I had posted the following status update on my Facebook page:

The haze has exposed the workings behind the current government.

In a time of such urgency and scale, the government has reacted at a less than vigourous pace.

Well-crafted statements and updates only belie the lack of urgency that the government has in tackling the matter.

Perhaps it is indeed that the haze does not have the severity of a natural disaster of another sort, and perhaps indeed, the government does not want to rouse fears or panic.

But the government might have lost step with the people and have not moved in tandem, for the people believe the importance of the issue is much higher than the government is perceiving.

Yet, would we want a government which reacts over-anxiously and rouse the feathers of the people? But the people might be believing that the problem is, the government might not even be reacting enough. Why are workers still working in the open, they ask.

Yet, what would we do if we were the government?…

Can the Prime Minister and our ministers not have the leadership to take immediate and necessary steps to resolve the issue? Must it wait for a task force?

If a task force is necessary, what does it say about the leadership of our country, or lack thereof? What does it say about the capability of our Prime Minister or ministers who do not have the independent reasoning to take immediate required steps?

Perhaps our government has bred itself as a group of people too scared to take the drastic steps necessary, perhaps our government has boxed itself up in their too-scared-to-fail-and-lose-face mentality.

Perhaps the want to stay on power and to look good has taken a toil on the effectiveness of our country’s governance.

In our country, because our politicians no longer have the will and independence of mind, and because they have bought into thinking like one another far too often, our government is now like the lady in the shoe – too scared to move, too scared to lose.

Now is not a time to follow what has been laid out in their PR plan. Now is the time to lead.

2013 has been a busy year for sociopolitical affairs in Singapore. From the Punggol East By-Election, to the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and Aim saga, to the Population White Paper 2013, back to the Aim saga and recently, with the Media Development Authority (MDA)’s “Licensing Framework” against “online news sites” and the standoff between the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) regarding the cleaning of the food centres at Bedok.

Concurrently, there were also arrests, investigations and threats levied upon common Singaporean citizens, such as Alex Au, Lynn Lee and Leslie Chew, among others.

Much has occurred in the political awakening of Singaporeans in only the first half of 2013, and this should be seen as a much welcomed outcome for Singapore. However, how has the PAP responded?

AHPETC-NEA Standoff: Both Sides Made Mistakes

The recent AHPETC-NEA standoff was unfortunate. If we take aside the politics, clearly, both sides have contributed to the current outcomes – why did the NEA not follow-up with the food centre on the scaffolding for the March cleaning of the Block 538 food centre? Why did the AHPETC not follow-up more proactively regarding the cleaning? There are still many unanswered questions and information gaps, but as Mr Low Thia Kiang had said, let’s move on and focus on the more pertinent issues at hand. Half a year of constant politicking is enough sideshow to distract from the real work that needs to be done in Singapore.

Of course Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wasn’t kidding when he had said that the PAP would have to keep finding ways to “fix” the opposition, but have things perhaps been taken a bit too far?

The Integrity of Our Civil Service Threatened

It is clear that from the AHPETC-NEA incident, mistakes had been made, but unfortunately, instead of both parties admitting to the mistakes and taking immediate steps to resolve them, politics was imbued into this episode, resulting in reputation damages to all the parties involved. To be clear, these ‘mistakes’ are by no means representative of the parties involved but a personal error in judgment. Yet, not only did the PAP and WP’s reputation took a hit, the independence and integrity of the NEA, a civil service institution, was questioned as well. If the civil service is to remain aboveboard and non-partisan, the very involvement of NEA in prolonging the standoff had shown very clearly to many Singaporeans the side that it had taken, if this has not already been known.

This is dangerous because if our civil service can be used as affronts for political attacks by the PAP, then how are Singaporeans able to trust the civil service? If it was not already enough that the town councils have officially become politicised, do we need to further drag the MDA and the NEA into the fray as well? Can the MDA then be entrusted with overseeing media development in Singapore? And can the NEA be trusted to report accurately on statistics pertaining to the dengue outbreak, for example?

Have Some PAP Politicians Become PAP’s Liabilities?

If we were to just look at the AHPETC-NEA incident, it was clear that mistakes were made and it was clear what could have been immediately done to resolve the issue, but somewhere along the line, someone decided that this could be an issue that could be politicised, so a minor mistake was dramatised and flashed across The Straits Times and because this was not a case where the Worker’s Party should take all the blame, NEA and eventually, Vivian, had to fall head over heels trying to throw up answers as well. It just became a complete mess.

But who started this mess? Was it Vivian, him being the Minister-in-charge? If it was, it wouldn’t be the first time that Vivian has had a knee-jerk reaction and wasn’t able to properly close the chapter. He had done it with Vincent Wijeysingha and he did it again this time round, and not only that but gave Mr Low Thia Kiang the advantage as well. And if this was the case, Vivian has become a liability to the PAP, in not being astute enough to identify a fine opportunity for politicking, and in not being able to end off by gaining the upper hand. Or frankly, in not just focusing on getting the job done.

