<above pic: Hired PAP Internet Brigade launching Cyber-attacks at Opposition members and activists>
Not content with controlling every aspect of the main stream media (MSM) here, the ruling PAP had signalled its intent to 'do battle everywhere including the growing trend of social media' as one time Army General turned Minister, Chan Chun Sing said in a speech at the party's conference last year:
http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/pap-must-fight-get-message-across-chan-chun-sing
He echoed a similar message made by his boss, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who said 'we must correct every untruth or half-truths especially online.' All this is well and good and I'll even say fair enough, that is well within your rights. However what happened to letting the other side have a fair crack at the whip? Your MSM does not publish the policy broadcasts, problem raising and even rebuttals made by the opposition fully. At best we get an edited version which deliberately takes the sting out of the message they want to convey. During campaigning, your candidates and policies are given the 'full monty' while theirs is reduced to a few lines or mere columns. Anything unflattering, a verbal blunder or something taken out of context by an opposition politician is given repeated coverage with 'wholesome' analysis by your editors. Yet when a PAP MP or Minister does the same, it's hardly ever mentioned. When then Hougang MP, Yaw Sin Leong of the Worker's Party was involved in an adulterous affair and expelled by the WP and thus prompt a by-election, your party was not slow in criticising him and the WP, and such remarks were given ample coverage by the MSM.
(Major Gen Chan Chun Sing is finally able to lead in battle, even if it's only an online one)
Yet when your honourable Speaker, Michael Palmer did a lot more than 'just speaking' and was forced to quit in similar circumstances, the MSM was markedly more conservative with him and did not chide your party or draw a similar reference to the Yaw saga. Thus its little wonder that many Singaporeans are now turning to online sites and forums, in order to hear the alternative message or to express their frustrations at Govt policy. And unlike the MSM, they know their message or comments are more likely to be aired. They do not have the freedom of expression or press freedoms where they can be certain that issues critical of the government will be published and they not subjected to oppression or being made an example of. Social media and forums are the only avenues they have left and yet even these the PAP does not want to allow unimpeded.
(Yaw Shin Leong and Michael Palmer both committed adultery, guess who got the better press coverage?)
I am not talking of pure bile or slander, unsubstantiated allegations which of course the PAP may choose to rebut strenuously. I am talking of ordinary people and even some opposition members making remarks and offering reasonable dissent to policies of the PAP. There's always 2 sides to every policy. No single policy can encompass a whole population's satisfaction. Some will not benefit and some will be penalised. And of late certain policies like housing, immigration, workplace benefits and employment have clearly given rise to a lot of dissatisfaction on the ground. Comments against these should always be fair game in any democracy. No Govt should attempt to stop and combat these commentators, they should do 1 of 2 things, a) ignore or the better one b) take this on board and try to bring about policies that can address these. You will never see President Obama, PMs David Cameron, Tony Abbott or Chancellor Angela Merkel directing their members to battle those who do not support them in the manner Chan Chun Sing has. Perhaps given his lack of military battle, he thinks it prudent to engage in online warfare where through control of instruments of state, he will always have the superior force, in order to show his mettle.
(I didn't realised WP MP Chen Show Mao has a son named Darryl Tan, I wonder if Mr Chen does too?)
These comments are unfortunate and uncalled for. Worse still it sends a clear message to all their party supporters that they have the green light to go after each and every comment or social media site, because of the backing of the Govt. Many have created numerous online accounts using the very condition of anonymity the PAP condemns opposition supporters for. These pro-PAP sites seem to disregard the very rules the Govt is trying to introduce, including online harassment. Take 'Fabrications against the PAP' (FAP), whose site was given coverage in the MSM. Numerous articles openly mock and condemn opposition politicians and yet when the same is done to PAP ones, they raise a hue and cry. And things can get very personal, FAP which routinely tags PAP MPs and Ministers had on 1 occasion alleged that a certain Darryl Tan was the son of WP MP Chen Show Mao (They are unrelated). They cherry picked some of his personal details or comments that were unflattering and then tenuously tied them to MP Chen. Does the PAP leadership think this is not harassment?
