Earlier this month, it emerged that the Ministry of Finance (MOF) had paid some social media practitioners, or so-called “influencers’, to help publicise Budget 2018. Leaving aside the debate of whether it was money well spent by the ministry (note: the MOF has declined to disclose how much it dished out to each “influencer”), there is also the question of whether these “influencers” had in fact contravened the guidelines issued by the Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS). Continue reading “Did “influencers” in MOF’s campaign contravene Advertising Standards Authority’s guidelines?”
The Government has announced the setting up of a Select Committee to look into the issue of “fake news”, especially online.
Ostensibly, the aim of the committee is to find out how the authorities can deal with online falsehoods.
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam claimed that “online falsehoods can destabilise societies far more easily than ever before”, without providing any examples of any society which has been “destabilised” by online falsehoods.
Nonetheless, while there are questions and concerns with such a potential move (of new legislations to curb “fake news”), the Select Committee should also be as non-partisan as possible when looking into the issue, and also consider what should be done if the fake news is put out by the Government or authorities themselves. Continue reading “Fake news Select Committee should investigate 30-year old falsehood”
***Please DO NOT republish this article on your website or anywhere else***
**You are welcome to share it on Facebook as a link**
When it comes to the prosecution of cases, sometimes the Attorney General’s decisions (whether to prosecute or not) are puzzling, and even questionable.
Website Must Share News has highlighted 3 such instances where apparent wrongdoing have gone unchecked by the Attorney General (AG), although these cases are seemingly similar to that involving the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council (AHTC).
Another recent case is that of Li Shengwu, the son of Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern. The couple are the brother and sister-in-law of Prime MInister Lee Hsien Loong.
On 15 July, Li made a post on his Facebook page which seemed to attack the Singapore judiciary.
In his posting, Mr Li had linked an article by the Wall Street Journal, titled “Singapore, a model of orderly rule, is jolted by a bitter family feud”, on the recent public war of words between his father and his aunt, Lee Wei Ling, and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. The 3-week saga, a dispute over the fate of the house of their father, Lee Kuan Yew, had hogged the news as the siblings lashed out at each other. Continue reading “Is the Attorney General afraid of Li Shengwu?”
Since the publication of this article on publichouse.sg, “The hanging of Muhammad Ridzuan – a family left to pick up the pieces”, (which have been read by a surprising number of people), some have accused the website of arguing for drug traffickers to not be punished, or to be allowed to go scot-free.
It is a bewildering accusation as nowhere in the article does it make such a call.
But it is not a new accusation. Every time an article appears which calls for the abolition of the death penalty in Singapore, or when an article (such as the one in question here) depicts the situation of the families of drug traffickers, some people jump to the extreme and unfounded – and yes, completely ignorant – accusation that we want drug traffickers to get away unpunished.
This is an accusation made even by ministers, at least implicitly, if not blatantly.
And then there are also others who think we should take on the role of the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), such as one “Marsie TP” who posted this ludicrous challenge:
And that is exactly part of the problem – an irrational, knee-jerk reaction to what are serious issues, belittling the sufferings of families of traffickers, as if they have forfeited all rights to compassion simply because they are related to couriers or mules.
It reminds one of a certain ex-Nominated Member of Parliament calling for the children of terrorists to be killed… just in case they grow up to be terrorists themselves. Guilt by association, nevermind rationality.
It is a childish way of thinking.
So let’s put it in record. I do not speak for others but only for myself.
No, I do not think or feel or want drug traffickers to go unpunished. Far from it. I agree that the punishment should be severe, and must reflect the serious consequences of drug trafficking which devastate the lives of families and the person himself.
At the same time, I do not feel drug trafficking is so heinous a crime as to warrant the death sentence.
Both the United Nations and the European Union do not recognise drug trafficking as such a crime either.
Also, drug trafficking is not, generally and most times, a violent crime in itself.
Some say well, drugs affect and destroy the lives of those who engage in them. This is true – but we need to be specific here and look at how drugs is consumed, or taken by the addict.
The addict does so with total free choice.
Drugs can only be imbibed in a few ways: through snorting up the nose, through needle injections, and through inhalation.
All of these methods can only happen if the addict himself voluntarily does it.
No one can force drugs into his body.
So, at the risk of sounding uncompassionate, the truth is that drug addicts must also take the responsibility of being addicted to drugs.
As one ex-drug addict told me recently: “No one put a knife to my neck and forced me to take drugs. I did it myself. This is why there is supply – when there is demand from people like us.”