Similarly, who was the minister who had devised the “licensing framework” for “online news sites”, to demand for a $50,000 performance bond and the 24-hour take-down rule? Was it Yaacob? Or could it even be Tan Chuan-Jin, who had out of nowhere, appeared on Channel NewsAsia, to field questions for the “licensing framework” when he had nothing – on the surface – to do with the ministry-in-charge? If so, who among them had become PAP’s liability as well?

The Political Awakening of Singaporeans Present PAP With New Opportunities

In a time when Singaporeans are starting to politically be awakened, it doesn’t make sense to believe that there is a need to regulate our awakening and rising awareness. Such a policy which would stunt the political development of Singaporeans is poorly thought-through and is a simple replication of old policy relics on new social circumstances. If our politicians are not able to move on with the times and social developments, then these politicians might no longer be relevant enough for the governance of Singapore. It is one thing to be able to appreciate history and adapt this understand to new circumstances. It is another to understand history and not learn from it.

Yet, this is perhaps what is most worrying for Singapore. A country which has learnt to reshape its history so thoroughly has created a people who have a warped sense of our history. If we were to need to look back one day to learn about what should not be done, what would we know not to repeat when the truths were erased from our eyes. Perhaps the current generation of politicians have as well fallen prey to their own party’s version of history.

There are many opportunities abound for a keen-eyed politician. The political awakening presents fresh opportunities to engage with Singaporeans and to establish trust in new sectors among Singaporeans. A politician who is able to understand this and consult with Singaporeans first to obtain their trust and buy-in, would be able to maintain a higher moral ground than another who believes in using the iron-fist, one that is certain to backfire on him or her in the current social backdrop.

Has PAP Become Fearful and Insecure?

Unfortunately, for a PAP who has ruled for nearly 50 years, and especially for the longest-serving in the group, a sense of fear has captured their senses. Having properly groomed themselves to finally achieve their current stature, maintaining it has become of utmost importance, for losing it means having to start all over again, but from where? What was once a sure route to “success” and an eventual retirement based on this is no longer a certainty and a defensive protectionism of their “achievements” has thus come into play.

But Singapore isn’t just about you. When you make Singapore about you, when you become personal, then you have forgotten what serving the nation truly means. Then, you need to go, for the greater good of the country. When our politicians are concerned about devising rules that keep themselves in power, then the laws that they create will necessary compromise on the well-being and livelihoods of the people. And when that happens, it is only natural that the people will no longer trust the politicians and will demand their exit, as Singaporeans have for the actions, and inaction, of certain PAP politicians for more than the past 10 years. Thus PM Lee had thus removed Wong Kan Seng and Mah Bow Tan from their ministerial roles.

However, for Singaporeans who are now more aware, have things changed? The Population White Paper 2013 and the continued increase in housing prices could only affirm to Singaporeans that the government had hardly taken them seriously. How many more liabilities currently sit amongst the office-holders? Or has the enforced group think become the major impediment in PAP’s ability to engage any further?

The PAP Needs to Rediscover Itself

Perhaps one of the major roadblocks of the PAP is a party which has mirrored itself to the self-preservation streaks of their most renowned politician’s perfectionist tendencies, so much so that control has become the order of the day, to protect that carefully-crafted self-image. Yet, perhaps the PAP needs to embark on a journey of self-discovery to find out for themselves what purpose and ideal would be the most favourable for themselves, moving forward.

The PAP’s fear to lose has thus been transposed onto the national consciousness of Singaporeans, so much so that this has resulted in the stresses that pervades the Singapore society. This also explains why the Singapore government is unforgiving towards the people, and how Singaporeans have as well learnt to be unforgiving towards the government. A government and a people who have learnt to hold one another to unfailing principles have caught one another in a perpetual binding disagreement.

If the PAP of fore had latched on to the self-preservation protectionist streak of Lee Kuan Yew, has the PAP of now become defined by the inner insecurities of their current leader as well?

The PAP Could Try to Control the People Further…

But there are several ways that the PAP could handle the situation. One way is for the PAP to decide on what information Singaporeans should be able to access so that they would not be as well-informed on the ongoings and would become less suspicious of the PAP (this being the PAP’s hope), and thus the “licensing framework”. However, this short-sighted rule can be overcome very easily by technology, which would thus render the rule a laughing stock with no teeth. Not only would it backfire on the PAP, it would take a stab at PAP’s reputation, as it has.

Or the PAP Could Restart the Conversation

There is of course another way. Even as the government had introduced and legislated a ruling, if the government is willing to step aside for a moment and recognise that the people might not be in complete agreement with the ruling, the government could restart a consultation and invite Singaporeans to rework the ruling with them. Will this make the government look weak? Either way, the ball is not in the government’s court at this point anyway. In fact, if the government were willing to be open, it would do more to strengthen their moral integrity and repair the tarnished portion of their reputation.

There is perhaps too much fear within our PAP politicians now, which has translated into an aggressiveness towards the people, but this will only further entrench the people’s displeasure with an already perceived highhandedness among some of the PAP politicians. If the PAP wants to regain some form of legitimacy, it would be in the best interest of the PAP to undergo a cleansing, where they allow their inner fears to be washed away and allow a calmness and ease to take over, so that they would be able to interact with Singaporeans with a cleaner slate.

