Straits Times to be listed as political association

When does a journalist become a politician?

"THE Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has announced on Tuesday its intention to gazette news website The Straits Times (ST) as a political association.

"On why the decision to gazette ST, the PMO explained in the statement: 'As a website that provides coverage and analysis of political issues, ST has the potential to influence the opinions of their readership and shape political outcomes in Singapore. It has been gazetted to ensure that it is not funded by foreign elements or sources.'"

In Singapore the answer is when they write about political issues, but it seems the rule is only applied to those journalists who cover topics that the government sanctioned media would prefer to not touch. I think it is clear here that I am referring to the recent arbitrary decision taken by the PMO to gazette (gag?) The Online Citizen (TOC). The reasoning behind the decision is entirely spurious and without merit, and that can clearly be seen by taking the exact wording of the justification, replacing the name of The Online Cizitzen with The Straits Times and seeing how well the same reasoning applies to an organisation controlled by the government and which has been allowed to operate for many years without fear of being gazetted.

So we can infer from the above that there is more to the gazetting than merely the justification given by the PMO. I have written previously on how un free the press in Singapore are, and this decision is merely a very transparent extension of the governments desire to control the media into the realm of the internet. Make no mistake that this is not about preventing foreign funding for organisations that could influence political discourse in Singapore, rather this is an attempt by the government to intimidate and silence organisations that disagree with them, challenge their authority or dare to encourage greater awareness of political and social concerns held by the people of Singapore.

The true irony in all of this is that TOC has admitted to receiving no foreign funding (and surely will soon have to prove the same), whereas two of the Straits Times' three largest shareholders are foreign companies! Which one better falls into the category of "foreign funded organisations that [provide] coverage and analysis of political issues" is obvious, but that is at odds with which one got gazetted and which one didn't. It should be clear then that the real reason for this is about the government's desire to control the media, and the ideas and criticisms to which the population are exposed to.

A Question for the PM

With the general election bound to be announced any time soon, now is a good time for all of Singapore to reflect on the achievements of the PAP over the last 4+ years. If I were lucky enough to meet the PM or his father Minister Mentor Lee the question I would ask is "What achievements can you point to over the last parliament that you are most proud of? What have you done to deserve to be re-elected by the Singaporean people?"

I'm afraid I'm hard pressed to imagine a good answer to that. We've seen the financial crisis hammer Singapore; a better late than never bounce back, the magnitude of which was only impressive in so far as it was a recovery from a huge drop in GDP; the three times over-budget YOG, to which most Singaporeans were either apathetic to or outright annoyed about; the huge security lapse in letting Singapore's most wanted criminal escape to Malaysia ... the list of failings goes on and on, while the achievements are hard to think of.

But unfortunately, with the Singapore press being wholly controlled by the PAP, it's pretty much impossible to imagine that we'll ever get a straight answer to this question, because all journalists know that asking difficult questions is a bad career move, and writing a negative article is pretty much asking to be sacked, or worse, sued for defamation and financially ruined.

What PM Lee's National Day Speech didn't say about FTs

PM Lee devoted a large portion of his National Day speech this year to the hot topic of Foreign Talent, an area for concern to many Singaporeans as the recent influx of FTs causes competition for jobs, housing, seats on the MRT and all the other public services that are shared by everyone living in Singapore.

Unfortunately he made it pretty clear that he is out of touch with Singaporeans real concerns on the influx of foreign talent, in so far as he focussed most of his examples on the benefits of attracting highly talented specialists from modern developed western countries, whilst neglecting to mention the negative impacts of effectively flooding Singapore with cheap labour from less developed Asian countries.

Take for example his comments about Microsoft, who hire the best IT brains in the world to deliver the sort of cutting edge software they are supposed to be known for. This sort of FT arguably is a real talent, who can contribute valuable skills to the economy of any country and which Singapore should probably be happy to accept in reasonable numbers. The real problem comes from more mid level roles in Engineering, Accountancy, Administration etc, roles that many Singaporeans go to University to study for, could surely do to a high standard, but find themselves directly competing with foreign nationals for. This is a completely pointless competition, as since there are plenty of Singaporeans who can do the jobs, the question of why the FTs are here at all is a very valid one, and one which the Minister Mentor's son did not address.

The oft cited response to this is that Singaporeans are supposed to train up, and better themselves to compete in the global marketplace, and on the face of it that is a laudable aim. The problems however with this reasoning are many. First and most obvious is that it is a bit brutal to tell your children to go get a Masters and compete properly after they've gone to University for a few years and got a degree in a good subject. This is not an issue for those lucky enough to get a job handed to them by their parents, but not all Singaporeans are lucky enough to be the son or daughter in law of MM LKY. Even more important than this though, is the fact that this "global competition" is not one of skills but of price. It is easy to see this from the fact that so many Foreigners of Dubious Talent (FDTs) come from countries with lower costs of living and salaries than Singapore, for a chance to earn some money for a few years and leave again.

What happens is that an enterprising young Chinese or Malaysian comes to Singapore to do a job that a Singaporean can do, (for example as an accountant in a car sales office) but with a view to living cheaply, saving up a bit of money (which is actually quite a lot back home) and then leaving again. Since they tend to be young, and their plan is to make money and leave after a few years, they are quite happy to live cramped in large numbers into small apartments or condos. The result of this is that young Singaporeans, trying for example to start a family, probably having similar qualifications as many of these overseas temporary visitors, simply cannot compete if they want to live a normal life, as their rental bills and thus salary expectations are bound to be higher.

PM Lee didn't talk about this side of the foreign talent issue because it is one that he has no answer to. It pushes the wages and standard of living for ordinary Singaporeans down, and the only people it benefits are the foreigners who head back to their own country with a nice pile of money to show for their time in Singapore. Actually, there is one other group that this benefits, and that is Singapore's government Ministers, who have performance related bonuses linked to GDP growth, and GDP can certainly be pushed up by importing cheap labour.

So the question for ordinary Singaporeans is this, does the government represent citizens own best interests, or their own performance linked bonuses when they import cheap foreign "talent", and why does PM Lee not want to address these questions in his national day speech?