With the men now sentenced to jail – which means that they will most likely be repatriated to China upon release – the issue may now seem to have been concluded. After the reports and commentaries are published, the story of the bus drivers and their ‘illegal strike’ will soon fade to back the of public consciousness. Perhaps we’ll hear something about the investigation into police abuse, or perhaps nothing will be said and we’ll simply forget about it like many of the other previous probes and investigations.

Hopefully, with Singaporeans themselves having resorted to collective action themselves recently to protest government policy, people will now look back on the strike and think more kindly of the bus drivers.

While refraining from commenting on the constitutionality of the legislation, The Straits Times‘ journalist Andy Ho suggests another way in which the dilemma could be resolved. In his article he suggests that the law be ‘trimmed’; that is, reworded so that the law is able to satisfy both parties. Ho suggests that Section 377A be reworded so as to outlaw gay and lesbian sex, but only in public. In fairness, he also suggests that mirror provisions be made to cover straight men and women as well.

The gay community in tightly controlled Singapore held its first-ever 'Pink Dot' rally in 2009. It is still fighting for equality. Pic: AP.

What Ho doesn’t mention is that there are already laws that can cover these offences: Section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act outlaws “any riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour” in public while Section 294A criminalises “any obscene act in any public place”. Although Tan Eng Hong – one of the men bringing up a constitutional challenge in court – was first charged with 377A, he was later charged under 294A. This shows that there is already provision to punish indecent public acts without 377A, trimmed or not.

Ho’s suggestion also raises another question: how far should the State go to be ‘balanced’ and accommodate all points of view? Do all issues really have to address both sides? And even if all issues have multiple perspectives, does it automatically follow that all perspectives are valid?

(READ MORE: Singapore’s Prime Minister says to ‘just leave’ anti-gay law)

The answer is no. There is no reason why we should constantly bend backwards to accommodate everyone; there are situations where one argument is clearly more valid than the other. In the context of 377A, I would argue that the LGBT advocates have the upper hand: all they are asking is for a discriminatory law to be removed, so that all Singaporeans can be treated equally under the law. They are not asking for the right to have sex in public; there are already laws that cover that, proving that the only reason for 377A’s existence is to isolate and discriminate against homosexuals.

Church leaders like Lawrence Khong, on the other hand, are demanding that a law that discriminates against a significant portion of Singapore’s population be retained simply because they don’t approve of homosexuality. They provide very little justification for why it is so important to have a law that specifically targets homosexuals. The reasons that they do supply are very quickly reduced to “my religion says so” – an argument that should not influence policy and legal decisions in a secular society.

Everyone has a right to their opinions. But this doesn’t mean that the State is required to twist and contort to accommodate all these opinions. It doesn’t mean that the State has to continue with a law that singles out a particular segment of society just to please another segment of society. If there is discrimination in our laws, the government should act regardless of how loud the other side shouts.

Attention has recently been turned on to Singapore as Europol and Interpol announced that over 600 matches had been identified as suspicious, with links to Singapore-based networks. The probe was described by Rob Wainwright, chief of Europol, as “the biggest investigation ever into match-fixing.”

According to BBC News, Dan Tan is now in police custody, and is “currently assisting Singaporean authorities with their investigation.” This will go a long way in mitigating the damage that has been done to Singapore’s carefully cultivated ‘clean’ image, as Tan has been identified and wanted by authorities in several countries ever since convicted match-fixer Wilson Raj Perumal described him as being the financier of a match-fixing ring.

The police had been previously criticised for not having taken action earlier, but had cited a lack of hard evidence as the reason for not being able to arrest Tan. It would appear that this has now changed, allowing Singaporean authorities to further the investigations done by Europol and Interpol.

“We would like to reiterate that Singapore is committed to eradicating match-fixing as a transnational crime and protect the integrity of the sport, and will pursue such cases vigorously with a view to bringing perpetrators to justice,” Singaporean police spokesperson Tan Giap Ti told the BBC.