The PAP Needs to Let Politicians with Conviction Lead

If certain politicians have become liabilities to how PAP should advance in the new era, the PAP should have the courage to allow them to take a backseat. At this point, it is not about face or pride – the PAP’s reputation is on a downward spiral and the only way to stump the tide is to find its way back to the moral integrity that the PAP had initially built itself on. This means identifying new leaders among the current breed of PAP politicians, who have the conviction and clarity of mind, who have the ability to understand the new social dynamics and be able to philosophise a new approach towards engaging with Singaporeans on an equal level.

Anyway, the reshuffling of office-holders is due soon and a reshuffling which can present new energies to the ministries might be the spark that is needed to help renew the trust between the government and the people. A ruling passed under a previous minister which has the enlightened guidance of the new minister could be amended to reflect a wider representation and be accepted by a wider group of Singaporeans.

The PAP Needs to Grab Current Opportunities or Lose Its Power

There are many opportunities abound now, if only the PAP knows how to grab them. If not, the opposition parties have become quite a formidable force and in spite of the PAP’s attempts to “fix” them have only helped the opposition parties to gain higher ground. Further attempts to “fix” the opposition will only lead to similar outcomes, as has been shown this year. Singaporeans have become a lot more discerning and it is unlikely that our peeled-over eyes would allow anymore “fixes” to go by us unnoticed – even with the “licensing framework” in place.

If the PAP wants to protect its political legitimacy and longevity, there are many ways to do so and further regulations and entrenchment are certainly not the way, and will be a sure death for them.

The ongoing dispute between the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) on the cleaning of the food centres at Bedok has become a matter of national interest.

As such, I had written to the NEA and AHPETC requesting for more information to be released so that Singaporeans can be more adequately informed of the matter.

Please see below the email.

*****

To: Who It May Concern at the National Environment Agency and the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council.

I refer to the ongoing dispute between the National Environment Agency (NEA) and the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) regarding the cleaning of the food centres at Block 538 and Block 511 in Bedok.

The dispute has become a matter of national interest and I am writing in to request to the NEA and the AHPETC to release the following documents, so that Singaporeans can be more informed of the facts behind the dispute.

The MDA had responded to the third email that I had sent. Please see below the email and my subsequent response below as well.

You can see the first email that I had sent here, the MDA’s first response (and my response) here, and the MDA’s second response (and my response) here.

*****

Please see below the MDA’s second email:

Dear Mr Ngerng,

There is no subsequent tranche of sites which will be individually licensed.  When MDA makes a determination that a new site has met the criteria and needs to be individually licensed, we will notify the site owner. With regard to your specific request to release info on potentially licensable news sites, we have stated in our earlier reply and we reiterate that we will not be releasing such info. To do so before we even determine that any website is indeed an individually licensable news site is premature. To disclose the reach of websites that we have not even determined to be “news sites” is even more irresponsible, and in respect of the commercial sensitivity of such info, we will not be disclosing such info.

We have also stated in our earlier reply that the move to individually license online news providers is not a fundamental shift in policy approach, but rather a refinement of the Class Licensing scheme which was  introduced via subsidiary legislation in 1996. Traditional news providers are today already individually licensed, and given that more and more Singaporeans access news and current affairs over the Internet, this refinement was to make consistent our regulatory approach for traditional and online news platforms. Where there is a new policy direction, such as the upcoming amendment in the Broadcasting Act, the Government will consult the public for its views before formulating its proposals.

We would also like to reiterate our earlier point that the content standards remain the same even under the new licensing framework. Since there is no change to the content standards, we fail to see how the licensing framework will influence the editorial slant of these news sites. Take-down notices will only be issued for breaches of these content guidelines. Similarly, the $50,000 performance bond is only held to licensees’ compliance of these content standards and take-down notices.

As for examples of prohibited content, examples which we have provided previously are as follows:

• Content which offends against good taste, decency or morality – gory pictures of the Tampines Ave 7 accident which happened last year;
• Content which undermines racial and religious harmony in Singapore – the “Innocence of Muslims” video, for which MDA issued a blocking notice to Google.

We have not come across content that presents “information, events or depictions in a manner likely to mislead and cause mass panic to the public” and are not willing to provide speculative examples. However, as and when such scenarios do arise (though we sincerely hope not) and we issue a take-down notice for it, we will ensure that the public is aware of it, just as we did when we had issued a blocking notice to Google last year.

Thank you.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us by replying to this email.

Kindly click here if you wish to participate in our customer service survey.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Media Development Authority

*****

Please see below my response:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email. It’s greatly appreciated.

I do have further queries and hope that you will be able to address them.

