publichouse.sg

By Andrew Loh

The controversy over Alex Au’s blog post has degenerated into accusations of Au and Function 8 “using the Church” for “political aims.”

Give the circumstances, however, one is left wondering how such accusations can stand up to scrutiny. Indeed, it does not and all we have are well, accusations – from the Ministry for Home Affairs and the Archbishop of the Catholic Church. Unsubstantiated accusations.

The real issue, however, is the opacity of how the Government has dealt with the matter – starting from when the Minister for Home Affairs, Teo Chee Hean, met with Archbishop Nicholas Chia, earlier this year. The circumstances around this are murky, opaque, and leave many unanswered questions.

Let’s rewind to the known facts.

By Andrew Loh

In June this year, a rally to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the so-called “Marxist Conspiracy” arrests was held at Speakers’ Corner. Prior to the event, the Archbishop of the Catholic Church in Singapore, Nicholas Chia, had sent a letter – purportedly expressing the church’s support – to Function 8, the organisers of the event. Function 8 is a group made up of former detainees, which include those from the “Marxist Conspiracy” episode of 1987, of the Internal Security Act (ISA).

Shortly after having issued the letter, however, archbishop Chia sent a third letter to Function 8 asking for his first letter to be returned to him. [In the second letter, Chia had allegedly given his permission to Function 8 to make his letter known at the rally.]

Chia said, in a press statement to the media on 19 September, “I had earlier decided to withdraw my letter to this group as, on reflection, its contents did not accurately reflect my views on the subject, and if used in a manner that I did not intend, may inadvertently harm the social harmony in Singapore. The group had acknowledged my decision and returned the letter to me.”

By Andrew Loh

It is frustrating to see how the National Conversation initiative is turning out. Bertha Henson describes it as a conversation going nowhere and it feels like it is. From government ministers to our media facilitators, there seem to be u-turns and some dodgy shenanigans going on. In a word, the conversation is emerging as one which is less than honest.

At this point, I am not sure if it is on the part of the government or on some lower-downs who are trying too hard to, ironically, be inclusive.

The man tasked to facilitate this National Conversation, Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, was reported to have said, “I don’t think we should start our Singapore conversation on the basis of looking for sacred cows to slay… I don’t think that would be a constructive exercise.”

That sets this NC apart from the previous Remaking Singapore one back in 2002 where sacred cows were explicitly said to be not sacred.

By Andrew Loh -

With the formation of the Our Singapore National Conversation (NC) committee, things are set to move forward from here. While  there are skepticism from some quarters (and not unjustified skepticism, I might add), still I am hopeful that the dialogue will lead to some substantial changes. And I think that is the crux of the matter. If the NC ends up as nothing more than an exercise in public relations, we would - in the words of PAP MP Inderjit Singh - have wasted our time.

There are several questions which some have raised to cast doubts on the NC initiative:

1. How serious - really - is the Government in wanting to not only hear the views of the public but more importantly, how serious is it in wanting to change certain things?

2. How inclusive will this NC be?

3. What sort of authority and power does this NC committee have in making changes which S'poreans want to see?

4. Are there out-of-bounds issues - these may not be explicitly laid down but may nonetheless be at the back of the Government's mind?