The significant turn-out made it one of the largest crowds gathered in Speakers’ Corner – the only space where Singaporeans are allowed to protest without a permit. It brought together Singaporeans upset about a range of issues, from overcrowding to the lack of a voice in national policy decisions.

Protesters gather at Speaker's Corner in Singapore Saturday. Pic by Kelvin Lim, via 'Say "No" to an overpopulated Singapore's Facebook page.

It made the front page of the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong and popped up on several other foreign media publications, but The Straits Times’ front page was surprisingly devoid of the protest. Although there was a report inside the paper, the comprehensive coverage that one would expect from the local broadsheet on an event of such significance was nowhere to be seen. This was strongly criticised by ex-journalist Bertha Henson in her blog: “The kindest thing I can say about MSM here is that they don’t track events as thoroughly as the foreign media. But I know that’s a lie.”

‘Debates’ and ‘conversations’ – A lesson in missing the point

What was worse, though, was the ruling party’s response to the protest. When asked, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that he was “pleased that Singaporeans are debating this population issue because it is about our future”, although he felt that the speeches had been “too political”. Minister of State for Health and Manpower Amy Khor was also quite pleased, saying that the government would “continue to engage our Singaporeans” so that it would be able to get “more buy-in and support”.

Faced with what is possibly the largest overtly anti-government protest in recent Singaporean history, the government’s ability to completely miss the point is staggering.

ESM Goh’s criticism of the speeches at the protest being “too one-sided” were simply ludicrous; a protest by its very nature takes a side with no intention of being ‘balanced’. The thousands who gathered were not there to ‘debate’ the issue. There was a plurality of backgrounds, opinions and personalities, sure, but everyone was very much in agreement on one thing: the White Paper sucks.

His comments also serve to further highlight the validity of some of the criticism: he is pleased that citizens are debating the issue, but the Population White Paper has already been passed in Parliament. It constructs an uncomfortable scenario: you can talk and talk, but we’ll just do what we want. This is precisely what has angered many Singaporeans who feel excluded from the democratic decision-making process.

The ‘political’ and ‘emotional’

Of course, the standard criticism of being “too political” features in ESM Goh’s response. Again, this is silly. The White Paper was a policy paper specifically endorsed by a government made up of a particular ruling party. It is in itself political, thus making the protest against it political too.

The invoking of the word ‘political’ serves to remind us of how politics has been removed from everyday society, portrayed as the domain of elites. Anything that diverges from the official party line is political, and ordinary Singaporeans, it seems, have no business being political. But ESM Goh has failed to see that times have changed; where ‘politics’ may have once been regarded as a dirty word, a general election, two by-elections and the growth of the blogosphere have shown that Singaporeans are casting off their fear of being political.

Last but not least, ESM Goh said that the speeches only appealed to emotions, suggesting a lack of logic or reasoning. But emotional arguments are not automatically lacking in logic or sense, and there have been many criticisms of the White Paper – both at the protest and elsewhere – that have been backed up with evidence and references, perhaps even more so that the White Paper itself. It makes one wonder: has ESM Goh really listened to the speeches, or read the critiques of his government’s policy?

Again, ESM Goh has completely failed to understand what ‘protest’ means. On top of taking sides, protests are often also incredibly emotive events. They are born from frustration and anger, desperation and hope. It’s no surprise that the protest over the weekend was emotional; these are issues that affect people’s everyday lives, their families and their hopes for the future. These are things that hit very close to home, so why are we writing off emotional responses?

The PAP’s struggle

With every response, every move they make, the PAP only manages to highlight just how out-of-touch they are. In all fairness, efforts are being made by the party to bridge the gap and appeal to Singaporeans. But the rift between the government and the people cannot be closed if those in power continue with their selective hearing.

Pic: AP.

Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew told Parliament last week that the government hopes to further scale up the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP) which had been announced last year. The programme initially involved the government buying 550 new buses to bolster services provided by privatised public transport companies SBS Transit and SMRT.

On top of that, the government now hopes to contract out more bus routes, such as morning-peak express services and feeder services into MRT stations. The Land Transport Authority has put up a tender for a morning-express service from Jurong West to the Central Business District. There will be no revenue risk for the winning bus company, as they will simply be paid a fixed fee according to their bid. Any profit made will go to the government.