1. You had said that “there is no subsequent tranche of sites”. I would like to understand how the MDA then “makes a determination that a new site has met the criteria” if there is no “tranche of sites” that the MDA currently monitors. From a planning perspective, this is arbitrary and there is a lack of clarity. I would like to understand the steps that the MDA would take towards identifying and “determining” these “news sites” and licensing them.
2. You had said that, “in respect of the commercial sensitivity of such info, we will not be disclosing such info.” However, the MDA had also released 10 sites which “are visited by at least 50,000 unique IP addresses from Singapore each month over a period of two months.” I would like to know if the MDA believes that it had respected the “commercial sensitivity” of these sites by disclosing the 10 sites.
3. Similarly, if the MDA is able to release a batched list of sites according to the “unique IP addresses”, can the MDA similarly release other “batched lists” of other sites as well?
4. You had mentioned that you would like to respect the “commercial sensitivity” of the sites. Does it mean that this ruling would apply only to “commercial sites”?
5. Also, for sites which are not commercial, how does the respect of “commercial sensitivity” apply here?
6. You had said that, “where there a new policy direction, such as the upcoming amendment in the Broadcasting Act, the Government will consult the public for its views before formulating its proposals.” I would like to understand how the MDA makes a distinction between a “refinement” and an “amendment”.
7. I would also like to know from the MDA, that if Singaporeans believe that the so-called “refinement” of the “$50,000 performance bond” and “take-down notices” should be put on hold and a consultation opened with the “public for its views”, would the MDA do so?
8. You had said that, “the $50,000 performance bond is only held to licensees’ compliance of these content standards and take-down notices”. I would like to understand as to who would be deciding on the “compliance”?
9. I would also like to understand if the MDA believes that it is in the best position to decide on such “compliance”.
10. You had said that the MDA has not “come across content that presents “information, events or depictions in a manner likely to mislead and cause panic to the public” and that you “are not willing to provide speculative examples”. I would like to understand that if the MDA is “not willing to provide speculative examples”, does the MDA then have clarity as to what these “information, events or depictions” are?
11. Also, what does the MDA mean by “mislead”, and “cause panic to the public”?
12. I appreciate the MDA’s effort to “ensure that the public is aware of” any “scenarios” where the MDA would “issue a take-down notice” to a site. However, I would like to know if there in the event of such a “scenario”, would there be a consultation with the public as to whether the site had been “found to be in breach of content standards”.

I appreciate the MDA for responding to my emails and look forward to your response on this email.

Thank you.

Roy Ngerng

Alright! So, what really happened between the AHPETC, NEA and now, our dear Vivian? I had tried to be amicable in the first two articles but things have gotten out of hand. So let it rip! Below is the chronological order of what has happened thus far.

Please note that this infographics pertain only to the food centre at Block 538, as the issues for Block 511 are different.

Note the smoke bombs that were thrown too.

Note: The blue boxes represent what the Worker’s Party had said and the white boxes represent the others. The white box with the red border represents NEA, the white boxes with the green borders represent the food centres and/or hawkers and the white boxes with the grey borders represent dearest Bala. 

You can read Part 1 of the article here and Part 2 here.

This is Part 2 of the article. In Part 1, I had discussed how the NEA had seemed to constantly changed tack in its argument, as the AHPETC had managed to successfully counter each accusation. In this article, I would explore loopholes by both parties and the information that we would require to make a more informed understanding of the matter.

Part 1 can be found here.

Who Manages The Contracts?

On 9 June, “NEA (then) released a letter dated 8 May from Aljunied MP and town council member, Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, appealing to the town council on the hawkers of Blk 511 Bedok North St 3 Market Association’s behalf”, which it suggested “is proof Mr Faisal had considered the hawkers’ appeal against the town council’s requirement that hawkers paid the extra charges, to be serious and valid”.

AHPETC rebutted to say that what the letter, “showed was that Mr Faisal was aware that it was not town council policy to not clean the high areas of the market nor collect additional charges from the hawkers” instead.

So, who’s right?

More importantly, if you look at the wording of Mr Faisal’s letter, it had said that, “Mr. Chan said that he was informed by your good office that the contract with the vendors does not include the cost for cleaning above 2.5 metres above the ground”.

This is where it gets blurry. If Mr Faisal had to write to the NEA regarding the “contract”, then who exactly is in charge of the contract, if not the AHPETC? If the AHPETC had to write to the NEA, is the NEA in charge of the contract? Yet, the AHPETC had invited “Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts”, so who is managing the contracts?

NEA And Hawkers Knew That They Had To Pay Additional Already?

The NEA had also released “A second document (which) was a quotation by the cleaning contractor ATL Maintenance for high-rise cleaning at the hawker centre at Blk 538 Bedok North St 3, for the sum of S$7,200” and said that, “this shows the contractor wanted hawkers to pay them separately for both the scaffolding and cleaning of high areas”.

But the AHPETC rebutted in their media release to say that, “It was the Market Association of Blk 538 Market that requested the quotation, as confirmed by ATL’s media release on 6 June 2013. Attributing the quotation to AHPETC is misleading and politically motivated to tarnish the reputation of AHPETC.”

So, did the market already know that it had to pay additional anyway? Did the NEA knew that the market had to pay additional anyway? Does it mean that the AHPTEC was right all along?

Yet, this continues to beg the question– does the AHPETC or the NEA manage the contracts? And why is it that the contracts are not released but only the quotation? Without the contract(s), how are we to sensibly make sense of the quotation?

A Petition With No Dates And Signatures?

The NEA had also released, “the hawkers’ petition to the media, dated 3 June 2013, saying the town council and its cleaning contractor had said told them “they will not clean anything above two-and-a-half metres”.

However, if you look at the “petitions”, they weren’t dated or signed. How representative are these petitions of the hawkers?

