~by: Siew Kum Hong~
I was away for most of December, so I missed the two big recent news stories, namely the SMRT fiasco and Seng Han Thong’s appearance on BlogTV. I’ve been in two minds about writing on the latter incident, but finally decided to do so thanks to the remarks by Law and Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam and the TNP article on Boxing Day. I was away at the time and so feel that I am quite distanced from this entire affair, even given my affiliation with TOC.
[disclaimer: I am a member of the core team behind The Online Citizen, but I do not have editorial duties and pretty much see my role as doing what it takes to let the editors get on with their jobs. I weigh in on articles only when asked, and primarily from a legal perspective, although I do tend to give my two cents worth when asked.]
Alex Au does a good job at a quick recap, so I won’t reinvent the wheel. A lot has already been said, so I will only make three points in this posting.
Firstly, nobody can dispute that whatever Seng said on TV, it was incredibly garbled. This is his transcript:
“I notice that the PR mention that, some of the staff, because they are Malay, they are Indian, they can’t converse in English good, well enough, so that also deters them, from but I think we accept broken English.”
As I said, I was away when it all happened, and so I had no idea what was going on when I started being copied on emails within the TOC core team about this incident. I must confess that when I finally read the TOC article that broke the story (which by then had the 2 updates and the editor’s note), I was quite confused.
Even when I read the transcript of Seng’s remarks (reproduced in the editor’s note), I couldn’t precisely figure out what he was trying to get at. I had to re-read Seng’s statement of apology (in update 1 in the article), which explained the point he was trying to make, before I stopped feeling like the ADSL guy in that StarHub ad.
So my first point is: putting aside all this stuff about whether or not the remarks were racist in nature, the sheer irony of a politician speaking in broken English on national TV about broken English was striking (and fodder for satire, as Mr Brown has shown us in his inimitable way).
My second point is about the failure in the article to attribute Seng’s comment about Malays and Indians to SMRT PR, which some seem to be trying to make hay from. Yes, the TOC article could’ve made that attribution, in which case I wouldn’t be writing this particular post.
But frankly, Seng’s words were so garbled, it’s not so easy to tell where the SMRT portion ended and where Seng’s own thoughts began. After Seng posted his explanations, we now know what he was trying to say and why he said what he did. But it was a little difficult before Seng explained. Hindsight is perfect, but there’s no hindsight when you break a story.
Having said that, my third point is that my second point is actually quite beside the point. That’s because even though Seng was quoting a SMRT spokesperson, he seemed to have adopted the SMRT spokesperson’s point (or rather, what he thought the point was); in any case, he did not contradict it. I personally think this is critical.
If you read Seng’s words carefully, you’ll see that he basically said:
- SMRT person said some staff, being Malay and Indian, can’t speak English well, and hence this deters them from … (I suppose Seng meant to say “making announcements” here, or maybe “making announcements without scripts”)
- We can accept broken English in announcements. (Presumably, Seng’s point was that staff with broken English should have made the necessary announcements anyway.)
Seng could only have gotten from (1) to (2), if he had agreed with and adopted (1). That’s because if there is no question of broken English, then there is no question of announcements in broken English. And Seng at no time indicated any disagreement or any hesitation about the reference to Malay and Indian drivers only, so (2) must surely only relate to them.
In other words, Seng must have, in his mind when he made the statements, been thinking only of Malay and Indian drivers who cannot speak English well. And he displayed no reluctance to make, or problems with making, those statements on that basis.
Minister Shanmugam did acknowledge that Seng did not contradict what he thought he heard the SMRT spokesperson say, but the Minister still seemed (based on news reports at least) to have focused his attention on the TOC article instead of the comments themselves. I would disagree with the Minister that the failure in the TOC article to mention the SMRT spokesperson made the article “false”, because it’s clear that Seng had adopted the SMRT spokesperson’s words (or what Seng thought those words were) for himself.
I do wish that the TOC article had mentioned the reference to “SMRT PR”, so that there wouldn’t be all this brouhaha. But that does not detract from the substance of the article. And I think the fact that other PAP MPs came out to criticize Seng, even after reading his explanations, speaks volumes about Seng’s comments. Kudos to the likes of Madam Halimah Yacob and Inderjit Singh.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
Its very lucrative to be an mp.
I can speak as well if not better than that SHT.
i can also speak as bad as his singrish.
I certainly look more handsome.
I want pap to hear this : i do not like any of you.
Yours
Neh
Subway system in Paris is smaller in size as compared to Singapore’s, but it’s denser in terms of number of lines and distances between stations.
@Traveller
“In the first place, it is wrong to label the train disruptions as SMRT fiasco as it was such a trivial incident. In London & Paris, there are much worse incidences with trains derailing & workers going on strike. So there is nothing to distract from.”