This move shows that the government is making an effort to ramp up public transport services to cope with the strain of an increasing population. A recently passed Population White Paper indicated that while the rate of immigration into the country can be expected to decrease, the population will continue to grow to a potential 6.9 million by 2030.

The island’s transport infrastructure has also been in the public eye in recent times as numerous train breakdowns have held up thousands of commuters. On Wednesday morning a fire broke out in the tunnel near Newton MRT station due to a short-circuited electric cable, disrupting services on a portion of the North-South line. Such incidences have served to remind all observers that Singapore’s top-notch public transport network is not what it once was, and the government now has to act quickly to fend off further criticism.

The BSEP is a first step towards improving the standard of service, but how much it will benefit all commuters remains to be seen. Fare increases have soured the mood, with Singaporeans blaming the privatisation of public transport companies for leading to an overemphasis on profits over public service. If fares continue to increase – as the government has indicated they might – it may prove more and more difficult to placate Singaporeans who believe that the whole system has been set up to squeeze the wallets of commuters without a corresponding improvement in service.

The bus strike by over 100 SMRT bus drivers from China led to 29 employees being repatriated, and five arrested and charged for their part in the strike. One, Bao Fengshan, pleaded guilty, served six weeks in jail and was repatriated. He did not have legal representation. The other four have engaged lawyers and are awaiting trial.

Two of the bus drivers, He Jun Ling and Liu Xiang Ying, granted interviews to filmmaker Lynn Lee. In their interviews, they alleged that they had been beaten and threatened by the police during their interrogations. Liu claimed that the police had told him, “Do you know I can dig a hole and bury you? No one will be able to find you.”

Excerpts from the interview alarmed members of civil society, who swiftly put together a statement calling for an independent inquiry into the claims. The Ministry of Home Affairs then launched an investigation, saying that the Internal Affairs Office within the Singapore Police Force would be “approaching bus drivers, the producers of the video and other related parties to seek their assistance in its investigation.”

The investigation apparently began with plainclothes policemen confiscating Lee’s hard drive containing footage of the interviews. In a Facebook status update, Lee wrote, “The IO (who seemed nice enough) couldn’t tell me which section of the CPC allowed him to seize the drive and had to make a few calls to check.”

On 6 February, Lee spent two-and-a-half hours at the police headquarters talking to the police about the case. This morning, more police showed up at her house, wanting to seize her phone, laptop and iMac. Lee wrote on Facebook: “I asked how the three devices were relevant to their investigation as they already had the hard drive containing all the footage of my interviews with the ex-SMRT drivers. Superintendent Goh said it was ‘necessary’ and ‘related’ and that while it was ‘unpleasant’ for me, he just had to take my property. Again, I asked how my phone was even relevant to the investigation. He couldn’t give me a specific answer. Neither did he seem to know the relevant provisions under which he was acting, asking us to allow him to seize the items first, then make any complaint we had to the ‘relevant authorities’ later.”

After calling her lawyer, it was agreed that the police would not seize her property, but that Lee would go to their headquarters in the afternoon and have her things examined in her presence. At the time of writing, she is still in police headquarters, and has been there for over five hours. In that time, her laptop has been taken apart and her phone temporarily seized. Her bathroom breaks have also been supervised.

“[T]hey are looking for video files that don’t exist!” she writes in a WhatsApp message. “My laptop is too small to handle big video clips or FCP. And there is no more video of interviews with the men. Talk about a fishing expedition.”

“My computer feels raped. They can see everything including online activity and deleted documents,” she later added. The police also went through her phone records, and even asked for the password to her email account (but were refused).

Although Lee also said that the police were “not unpleasant” and were “nice to me”, this whole episode raises alarming questions. How is combing through a filmmaker’s private laptop and mobile phone relevant to the investigation? Why must they look through her online history and deleted documents, or her phone records?

Is as much rigour being put into interrogating the officers who have allegedly abused the ex-bus drivers? Or is this really just a ‘fishing expedition’ on those perceived to be on the ex-bus drivers’ ‘side’?