AHPETC Reaffirms Their Same Stand Yet Again

Finally, the AHPETC reiterated its stand yet again by saying that, “The Blk 538 market incident was caused by NEA’s email of 7 Feb 2013. NEA had confirmed that the hawkers’ association would be providing the scaffolding which was not done for reasons unknown to us. In addition, any decision for market closure came from the hawkers’ association and not from the town council, as it was not needed by us.

The appeal letter by Mr Faisal released by NEA pertained to Blk 511 Market, which is scheduled for cleaning at the end of June 2013 by the Market Association. Contrary to NEA’s portrayal, the letter evidently shows MP Faisal’s awareness that it was not the policy of AHPETC not to clean the high areas of the market during annual cleaning, nor to collect any additional charges from the hawkers; otherwise, MP Faisal would not have written to AHPETC to look into Mr Chan Kheng Heng’s claim.”

Who Is Playing Politics?

But yesterday, Environment and Water Resources Minister Vivian Balakrishnan chimed in and said that, Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim was “arrogant and wrong” to make a “political attack” on NEA. He had also said that, “It is obvious that the hawkers are speaking the truth.”

Obviously, many observers would consider that the PAP and the Worker’s Party are both playing politics, so it would be seen as a case of the pot calling the kettle black – perhaps one more so than the other.

But as to whether it’s obvious that the hawkers are “speaking the truth”, who really knows at this point? The only evidence that we have so far are the “hawkers’ petition to the media” that the NEA had released and AHPETC’s claim that they had “investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless”.

I hardly consider that Mr Balakrishnan could make such a sweeping statement at this point about who is speaking the truth. This is political.

NEA and AHPETC Have To Release More Documents and Evidence

All in, there are still some loopholes. I am more inclined to believe that the AHPETC is telling the truth because there is more consistency in their arguments. However, I stumbled at the point where the NEA had released a letter by Mr Faisal – I simply do not have enough information to make an informed understanding.

I am less inclined to align myself with what the NEA had said because of what seems like stances which flip-flop. The NEA doesn’t seem to hold on to a consistent argument but relies on new ones, as the AHPETC constantly defends itself successfully.

But in order for there to be clarity, the following needs to be released to the public:

1. All the contracts involved, if not, the managers of these contracts – so that we know who should rightfully be taking responsibility, but has shifted the “blame” away
2. The full schedule of the cleaning of the food centres in the past 2 years – so that we know what the regular schedule has been like and whether the demands made are reasonable
3. An independent survey and/or report with all the hawkers to find out what their involvement and agreement in this issue is like – so that know if all the hawkers are agreeable to the current matter or only certain hawkers have been given fair airing

These documents would allow us to have better clarity on this issue.

The question is, would this issue end up as how the Aim saga had ended, where the Worker’s Party would invite the NEA to invite “the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter”? Would the NEA remain silent after that as well?

Afterword: After I had written Part 2 of this article, “The AHPETC … invited the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan to a dialogue with the MPs in the council to “settle any outstanding matters”.” AHPETC Vice-Chairman, Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh, had also said that, “the council has been consistent in its attitude and always prepared to cooperate with government agencies for residents’ benefit. “However, the Minister should not mistake this to mean that AHPETC can be bullied or is an easy target to be used by the government to score political points.”

As expected, the Worker’s Party had fired their salvo. To know how this will end, you just need to look at how Vivian went silent after making disrespect and disparaging remarks about politician Vincent Wijeysingha during the general elections in 2011.

Our Civil Service Are Pawns On The Chess Board?

Actually, the whole thing is very simple. When you have belief and conviction in what you do, it will come out in what you say. Why do I say that? When you believe in what you do, you would be consistent in what you say. I say that because in my emails to the MDA, this is also what I’ve encountered – there seems to be a constant shifting in the goal posts by the MDA, as does the NEA. Which is why I’m more inclined to agree with the AHPETC because their responses have by far been much more consistent.

The problem is when you start playing politics, the strategies you use are about keeping yourself in power, and sometimes, you lose what you had originally stood for. In my analysis, this is what has happened – has our civil service become pawns in a chess set, where they are powerless to control their own destiny, being that for years, they’ve been controlled by the PAP?

This is why the independence of our civil service and the other estates of governance – presidency, judiciary and media – needs to remain independent, so that they would always be held responsible and accountable for what they say or do. Otherwise, you can already see how the ridicule that has lent itself to the NEA and the MDA can be detrimental for the stability and strength of our institutions. When our civil service loses its credibility, and then when the government falters, what can we count on to prop our country up?

In playing politics, have our politicians become so short-sighted that they are willing to allow our civil service to languish and the reputation of the strength of our institutions to languish, at their pride and ego?

Have they allowed their personal interests to get ahead in the long term interests of our country and people? I am honestly quite tired that my country’s history and truths are constantly being manipulated out of our common senses. A country which loses its sense of history loses a wealth of experience that it needs to base itself on.

We Need to Protect the Freedom of Our Internet

This episode has shown us one thing – it is important that the Internet is free. When we are able to have an open access to information on the Internet, we can make better sense of what is going on in Singapore.