As another friend of mine posted on her Facebook page:
“[To] all those who support the death penalty for drug traffickers and whose argument is that they have a choice and choose to commit the offence despite knowing the consequences… well the drug addicts have a choice too and they choose to take drugs despite the consequences to themselves and their families so if you have no sympathy for drug traffickers you should not have any sympathy for drug addicts either.”
Should we then hang all addicts and traffickers? Would this not be the best deterrence of which the government claims is what the death penalty does?
Of course we do not hang everyone. For addicts, we rehabilitate them, and punish them with jail terms as well.
So, why can’t we do the same for the traffickers, especially when most of the traffickers caught are mere couriers, and not the kingpins of the trade?
Would life imprisonment, with possibility of parole after say 20 years, not be appropriate?
Must we take their lives?
These are questions we need to seriously ask, because we must realise that hanging, or killing, couriers and traffickers leaves another set of victims – that of the families, such as that of Muhammad Ridzuan.
They are often as innocent as the families of addicts. So, why do they deserve a lifetime of pain?
Remember that addicts have a chance of being rehabilitated and thus have a second chance on life.
Why should traffickers, especially those who are mere mules or couriers, not be given the same?
The only reason which the government has offered so far is that of deterrence. But the government has not produced one iota of evidence to show that the death sentence does indeed have a deterrent effect.
On the contrary, there is indication that drug addiction is on the rise in Singapore, despite our tough penal regime.
Perhaps instead of hiding behind unsubstantiated and nebulous claims of deterrence, we should consider if there are better ways of dealing with the problem.
For example, why has there not been a concerted effort by ASEAN to deal with the sources of drugs itself (in the so-called Golden Triangle area, which produces much of the world’s drug supply)?
If Singapore is serious about curbing the spread of drugs in our region, then it is high time it pushed for ASEAN member countries to do more.
Singapore will chair the association next year (2018), and it would be a good time for it to push such an agenda, and show that it is willing to do more to get at the sources of the drugs, and to go after the kingpins of the trade – and not just make examples out of mere mules by killing them while leaving the kingpins untouched.
Again, I am not calling for the mules to go unpunished. I am saying that if you do not even make much effort to go after the kingpins, then you really do not have much ground to stand on with your claim to deterrence.
I mean, you think hanging Muhammad Ridzuan will deter the kingpins from sending the next bunch of desperate, illiterate mules who come from poor backgrounds from some obscure kampongs in some third world countries?
If that were so, the drug problem would have been solved eons ago.
The changes to the Elected Presidency (EP) scheme were passed by Parliament on Monday, 7 February.
The Government have also announced that the next EP will take place in September 2017.
This next presidential election will be a special one which is reserved only for Malay candidates.
It is part of the slew of changes made to the EP scheme by the Government which claimed that it was concerned about there not being a minority-race president for an extended period. Continue reading “Why is Ong Teng Cheong not recognised as Singapore’s first Elected President?”
After having filed for protection under the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA), the Ministry of Law (Minlaw) now says “the Government has never said that it needed protection from harassment.” (See here.)
“This case… had nothing to do with harassment,” Minlaw said. “It was about false statements.”
The ministry was responding to a statement from the Workers’ Party (WP) following the judgement of the Court of Appeal (CA) in the Ministry of Defence (Mindef) vs Dr Ting Choon Meng/The Online Citizen (TOC) case.
The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC), acting for the Government (and Mindef), made the application “to obtain an order for [the two parties involved] to be prevented from or to cease publication of a false statement of fact and, if so, when it would be “just and equitable” to do so.”
In a nutshell, the CA, in a split decision, upheld the High Court’s earlier decision and ruled in January that Mindef/the Government did not constitute a “person” under the Act and thus has no recourse to it. Continue reading “Mindef was no victim – part 2: Gov’t a helpless victim of “falsehoods”?”
Back in late 2014, when I was informed that the Attorney General’s Chamber (AGC) had sent us a letter of demand about an article we had published on The Online Citizen (TOC), my first thoughts were, “Oh crap.”
And when I later read the letter itself, I was flabbergasted.
The AGC had threatened to use the Protection from Harassment Act (POHA) against us if we did not comply with its demands.
I remember the first word which came to my mind after reading that letter.
I was in disbelief – disbelief that this government would be so sneaky as to use a law, which was meant to protect the truly vulnerable, for itself, a government which is all-powerful, and which has unlimited resources.
And more than that, it was distasteful. It was pathetic. It was horrible. Continue reading “Mindef was no victim – part 1”