What – or who – are the police actually investigating here?

An ongoing Storify with latest updates can be found here.

Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. Pic: AP.

Section 377A in Singapore’s Penal Code criminalises sex between two men, even if it is consensual. Although the government has promised that it will not be “proactively enforced”, it still means that technically all gay men in Singapore are in danger of becoming criminals, and being prosecuted as such. It means that children in Singapore are taught that homosexuality – especially if you’re both men – is a potential crime, which becomes a source of pain and confusion for gay youth. It means that gay men could be hesitant about getting tested for Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) or for AIDS, which means that efforts to contain and treat such infections will be made more difficult, and any scientific or medical research into this area will be restricted.

But hey, why the fuss? Let’s just “agree to disagree”, says Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

PM Lee defended the legislation at the Singapore Perspectives conference hosted by the Institute of Policy Studies, saying, “Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it.”

Because it’s always been there. Not only has the Prime Minister failed to support the rights of a large number of his citizens, it seems like he can’t even be bothered to give a proper excuse.

Imagine if laws that discriminated against people based on race were never repealed, because they’ve always been there. Imagine if laws that prevented women from voting were never amended, because they’ve always been there.

If “because it’s always been there” becomes the excuse for everything, then what would ever change?

Furthermore, that statement isn’t even true. Saying “it’s always been there” makes Section 377A sound like some fact of life that has existed since the dawn of time. But Section 377A is a man-made law, its origins stemming from archaic beliefs. In fact, Section 377A itself was only added in 1938 in the Straits Settlements, and kept unchanged under the Singapore Penal Code in 1955. So no, it has not “always” been there.

The prime minister also emphasised that the struggle for gay rights does not end even in countries where homosexual sex is not criminalised. That logic is clearly flawed; even if the repeal of Section 377A does not end the struggles of gay people, is that sufficient justification to continue discriminating against the LGBT community in Singapore?

All this does not hide yet another issue: by indicating that Section 377A will stay, is PM Lee in danger of being in contempt of court? After all, the High Court is still due to hear two cases challenging Section 377A, and therefore has not yet made a decision as to the constitutionality of the section. When the issue was heating up last week due to comments made by some conservative Christian pastors, the Attorney-General’s Chambers had issued a warning that “calculated to affect the minds of the courts hearing the case” will constitute sub judice and be in contempt of court.

If comments made by pastors – and the consequent rebuttal from gay rights advocates – were enough to warrant a warning from the AGC, what more a prime minister declaring that we should leave Section 377A alone?

The race had been predicted as a close one, but Lee, a sales trainer, won with a comfortable 54.52% of the vote, a 13.52% increase from her vote share in the 2011 General Election, while colorectal surgeon Koh garnered 43.71% of the vote. Kenneth Jeyaretnam of the Reform Party and Desmond Lim of the Singapore Democratic Alliance received 1.2% and 0.57% respectively, thus losing out on their S$14,500 (approx. USD11,730) deposits.

The results have disproved theories that a multi-cornered fight would give the upper hand to the PAP, and has gained the WP yet another seat in Parliament. The WP now has 7 seats, while the PAP has 80.

It’s a sign that Singaporeans are now looking to have more opposition voices in Parliament, and the WP is in the best position to pick up support from voters looking for an alternative. The other parties have yet to garner the same amount of support – and votes – as the WP.

As a politician, Lee has often highlighted the challenges faced by young families in Singapore, especially the difficulties for single parents. Her election has not only increased the representation of women in Parliament, but will hopefully provide a voice for an issue in need of further discussion and debate.

In his statement, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said that he would “respect the choice of Punggol East voters”. Congratulating Lee, he also praised Koh for showing “character and courage”.

The end of the by-election and the election of yet another opposition candidate might now draw the focus back to the AIM saga, where the contract for the financial software system was terminated in Aljunied-Hougang Town Council after the WP took over. PM Lee has called for a review of the issue – a move not without its own controversy – but more questions are likely to surface if the contract is now terminated in Punggol East as well.