I am also better able to form an opinion of what is going on by sieving through the information.

If the government can successfully impose a $50,000 performance bond and to ask a website to take down its article within 24 hours, I might not be able to access information which can provide me with more insight.

Thus we need to take a stand to ensure that the independence of our Internet is protected. You can sign the online petition by #FreeMyInternet here to protect our right to access information on the Internet:

http://www.petitions24.com/petition_for_the_immediate_withdrawal_of_the_licensing_regime

You can also see the infographics in Part 3 here.

I finally took a proper look at the ongoing AHPETC-NEA standoff, after taking time off the ongoing MDA Licensing Framework saga.

I am losing track with all the sagas ongoing! You would remember the following:

• The Aim Saga: The latest news was that Ms Sylvia Lim, Chairman of the Worker’s Party and the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council had, on 16 May, invited “them to make a report to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau or other relevant agencies to investigate the matter, rather than to make these suggestions and insinuations” against the Worker’s Party on the management of the town councils. This has been left hanging after Ms Lim had fired the salvo. The PAP has yet to follow up on this.
• During the Punggol East by-election, which the Worker’s Party had also contested in and won, The Straits Times had conducted an election poll, even though one is not allowed under the Parliamentary Elections Act. Apparently, since 13 January 2013, “the case is currently being looked into by the Police” but there has been no outcome after 5 months now.

I had put together all the press releases from the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC), the National Environment Agency (NEA) and some news articles from The Straits Times and the Channel NewsAsia, and put them in a chronological order in my research so that I would be able to obtain a more coherent picture of the story.

In my analysis, I had tried to look at the arguments for consistency and to identify what other information Singaporeans would need to decide with certainty the key issues in this matter.

Key Issue: Hawkers Had To Pay For Scaffolding?

On 26 May 2013, The Straits Times had broken the news that stallholders in two food centres in blocks 511 and 538 located within the AHPETC were in dispute with the AHPETC because “they had to pay for the scaffolding that is erected for the washing (of ceilings and ceiling fixtures), but said they never had to in the past (under the PAP).”

This is the key issue. So, let’s take a look at how the various parties had responded.

AHPETC’s Stand: We Never Asked Hawkers to Pay And We Do Clean Annually

On 29 May, AHPETC responded to say that, “it was the NEA … that informed us in February that the hawker association would be making the necessary arrangements for the scaffolding to clean the high areas” and that the AHPETC had not “advise(d) hawkers or anyone that there would be additional charges imposed by the town council (TC) on the hawkers for the cleaning”.

NEA had also sent out an “Advisory on Maintenance of Hawker Centres” on 31 May 2013 and which was reported “in the Straits Times and Zaobao on 1 June 2013”.

Accordingly, AHPETC then clarified on 1 June that, “It is clear from the Advisory that Town Councils do NOT need to clean the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts at each spring cleaning exercise, but annually. It is also clear from the Straits Times’ article dated 1 June 2013 that (in spite of this) the Town Council had carried out cleaning of the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts last year. We reiterate that no authorized TC staff told any hawker or anyone of any additional charges to be imposed for the cleaning.”

1. In sum, the hawkers had apparently complained that the AHPETC had wanted the hawkers to pay for the scaffolding.
2. AHPETC said that they had never asked the hawkers to do so.
3. AHPETC said that the NEA had informed them in February that NEA would make the necessary arrangements for the scaffolding, so the NEA should have taken responsibility but did it?
4. AHPETC also said that they had fulfilled their obligations by cleaning the ceilings, beams and exhaust ducts last year, which has to be performed on an annual basis.

So, the AHPETC had fulfilled its responsibilities.

NEA Changed Tack No. 1: AHPETC Does Not Want To Clean

When the AHPETC clarified that it had never asked hawkers to pay “additional charges”, on 3 June, the NEA then changed tack and said that it had “received feedback that the AHPETC does not intend to clean areas above 2.5 metres at another hawker centre.” From suggesting that the AHPETC wanted hawkers to pay additional, it was now reported that AHPETC didn’t want to clean the ceilings.

But the AHPETC responded that they do keep with their “obligation to clean the high areas annually”. And so, “To allay unnecessary anxiety caused to hawkers and the public due to the media reports, … the tentative schedules for annual cleaning of the five hawker centres within our jurisdiction” was released by the AHPETC.

AHPETC also reiterated that in an “email dated 7 Feb 2013, NEA informed the Town Council that “the Hawkers’ Association will make the necessary arrangements with their contractors on the scaffolding erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning period from 4-8 March 2013.”

So, the question is – why didn’t the NEA follow-up?

NEA Changed Tack No. 2: There Is More Than One Type of Scaffolding

On 5 June, NEA then changed tack again and said that pertaining to the email, “There are two types of scaffoldings. One is for the cleaning of high areas and it is paid for by the town council. The other is for the putting up of canvas to cover the stalls and the cost is borne by the hawkers.” Is this a new development?

NEA Changed Tack No. 3: AHPETC Cleaned At The Wrong Time

On 6 June, it was reported that the “dispute then shifted” and that hawkers at the hawker centre at Block 511 Bedok North Street 3 said that “cleaning of the hawker centre … should take place as scheduled in June and not in November”. So, now it’s not that the AHPETC wanted the hawkers to pay or that the AHPETC was not willing to clean the ceilings but the scheduling was wrong?

