Skip to main content

Public Hearings of A Failed Political Imagination


The People’s Action Party government has a political imagination of fake news which they want to show the world how to handle it in Singapore’s parliament. They imagine, as in the past,  they can manipulate or question the witnesses to suit or support their purpose so that they can pass or amend laws meeting their political expectations.

The little red dot wants to teach the world how to define fake news, in a rush act pointed out by Facebook, and how an effective government, under a one-party state, should deal with it.

However, there is no Lee Kuan Yew, the only known international statesman of Singapore. During his time, there are some controversial but operative (and successful) political imaginations like the merger and separation from Malaysia, Operations Coldstore, Operation Spectrum, and international admired Electronic Road Pricing, CPF and HDB programs etc.   

We may not agree with the above political imaginations but they works well for the PAP and perhaps, for majority of voters in Singapore too. Is that because of fake news,  according to Dr Thum Ping Tjin?

In his submission to the Committee, Thum asserted that fake news has not had much of an impact in Singapore, with one major exception: the “falsehoods” that the People’s Action Party (PAP) used to justify the detentions of thousands under the Internal Security Act from 1963 to 1987.
“Beginning with Operation Coldstore in 1963, politicians have told Singaporeans that people were being detained without trial on national security grounds due to involvement with radical communist conspiracies to subvert the state. Declassified documents have proven this to be a lie.”
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/shanmugam-historian-thum-ping-tjin-spar-communist-activities-1950s-1960s-123507433.html

Historical events can turn a fortune of a country, a political party and her political leaders.  It, of course, affects the other side, and the fate of people. Operation Coldstore is certainly one such example.    

PAP’s political imaginations work and function well because they are mainly domestic issues which the PAP enjoys monopoly in power and in parliament. Externally, it also has the support of Cold War political climate.

We are now at a different environment and unfamiliar situation. However, the PAP still believes their own political imagination on fakes news and deliberate online falsehoods.

Social media and online news are different, especially for a country which ranks so low internationally for press freedom. However, the PAP’s political imagination is still the same, using the absolute majority in parliament to legalise their action. Do you think the Select Committee can really provide a “world” solution on fakes news? Or will it be just another stamping of the political imagination of the PAP?

The Select Committee invites international organisations and internet players to provide views on fakes news. The PAP tries to put the world views into Singapore context and re-package it as a pioneer solution for the world, like the ERP.  Many advanced countries have the technology to implement our current ERP system but choose not to. Why? In Singapore, it is easy and it matches the political imagination of the PAP: people just obey and pay without thinking.

However, fakes news and deliberate online falsehoods are more complicated. Just like the merger and separation from Malaysia, Operations Coldstore, Operation Spectrum, ERP, CPF and HDB programs etc.  Partial interpretation or selected reporting can also be a source of fake news. For the advantage of the PAP, they will just imagine the beneficial ones as reliable news and publishes them in the mainstream media. However, for social media, the game play is different and it is beyond the PAP’s imagination. Hence, there is a need to control the so-called online falsehoods.
  
One good thing about the Public Hearings is we get to hear the other side of the story that K Shanmugam, acting like a prosecutor, questioning the witnesses. Why must a minister spending his valuable time asking questions not within or fitting the imagination of the PAP?  

Comments

  1. The PAP won the first elections and we get Operation Coldstore. If the communists had won, I wonder what we would have got. Well we know what the Khmer Rouge did when they came to power in Cambodia, we know what Pathet Lao did in Laos, we know what Mao Tse Tung did in China, we know what happened in the Soviet Union.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...