The statement, which was also posted on Khong’s Facebook page, attracted a flurry of comments, many of which were pro-gay rights. The reaction led to a series of posts on his Facebook page addressing “the homosexual agenda”, and that the repeal of Section 377A would “open the door for the advancement of the homosexual agenda in Singapore.” With the patriotic call of “Majulah Singapura”, Khong encouraged Singaporeans to oppose the repeal.

Khong’s message was picked up by Pastor Yang Tuck Yoong from the Cornerstone Community Church, whose blog post initially saying that “the church must get herself into battle footing, and be battle-ready” against the LGBT community. The post has since been edited.

The two pastors are also leading members of LoveSingapore, a network that represents about 40,000 Christians in the country. The network has stated that it will organise to oppose the repeal of Section 377A.

“If they [the LGBT community] had not pushed for the repeal, we would not come out into the public square,” Yang told The Straits Times. “You touch a law that affects us, we have the right to speak up.”

Many Singaporeans have responded to the anti-gay sentiments. Actor Lim Yu Beng posted an open letter to Khong, asking, “Nobody is making it compulsory for him to be gay. Why should he make it compulsory for others to be straight?”

Reverend Miak Siew from the Free Community Church also penned a response: “The repeal of 377A poses no threat to families bound together by love. Instead, the idea of a “traditional family” is a threat to all families – because it has placed obstacles in how parents understand their children who are different and it has made people who do not fit in – whether they are single parents, divorcees, or children who are orphaned, whose parents are not around by circumstance – ashamed of who they are.”

The debate has gained so much momentum that the Attorney-General Chambers’ has released a statement reminding all parties that the High Court is still due to hear two cases on Section 377A, and that any comments “calculated to affect the minds of the courts hearing the case” will constitute sub judice and be in contempt of court.

Following the AGC’s statement, Yang has now said that he has told his parishioners to refrain from making comment.

A number of political parties have indicated their intention to contest in the by-election, prompting criticism from some Singaporeans who believe that a multi-cornered fight would all but guarantee a win for the incumbent People’s Action Party (PAP). Then the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) revealed that it had made overtures to the Workers’ Party (WP) – the only alternative party currently in Parliament – about the possibility of fielding a “unity candidate”.

What is a “unity candidate”, you ask? Well, according to the SDP, it means that the two parties would join forces and field one candidate together. (The SDP suggests that the candidate be from the SDP). And in the event of a win, the SDP candidate would become the newest member of parliament… while the WP runs the town council for Punggol East SMC.

So far, the WP has not responded to the SDP’s proposal. The SDP expressed their disappointment, saying that such a cooperation would “achieve a historic breakthrough to a deeper and more effective politics in the service of our people.”

Except it wouldn’t.

Although I can see the logic behind alternative parties agreeing on not getting into multi-cornered fights as a strategy for breaking the political hegemony of the PAP, the idea of a “unity candidate” is laughable. Such a ‘union’ between the SDP and the WP would render any political direction in their campaigning meaningless. Apart from their both being alternative parties, the SDP and the WP completely differ in terms of focus, priorities and principles. Any attempt to merge their political messages into a single SDP-WP campaign would only end up in a pointless and unhelpful muddling of the choices available to the Singaporean electorate precisely when we should be thinking beyond ‘PAP versus not-PAP’ towards a coherent alternative political direction for our country. How would this bring about “more effective politics” in the interests of Singaporean voters?

Unfortunately for the SDP, this harebrained proposal might prove to be a huge setback: not only has it not achieved the ‘opposition unity’ they were looking for, it has made them look desperate and more than a little lazy. Telling everyone that you want to go to parliament while another party does the work of running your voters’ estates for you? It’s not great.

The scheme was poorly received online and the SDP is now having to take the flak. You’d imagine that this would make another political party think twice about doing something silly, but no. The Reform Party (RP) – also eyeing Punggol East SMC – announced that they too had proposed a similar idea to the WP.

Note to the RP: when a political party is already getting a roasting for suggesting a really stupid idea, you don’t want to pipe up with, “Hey, I also suggested this really stupid idea!”