Is the NEA now confirming that all along, the AHPETC was going to clean the food centres anyway?

Fortunately, it looked like everything would be resolved when the Channel NewsAsia reported that, “Parties agreed that spring cleaning at the hawker centres at Block 511 in Bedok North Street 3 and Block 630 at Bedok Reservoir Road will be done within a month.”

AHPETC’s Reiterate Its Stand

On 7 June, the AHPETC released a media statement to clarify its position – a position that it has taken consistently. It said:

• “Has any stallholder been approached by AHPETC staff or its contractors for the extra charges? If so, please make it public. AHPETC has investigated the claim and found the claim published in the press report to be baseless.”
• All cleaning contractors employed by AHPETC are well aware of its obligation under the contract to clean the high areas of all the markets under AHPETC management at least once a year. Anyone who is interested is welcome to inspect the contracts.
• It also said that because the NEA had informed the AHPETC that because, “the Hawker Association will make the necessary arrangements with its contractors on the scaffold erection / dismantling during the spring cleaning”, “The scaffolding was not provided as indicated” by the AHPETC. It was thus because the NEA had not carried out its duty that, “AHPETC cleaners were unable to carry out the work of the high areas”.
• AHPETC reiterated that, it “did not ask or impose any additional charges for cleaning.”
• And the AHPETC went further by saying that, it would be “prepared to consider any stallholders’ request on cleaning arrangements to ensure smooth operations and to minimize disruption to their business and inconvenience to customers.”

In the second part of this article, I will discuss the other loopholes in the NEA and AHPETC’s arguments and the information that we would require to make a more informed understanding of this matter.

Part 2 of the article can be found here.

You can also see the infographics in Part 3 here.

The following is the full transcript of the speech that I had given at the #FreeMyInternet protest at the Hong Lim Park on 8 June 2013.

Singaporeans Need Step Up to Protect The Independence and Freedom of Our Internet

Hello everyone, I am Roy and I am the author of The Heart Truths.

I am honoured and humbled to be here today to be a voice among Singaporeans, to speak up on the MDA Licensing Rule. The MDA Licensing has to go!

For more than 40 years, Singaporeans couldn’t protest in Singapore. And in the past, if you speak up, what will happen to you? You will be arrested, you will be jailed. You will be thrown into prison. You will be sued and you will be made bankrupt.

This year is the first time in Singapore’s history since our independence that we are able to come here in the thousands to speak up and to voice out for what is right for us.

The Government Wants Us to Trust Them

Now, the government tells us that it’s ok. Trust them. Give them time. After a while, when the licence takes effect, we will know that we can trust them. So, this is what they say.

But Singaporeans, how many years have we given the government to makes our lives right? They want us to read the right thing? But are they doing the right thing?

Singaporeans’ Wages and Retirement Funds Are Very Low

Over the past more than one decade, Singaporeans’ median wages have remained stagnant. In fact, for the poorest in Singapore, since 2000, their real wages have actually dropped! Dropped!

The percentage of people who are able to meet their CPF Minimum Sum and Medisave Minimum Sum have also dropped. Yet, healthcare costs have climbed up but the percentage of the government’s spending on healthcare has dropped!

Is it any wonder why, that many people, especially the elderly, do not even dare to go and see the doctor?

So, the government wants us to read the right thing. But are they doing the right thing? If they are not doing the right thing, then what do they want us to read?

Today, our retirement funds, and that is our CPF, is the smallest among ALL the developed countries, and not only that, but our retirement funds are even lower than developing countries like Malaysia and Philippines!

Our CPF is invested in the GIC and Temasek Holdings. And do you know that GIC is ranked 8th largest and Temasek is ranked the 11th largest sovereign wealth funds in the world? But our CPF is the lowest is the developed countries!

Our Elderly Earn Low Wages and Are Forced to Work

Now, we must not sit down and we must not wait for the government to change, and to treat us better. We need to stand up and we need to ask the government to change, if not, we need to change who is in the government!

The government cannot, I repeat, the government, cannot, expect to tell the people to sit down and listen to the right thing when there is no right thing! When there is nothing right about how there are more and more elderly who have to work at our hawker centres to be cleaners. And be paid very low wages!

My question to you is this – are you willing to work long hours everyday and get paid only a few hundred dollars in Singapore? Are you willing? Of course, our government ministers won’t understand this. Because why? Because they are paid millions of dollars. Will they know how hard it is to be poor?

The government tells us that the elderly want to stay active. They want a hobby. And so the government say, we should encourage them to work.

But do you know that in 2005, when the government conducted a study, 62% of the elderly said they had to work because they needed the money. This is an increase of more than 20% from 1995! 62%!

What about now, after another 8 years? Will there be an increase of another 20%? Does it mean that today, 80% of the elderly have to work because they need the money?

Many of our elderly are working in “blue-collar” industries. Many of our elderly are very lowly-paid.

Now, the government wants us to read the right thing. Will you know all these if you had read the right thing? Will you know that there are Singaporeans who are suffering if we had the right thing?

