Blog Posts by Andrew Loh

Andrew Loh questions MP Baey Yam Keng whether MCI was consulted on the MDA regulations before they were announced. (Yahoo! screengrab)

As I wrote in an earlier article, after the Media Development Authority (MDA) announced the new set of Internet regulations, the government continues to lose touch with the common man and woman.

The reaction following the announcements of the new laws last Tuesday has been sharp, deeply critical and continues even after six days.

There are two main points to the whole sorry saga of a out-of-touch government flailing to impose control through regulatory fiat, instead of open and transparent consultation and dialogue with stakeholders.

Mostly silence from MPs

One is the entirely abhorrent manner not only in how the regulations were sprung on the public, but also the government’s – and its MPs’ – behaviour following the MDA statement last week.

Ministers and PAP MPs suddenly became totally silent online – except for Baey Yam Keng who gave brief comments to the media. The collective silence is deafening indeed and does not speak well of elected MPs who are supposed to not only be

COMMENT

After the first protests against the population White Paper on 16 February at Speakers’ Corner, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said that he was “happy that Speakers' Corner is serving its purpose.”

However, he added, "Cannot say that I think much of [the] speakers' rhetoric. Too political, too one-sided, appealing to emotions only and not shedding light on important issues."

Although some 5,000 people had turned up that day to register their unhappiness over the government’s 6.9 million population figure for 2030, there was hardly any reaction – besides Goh’s – from government ministers over the event itself.

Two and a half months after that first event, an even larger crowd descended on Hong Lim Park on Labour Day to support what organisers called the sequel protest against the White Paper.

“I think we want people to know that we are not here just once,” said Gilbert Goh, the man behind both protests, “but we will be here for a long time.” He promised to hold such an

Cartoonist Leslie Chew has been arrested for two cartoon posts under his "Demon-cratic Singapore" series. (Facebook screengrab) .

Singapore police arrested Mr Leslie Chew, 37, the person behind the cartoon strip, Demon-cratic Singapore, on Friday morning, for alleged sedition.

He was held in custody and questioned over the weekend, and was released at 8.45pm on Sunday after posting bail of S$10,000.

The police confiscated his handphone, computer and hard disk. He was also asked to surrender his passport to the police at the Cantonment Police complex.

The charges relate to two of the comic strips on his Demon-cratic Facebook page. Mr Chew has produced more than 600 cartoons thus far, including those on the page. 

The first cartoon, published on his Facebook page on 14 December last year, and titled “Demon-cratic Singapore Episode #438, Eliminating the thorn first...”, had also been the subject of a letter of demand from the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) last year.

The AGC, in a letter to Mr Chew on 17 December, said the cartoon “scandalises our Courts through allegations and imputations that are scurrilous and

Workers install new sign display of National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) on its building in Singapore. (Yahoo Photo)

In March last year, NTUC Income announced that the relationship between the 660 financial consultants in its stable and the organisation would no longer be employer-employees but principal-agents. In other words, the FCs would be considered self-employed, but contracted to NTUC Income as agents, and not as employees of the cooperative as they had been all these years.

NTUC Income said that the change in status was necessary in order “to align it more closely with industry practice.” NTUC Income also explained that the “contractual relationship between [the FCs] and the organisation has not always been clear”, and this has “caused confusion over the consultants’ income tax liabilities and had resulted in incomplete declarations” to the relevant authorities.

These “incomplete declarations”, the FCs say, include NTUC Income under-declaring their income and over-deducting their CPF contributions over several years.

NTUC Income’s explanations, however, cut no ice with some of the FCs,

Workers install new sign display of National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) on its building in Singapore 17 January 2003. (AFP photo/Roslan Rahman)

CORRECTION (5pm 27 March 2013. Restated headline and first paragraph to make it clear the court case is against SIEU, not NTUC Income)

One year after NTUC Income “reclassified” its 660-strong army of consultants as “agents”, some of those affected are taking the company's union to court.

Namely, they say they were not given the information they had sought from the company with regards to their tax and CPF matters; that they were not given any alternatives in the change of their employment status; and that the company had employed “strong-arm tactics” to get them to sign on to the new arrangements.

Lim Paw Seng, Ng Kee Wah and Tan Huan, who had worked for NTUC Income for an average of 17 years each, are unhappy that their concerns have been dismissed, and remain unresolved despite their one-year effort to seek resolution. The three men are not the only ones affected by the changes who are unhappy.

The three men are asking the court to direct the Singapore Insurance Employees Union

On 1 February, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong posted the following on his Facebook page:

“Fully agree with Khaw Boon Wan's explanation that a 6.9m population is not a target, but just a worst case, aggressive scenario that we must prepare for. We need to plan consciously and responsibly for the future, so Singaporeans continue to enjoy a good quality of life, and Singapore continues to thrive. – LHL”

It so happened I was online at the same time the PM was posting that remark, and I responded almost immediately, my comment being the first one in response to his. This was what I wrote:

“In 1991, the Concept Plan's "planning scenario" was 4 million people. In the 2011 Concept Plan's "planning scenario", it was 5.5 million. Now, this 2013 White Paper has a "planning scenario" or "worst-case scenario" of 6.9 million. After having reached the first two "planning scenario" figures, you can understand why S'poreans see this "6.9 million" as a target, and not just as a "planning

COMMENT

While the debate rages on over the controversial figure of 6.9 million population by 2030, as laid out by the white paper, the way the government sought to communicate this leaves much to be desired.

The almost instantaneous push-back by the people and the backpedalling by the government show the chasm of trust between the two sides.

Released a day after the Prime Minister admitted that his government was “blind-sided by the outcome of some international events” and that it does not have “20/20 foresight”, the latest population projection is quite ironic and would seem a hard sell, as indeed it is.

To add to the public outrage since the paper’s release, government ministers’ backpedalling on the matter does not inspire confidence on such an important matter of national consequence.

Leaders are now saying and trying desperately to explain that the 6.9 million is just a working parameter, or a “worst-case scenario”, for bureaucratic planning purposes.

Well, it is cutting no ice

Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan is also the chairman of PAP (AFP photo)

On hearing that the Prime Minister had ordered a review by the Ministry for National Development (MND) of the business transactions involving Action Information Management (AIM), a company owned by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP), my reaction was, “Isn’t the Minister for National Development Khaw Boon Wan also the chairman of the PAP, the entity at the centre of this whole controversy?”

It is a sentiment shared by some others as well.

“As AIM is a company that was set up by members of the PAP, is it in the public interest to task a Ministry that is headed by the chairman of the PAP to assess the integrity of its transactions?” asks activist Jolovan Wham in his Facebook note.

“Your decision,” he adds, referring to the Prime Minister, “to conduct an investigation via an arrangement that reveals a clear bias in protecting the interests of your party is deeply problematic.”

While the order to “review this transaction fully, and satisfy itself that public funds were safeguarded and