At this rate, the PAP will barely need to lift a finger for a the by-election. All they’ll have to do is sit back and watch the alternative parties shoot themselves in the foot until they fall over of their own accord.

Come on, Singapore, surely we can do better than that?

Time for another by-election in the Lion City. Pic: AP.

About a month after the resignation of Michael Palmer – the former Speaker of Parliament and Member of Parliament for Punggol East SMC – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has called for a by-election. It will be the second by-election in Singapore in less than a year.

President Tony Tan signed the writ of election this afternoon, setting Nomination Day for 16 January. Polling Day will be 10 days later, on 26 January.

The contest promises to be an interesting one. During the 2011 General Election, Punggol East SMC was the only constituency to see a three-cornered fight. This time, more parties are jumping into the fray. Apart from the People’s Action Party (PAP), the Workers’ Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance, who had contested the constituency in 2011, the Reform Party and Singapore Democratic Party have also indicated that they would be contesting the seat. Benjamin Pwee, formerly from the Singapore’s People Party, has also expressed his intention to stand as a candidate.

Some observers have pointed out that the timing of the by-election gives the incumbent PAP the upper hand, as opposition parties might not have sufficient time to properly select their candidates and prepare their campaigns. A multi-corner fight may also benefit the ruling party by splitting opposition votes between different candidates.

The parties have not yet named their candidates, but it is believed that colorectal doctor Koh Poh Koon will most likely be the PAP’s candidate.

Meanwhile, Minister of State Halimah Yacob will be elected the new Speaker of Parliament after she steps down as the Minister of State for Social and Family Development.

Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong. Pic: AP.

On Dec. 21, a Singapore blogger named Alex Au published a report questioning transactions between Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and private company, Action Information Management (AIM) over a financial software system that had been developed for Singapore’s town councils, which maintain the common areas of public housing flats.

Au followed up his original blog post with three others delving into other concerns as the issue began to gain traction among Singaporeans.

For his troubles, Au received a demand letter from Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong saying that his claims were “false and baseless” and asking him to take down his first post – along with accompanying comments – and issue an apology. It was a familiar move: the Singapore government has often been criticized for using defamation suits to silence dissenters.

The story began with the Ministry of National Development’s release of the Town Council Management Review. In the review, it was stated that the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council, run by the opposition Workers’ Party after they won Aljunied in the 2011 general election, had received a “red score” for its management of arrears of service and conservancy charges.

However, the opposition town council had been handicapped by the abrupt removal of financial software used to keep its accounts after AIM decided to terminate the lease “due to material changes to the membership of the town council.” The Workers’ Party was thus forced to develop its own software on short notice.

The termination of the lease upon the Workers’ Party takeover led to suspicions that the services had been denied an opposition ward for political reasons. It would not be the first time such suspicions have been held: the PAP has been criticized for using promises of upgrading to win votes, while constituencies who vote for the opposition will have to wait. It has also been suspected that the government chose not to open a new train station in opposition-held Potong Pasir until it returned to the PAP. In fact, during the 2011 General Election, former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had warned voters that they would “repent” if they voted for the opposition.

AIM’s termination of the lease to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council became more controversial, however, after it emerged that the company is wholly owned by the PAP. The website TR Emeritus revealed AIM to be a dormant company with paid-up capital of a mere S$2. Its three directors, Lau Ping Sum, Chandra Das and Chew Heng Ching, had all been former PAP members of parliament.

The revelations sparked concerns among Singaporeans over the fact that a piece of software developed by public funds for the running of town councils had been sold to a private company wholly owned by the governing political party.

A stream of press releases and statements from both the PAP and AIM have sought to deny any impropriety. A statement by Dr Teo Ho Pin, the coordinating chairman of the 14 town councils in the hands of the PAP, was published in full in the mainstream media, in which he explained that although five companies had collected tender documents, only AIM submitted a bid, and was therefore selected.

“We were confident that AIM, backed by the PAP, would honor its commitments,” Teo wrote.

