OPINION | Does Singapore's international stance always gel with its internal policies?
theindependent.sg
At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Transport Minister and Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations, S Iswaran said that Singapore will be contributing to a global platform in developing and scaling up low-carbon technologies in emissions-intensive sectors like steel, cement, and chemicals.
This is part of Singapore joining the First Movers Coalition, a public-private partnership, announced by US President Joe Biden in November last year ahead of the COP26 World Leaders Summit. While this is a high-profile and prestigious group to be a part of, how does this gel with Singapore’s internal policies?
In the last two years, there was outrage among Singaporeans that its last few remaining green spaces such as Dover Forest and Clementi forest are zoned for residential purposes. There was also an outcry when nature enthusiast Brice Li published a set of photographs on Facebook last year that showed a before-and-after aerial comparison of the parcel of land that he labelled as Kranji woodlands. One photograph, dated May 2019, showed a fully forested area. A second image shot in 2021 showed the same plot of land with just a narrow strip of greenery — through which the Rail Corridor runs — now flanked by cleared earth.
Last year, politicians from both the Workers’ Party and the Progress Singapore Party such as Dennis Tan, Leon Perera and Leong Mun Wai raised the issue of protecting Singapore’s green spaces in Parliament.
While the plan for Dover Forest has been revised after public concern, public housing is still expected to be launched in the eastern half while the western half is now set aside for now to preserve its biodiversity.
While there is a need to balance the need for housing with the need for preserving the balance of the ecosystem, do we really need more housing? The effects of climate change can clearly be seen all over the world and in Singapore, temperatures are rising, and weather conditions are becoming more extreme. What is the point of more housing if the world (and Singapore with it) becomes mired in a climate disaster? Surely, a large part of cutting carbon emissions is to preserve green spaces? What is the point of joining international efforts when things at home are not dealt with?
While it is certainly true that Singapore is famous worldwide for its law and order, is this really the result of our democracy? Or is it really the result of strict laws and harsh penalties, which in turn result in self-censorship? Are we really ruled by fear instead of governed by democracy?
PM Lee, in his response to Nikkei Asia editor-in-chief Shigesaburo Okumura, used the phrase “brand of democracy”. That is certainly a clever turn of phrase. If he had said “democracy” in itself, critics would immediately jump for the jugular. However, the insertion of the word “brand” makes things altogether more nuanced. PM Lee is declaring that while Singapore is a democracy, it has its own version of it.
The question however is, does what we have really qualified as a democracy?
Yes, we have all the trappings of a democracy. We have elections and we have political parties. However, we also have legislation such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) which curtails what people ranging from politicians to media outlets can or cannot say with the power for such determination placed in the hands of authorities.
Can we really be said to have a democracy if legislation exists to curtail what we are permitted to say?
The matter initially arose from a comment put forth by Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan during a televised 2020 General Elections (GE) debate, where he said that the People’s Action Party (PAP) was “toying with the idea” of having a population of 10 million.
Is this really a “fake news” case that POFMA is ostensibly introduced to tackle?
As the SDP convincingly argues:
“The word ‘toying’ denotes the consideration of an idea, especially in a casual manner. This is far from an assertion that the government was ‘aiming, targeting or planning’ for a population of 10 million”.
While there is no argument that Singapore is indeed an efficient country of law and order, can it really be said that it is a democracy if politicians are not allowed to bring up topics loosely for discussion at election time?
Sure, we are a rich and stable country, but perhaps it is a tad disingenuous to credit this to democracy.
theindependent.sg
At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Transport Minister and Minister-in-charge of Trade Relations, S Iswaran said that Singapore will be contributing to a global platform in developing and scaling up low-carbon technologies in emissions-intensive sectors like steel, cement, and chemicals.
This is part of Singapore joining the First Movers Coalition, a public-private partnership, announced by US President Joe Biden in November last year ahead of the COP26 World Leaders Summit. While this is a high-profile and prestigious group to be a part of, how does this gel with Singapore’s internal policies?
In the last two years, there was outrage among Singaporeans that its last few remaining green spaces such as Dover Forest and Clementi forest are zoned for residential purposes. There was also an outcry when nature enthusiast Brice Li published a set of photographs on Facebook last year that showed a before-and-after aerial comparison of the parcel of land that he labelled as Kranji woodlands. One photograph, dated May 2019, showed a fully forested area. A second image shot in 2021 showed the same plot of land with just a narrow strip of greenery — through which the Rail Corridor runs — now flanked by cleared earth.
Last year, politicians from both the Workers’ Party and the Progress Singapore Party such as Dennis Tan, Leon Perera and Leong Mun Wai raised the issue of protecting Singapore’s green spaces in Parliament.
While the plan for Dover Forest has been revised after public concern, public housing is still expected to be launched in the eastern half while the western half is now set aside for now to preserve its biodiversity.
While there is a need to balance the need for housing with the need for preserving the balance of the ecosystem, do we really need more housing? The effects of climate change can clearly be seen all over the world and in Singapore, temperatures are rising, and weather conditions are becoming more extreme. What is the point of more housing if the world (and Singapore with it) becomes mired in a climate disaster? Surely, a large part of cutting carbon emissions is to preserve green spaces? What is the point of joining international efforts when things at home are not dealt with?
Democracy or Fear?
Another issue where the domestic reality may not gel with international overtures is when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (PM Lee) described Singapore’s brand of democracy as a system that works and has yielded results such as law and order, growth, and efficient governance at a discussion at the 27th International Conference on the Future of Asia in Tokyo.While it is certainly true that Singapore is famous worldwide for its law and order, is this really the result of our democracy? Or is it really the result of strict laws and harsh penalties, which in turn result in self-censorship? Are we really ruled by fear instead of governed by democracy?
PM Lee, in his response to Nikkei Asia editor-in-chief Shigesaburo Okumura, used the phrase “brand of democracy”. That is certainly a clever turn of phrase. If he had said “democracy” in itself, critics would immediately jump for the jugular. However, the insertion of the word “brand” makes things altogether more nuanced. PM Lee is declaring that while Singapore is a democracy, it has its own version of it.
The question however is, does what we have really qualified as a democracy?
Yes, we have all the trappings of a democracy. We have elections and we have political parties. However, we also have legislation such as the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) which curtails what people ranging from politicians to media outlets can or cannot say with the power for such determination placed in the hands of authorities.
Can we really be said to have a democracy if legislation exists to curtail what we are permitted to say?
SDP vs POFMA
Opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) is currently appealing against the High Court’s latest decision to dismiss its application to cancel the correction direction over its claim that Singapore’s population would reach nearly 10 million by 2030.The matter initially arose from a comment put forth by Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan during a televised 2020 General Elections (GE) debate, where he said that the People’s Action Party (PAP) was “toying with the idea” of having a population of 10 million.
Is this really a “fake news” case that POFMA is ostensibly introduced to tackle?
As the SDP convincingly argues:
“The word ‘toying’ denotes the consideration of an idea, especially in a casual manner. This is far from an assertion that the government was ‘aiming, targeting or planning’ for a population of 10 million”.
While there is no argument that Singapore is indeed an efficient country of law and order, can it really be said that it is a democracy if politicians are not allowed to bring up topics loosely for discussion at election time?
Sure, we are a rich and stable country, but perhaps it is a tad disingenuous to credit this to democracy.