If there was no speak up for them, who will speak up for them?

What Are These Online News Sites and What Are Their Unique Visitors?

In this new rule, the government wants to tell us to take down our articles within 24 hours. Think about it, if you are not happy with something someone had said, would you tell the person to shut up? Or would you want to talk to the person to find out why? So, why doesn’t the government want to talk to us? Why does the government want us to keep quiet?

The government says that “online news sites” need to be licensed. But which are these sites? Obviously, the government would already know which these sites are because the government is monitoring them. So, why not let everyone know which these sites are? Let us know which these sites are. Let us know what the unique visitors are. Let us see if we agree whether these should be called “online news sites”.

If the government had bothered to speak to anyone of us, we would have told them – who says we want articles to be taken down? If we don’t want to read something, we won’t read it. If there is something we don’t agree with, we will talk about it. We are not like them. Who says that we want articles to be taken down? The people don’t need the government to prevent us from reading. We have our minds to decide what we want to read. But, if that is the case, who does the government really want to protect?

Now, today, there are only 10 news websites that the government wants to license. Now, that’s today. But what will happen tomorrow? Or, what will happen in GE2015 or 2016? Will there suddenly be 100 sites? 200 sites? Who will know? Only the government will know. When there are too many sites which are licensed, will we still be able to read? Will we still be able to know what is going on in Singapore? Will we still have a stake in our own country?

Maybe the question that the government should ask is not – how do you censor the Internet so that more people will read the newspapers. Maybe the real question that the government should ask is this – why are people choosing to read the Internet instead of your newspapers? What is wrong with your newspapers?

Press Councils in The Nordic Countries

The MDA says – Singaporeans, let us decide what is good for you. We will make the decision for you, and we will decide what to remove, because it is for your own good.

Now, let me tell you how a truly democratic country works. In the Nordic countries, the newspapers have a “press council”. These press councils are independent of the government. All the newspapers sign on to this council because they want to show the public that they are responsible with what they publish.

So, if a member of the public believes that a newspaper has written something which is “not right”, the individual can write to the council. The council meets every month to discuss and if the newspaper has been found to have breached the code of conduct, they have to print a notice on their newspaper.

So, you see – in a country where everyone has their rights, and not just some people, as an individual, your voice gets heard. You get to speak up.

Now, many countries have adopted press councils. But in Singapore, why does the government want to censor instead of let the people consult with one another?

In Singapore, the MDA expects Singaporeans to listen to them. The MDA believes that they know everything. Should this be the way, Singaporeans? Should this be?

No! The MDA is not in a position to make such a decision. The people should have the right to do so!

If the government doesn’t trust the people, how can the government expect the people to trust the government?

Singaporeans Will Lose Our Independence

Singapore has been independent for almost 50 years. In 2015, we will celebrate the 50^th Anniversary of our country’s independence. But what is there to celebrate? On 1^st June 2013, the government imposed a licensing rule on “online news websites” What does this mean for us?

This means that we will not be able to read what they do not want us to read. We will not be able to know what they do not want us to know. We will not be able to think because – will you really know what is happening in Singapore? Will we know the truth about what is happening in Singapore?

Now, if the government doesn’t take this rule down, Singaporeans, WE WILL LOSE OUR INDEPENDENCE. We will lose our independence to read, to know, to think and to be who we are.

The People Need to Step Up to Govern the Country

But there are some people who say, but the opposition is not strong enough. I won’t talk about the opposition today. Mr Tan Jee Say had said in his speech at the Labour Day protest that there are many capable opposition politicians with sterling qualifications, and I agree with him.

But my question to you is this – many of us have a very good education. If we think that we cannot be responsible and also help to run this country, I think we are in a very dangerous position. There are 3.5 million Singaporeans in Singapore. Do you think that we can only rely on 90 people in the government to make all the decisions? Are we saying that among the 3.5 million people in Singapore, we are not good enough to think about how this country should be run?

Even if we don’t have a degree, I know there are some people with ITE certs or are from Normal Technical stream, who are equally very smart. Some of them have set up their own businesses. The Population White Paper had called our nurses “low-skilled workers”, but I have also seen smart thinkers among our nurses.

No one is not good enough to help run this country. Everyone is good enough. And we need to believe in ourselves. Whoever is in government, we make sure that the government will listen to us.

The government should be asking us – is this what you want?

The government should not be telling us – this is what we want you to want.

So, whoever is put into government, we make sure that we also help to provide solutions and help to run the country. We cannot just rely on the government.

We Need to Protect Our Freedom Of The Internet

But isn’t this already what we are doing online? Many of us are writing articles, and many of us are commenting on blogs, forums and Facebook, to provide solutions to run our country.

Which is why it is so important that we need to protect the freedom of the Internet. We need to protect our right to read, to find out more, to think and to help make all of our lives even better.

We need to FREE OUR INTERNET.

And this why it is so important that we have to speak up and stand up against the licensing rule. The licensing rule HAS TO GO. Our right to know and think have to be protected. If we can continue to play an important role in our country, we can make sure the country will continue to survive and succeed.

And in order to do so, we must protect the independence of the Internet, and we must protect our own independence!

Thank you!