AIM’s director, Chandra Das, also came forward to explain why AIM had submitted a tender proposal while the other four companies who had picked up documents chose not to: “AIM participated in the tender not knowing other companies would not do so. The sums involved in the transactions are modest. But as a PAP company, we wanted to be helpful to the PAP Town Councils. So we were ready to take on the task and submitted the proposals to help the PAP Town Councils achieve their goals.”

Yet none of these statements addressed the major issue. Critics question the propriety of selling off public services to companies with political affiliations.

The prime minister’s reaction to Alex Au’s blog posts indicates that the government may not be eager to address this concern. Au has removed the posts from the Internet. On Jan. 5, the blogger issued a public apology saying he recognized that publication of the controversy was an accusation of corruption on the part of Lee Hsien Loong.

This article was first published in Asia Sentinel

Indian women shout slogans in front of India Gate during a protest in New Delhi, India, Friday, Dec. 21, 2012. Pic: AP.

Following the death of Amanat – a pseudonym used by the Indian press for the unidentified victim – in Singapore’s Mount Elizabeth Hospital, messages of sympathy and grief have poured out from all over the world. Singapore’s politicians too put in their two cents, with Minister of State Halimah Yaacob speaking out for respect for women. More trouble, though, was Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam’s Facebook post:

Many are sickened by the horrific gang rape and subsequent death of the young Indian student. Happened in broad daylight. A young life cut out brutally. Media reports that 6 men have been charged with murder. The family had pinned its hopes on the young girl – father had sold his plot of land to finance her education. Our thoughts are with the family. It is a heart breaking case. Many will agree that this is a type of case where, if the injuries inflicted were of a nature sufficient to cause death, then the abusers should face the death penalty. In discussions with people who want the death penalty abolished, I would often cite cases like these – ( similar cases have occurred elsewhere) . There was a good letter written in by an Indian journalist Deepika Shetty , published in yesterday’s ST. She points out that in Spore young women can go about confidently at any time of the day and night, in spaghetti tops and shorts – a right which they should have, a right which society should protect.

Amanat has only just been cremated, and already Singapore’s Law Minister is using her case not to call for real change, but as a way to score points against the anti-death penalty movement.

In his status update it is suggested that the death penalty is a key tool in keeping Singapore safe, so that “young women can go about confidently at any time of the day and night, in spaghetti tops and shorts” (a statement that in itself suggests that what women wear has an effect on whether they get raped or not). There is, however, no evidence to show that the death penalty is a deterrence to any crime – not murder, not rape, not drug trafficking.

Rather than examining misogyny and patriarchy, Mr Shanmugam’s comment only serves to encourage and validate those who are calling for the blood of Amanat’s rapists, thinking that this would be “justice” allowing everyone to “move on”. But moving on without questioning mindsets will solve nothing. It will not bring Amanat back, nor will it prevent future violence against women. The mob mentality that accompanies the call for blood and vengeance obscures systemic issues that deserve urgent attention, and ultimately becomes an obstacle to much-needed change.

Furthermore, Mr Shanmugam’s comment completely ignores the fact that problems also exist in Singapore. We may not have seen as spectacular a crime as what happened in Delhi, but that does not mean that women in Singapore are safe. Just two years ago a judge meted out lenient sentences to the perpetrators of gang rape after it was decided that although the victim ”did not ask to be attacked… [she] wasn’t completely blameless for what happened.” Singapore’s laws against rape also carry the “marital rape exemption“, which means that husbands cannot be charged for raping their wives except in limited circumstances. The way the press and the public turned on Laura Ong when Michael Palmer resigned shows that misogynistic views aren’t exactly in short supply in Singapore. This screenshot of a Facebook comment thread is a prime example of the sort of rape culture that allows for violence against women.

Many cases of rape are also perpetrated by people the victim already knows – which means that the ability of women to walk on the streets in “spaghetti tops and shorts” doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with safety from rape.

Amanat’s case has put the spotlight on India, emphasising the urgent need for something to be done. But our focus on India should not allow us to forget the problems that permeate our own societies. As one of Singapore’s respected ministers, Mr Shanmugam should be leading the way towards change rather than trying to score points for himself.