And today's article refers to another site named F.L.O.P. - Fabrications led by Opposition Parties. It uploaded this article on its Facebook page. It attacks 4 persons namely Alex Tan, Kenneth Jeyaretnam (both opposition candidates in GE 2011) and activists Gilbert Goh and Ms Han Hui Hui calling them hypocrites for supporting calls to end/minimise our open door policy in regards to immigration and foreign employment. I do not know these 4 personally but I think its proper that I show some support and rebut these vile allegations.
1) Alex Tan
(Then Reform Party candidate Alex Tan has a foreign wife, does this automatically bar him from talking about the FT problem?)
Alex's crime is having a foreign wife. Now what has this got to do with open door policy? Love is universal, PAP MPs like Penny Low and Mah Bow Tan have foreign wives too. Is it wrong? Obviously not. Neither Alex nor any opposition politician is calling for the banning of foreign brides. If Singaporeans marry foreign wives or husbands, by all means let them stay here and set up a family. What's the percentage of these foreign brides compared to the vast numbers of 'foreign talents' who are allowed to bring their 'whole jing-bang' here and compete for housing and jobs with Singaporeans? Who is posing the problem and what is the problem, is it marriage or employment?
2) Kenneth Jeyaretnam
(Kenneth Jeyaretnam is not allowed to sound like his father and his Cambridge education is not valid according to FLOP)
His 'sin' is having studied abroad for long periods and speaking with a strange slang. Does one's talking style pose a problem? His father spoke in the same manner, was it an issue? Don't children take after their parents? And since when is studying abroad a detriment? If that is so that means FLOP should immediately condemn the Prime Minister who studied at Cambridge for some time as did his father, Lee Kuan Yew.
3) Gilbert Goh
(I think it's really good that a champion for workers rights like Gilbert Goh is taking the lead against excessive immigration and foreign employment)
Gilbert worked in Australia for some time and is a champion of workers rights here. He did also call for better treatment of foreign workers here. What is the problem? Shouldn't this be condoned? He has not called for the abolishment of foreign workers here totally, but better treatment especially for those doing the menial jobs like construction and shipbuilding. Isn't this commendable? Where foreign talents are not needed they should not be welcomed here, where they are needed they also deserve worker protection rights just like any Singaporean worker.
4) Han Hui Hui
(Ms Han Hui Hui is lambasted for being a new citizen despite studying here for several years and then taking her oath upon reaching 21. Isn't she the type of new citizen we want, one that's immersed in our way of life and wants to stay, not run away after enriching oneself?)
This is another pathetic attack against a young lady who's giving back to society by championing for social causes like fairer transport charges and employment. She's not a politician, so why tie her citizenship and oath taking to the 2011 GE? What has that gotta to do with anything? And if you delved deeper, Ms Han actually came here much earlier and studied in local schools. Is it her fault that as a child her parents moved to Singapore? If that were so, then PAP MPs like Janil Puthucheary, Lee Bee Wah, Minister Khaw all should have no role to play here as well, because they too are new citizens. Ms Han as with any other naturalised citizen had to take her oath upon reaching the age of 21. Isn't it commendable that she chose to do so instead of using the option many PRs are now doing - by simply using Singapore as a springboard to a better life, either back home or to migrate to the West?
( Glass houses are pretty nice things, but not for throwing stones from within)
FLOP calls them hypocrites. No, FLOP are not hypocrites, it's the people behind FLOP that are the real hypocrites for using a tenuous and totally irrelevant argument to tie these 4 persons as being opposition members, who are unworthy Singaporeans. I do not necessarily agree with the politics of Messrs Alex Tan and Kenneth Jeyaretnam or support every cause undertaken by Ms Han and Mr Goh. But I respect their right to do so and to do it openly and be subject to scrutiny. The question therefore to Minister Chan and those who support the PAP, is whether they agree this kind of baseless attacks is fair game in the political and social sphere? Is this what they mean by 'going after every comment or person online? There's no use of having anti-harassment laws when protection is only offered to those who support you and no condemnation is made when your supporters breach them. As the saying goes - 'those who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones.' As for FLOP, hey, you guys have really lived up to your name!
(Do visit my FB page - https://www.facebook.com/anyhowhantam.)
Sir Nelspruit
*The author blogs at anyhowhantam.blogspot.com