Why compare ourselves to London and Paris? Why not Zurich? And do you really think that such incidences will be shrugged off in London, dear old chap, without ink and air time spent analyzing the incident?
And has it occured to anyone that of all the people, the Malays and Indians are likely to have a better command of English, compared to their Chinese counterparts? Which makes SHT’s statement, well, not based on facts. Just sayin’ …….
If the Papies choose versatile guys like Bernard Chen or Arthur Beng, they speak very well and carry themselves well to the extend that the Pappy ‘clique’ becaomes hyper. Worried the LHL might be challenged. BG Yeo was once regarded as capable but they gave BG Yeo and his the most difficult job to beat in Aljuneid GRC. BG Yeo was nullified.
So the safest bet is to choose the meekest, poor orators and bootlickers.
@Traveller
Haven’t yet heard of people stuck in the train, kept in the dark (metaphorically & literally) and ran out of air to breath, in London & Paris train disruptions leh. Also haven’t heard of disruption for 5 to 7 hours with no clue to alternative form of transport. Also never heard of bus drivers don’t know their way. You call this trivial, you obviously haven’t even step foot into London or Paris!!! I live in one of these places for years and can tell you that the train operator as well as the Govt will be persecuted by the media & citizens if the same thing as SMRT happens.
Don’t even talk about quasi-privatisation, the ruling party will be forever finished if this happens in one of those countries too!
For Traveller , i think his Value System is Ignore and sweep things under the carpet, Act Blur, Smoke Out and Hide Dirty Linen bras under the carpet for re-use.
To Traveller, I think if no human life has been sacrificed , its a job well done. Close 2 eyes and auto-pilot. Mbt 5 times a day.
So are all the smrt CEO, top executives. Ministers and lta officials going to be feeling shameful and step down? Ho Ching and lhl better wake up
@hangman
That was what I thought as well when I first heard about it. It just didnt make one ounce of common sense. But then one day, I clicked on a holovision video and it was clear as day.
I mean, the truth and nothing but the truth.
—————————
All sensibilities says ‘no’
Unconvinced. Unless proven.
REGULAR MAINTENANCE OF TRAINS/SYSTEM SAVE COSTS
According to the Straits Times’ article, on the forecast of SMRT’s profitability for next year, the premise of the forecast seems to be that by regular preventative inspections and taking of prompt actions to replace worn-out parts, it will result in higher costs thereby lessening profits for SMRT in running the trains.
Such a premise is fundamenta…lly flawed. The LTA, CEO of SMRT as professionals in the field of operational maintenance should know that it is precisely in trying to save the pennies that serious disruptions at the end will cost more in maintenance costs. The maintenance professionals should not be so naive as to believe such a premise. They should be fully and professionally committed to timely periodic inspection and replacements of worn-out parts, so that the total costs of maintenance will be reduced. (read internal feedback on penny pinching and use of cheaper shady parts which already resulted in higher costs) As a saying goes, a stitch in time saves nine.
Do be transparent and not hide the truths.
That pap creme dela creme cited the words of the pr to substatiate his point.
He did not cite that as a problem.
He cited that as a plausible reason for the driver not speaking to passengers in a bloody blunder like this, behaving like robots incapable of thinking out of the box.
This is y ft are needed. The nurturing of brain is diff.
Complete big shameful bloody failure in Operational blooody readiness.
Pui!
Great posting, Mr Siew Kum Hong.
Law Minister Shanmugam’s “defence” of Seng Hang Thong exposes the perturbing and continuing penchant for Form Over Substance in PAP’s ministerial cadre.
Post-GE 2011, PAP remains transfixed, rather than transformed!
Shanmugam and the PAP once again has missed the forest for the trees. Ditto for Cherian George.
It’s NOT about Mr Seng being racist or speaking broken English himself.
It’s also NOT about the pin-point accuracy of TOC editorial.
It’s about the LACK OF POLITICAL SENSITIVITY of (1)a seasoned grassroot MP who singled-out (2)Malay and Indian minority races and attributing their (3)poor command of English as one of the contributory causes of the failed SMRT crisis management.
3 HITS = OUT. But not so to Minister Shanmugam and NTU Assoc Prof Cherian George, eh?
SMRT crisis management failed because:
(i) SMRT failed in its Contingency and Evacuation Planning and values in its Corporate Culture,
(ii) LTA failed to regulate rigorously in testing the rigour and comprehensiveness of SMRT plans, and
(iii) Transport Ministry failed in its oversight authority over LTA.
Sporelangs are hopelessly easily distracted n forgetful that saw is stilll earning those millions.
I mbt 5 times a day, to unwind.
Singapore is becoming a controlled society with all kinds of laws and regulations some being conceived with fear mongering to solve one kind of problems or another. Yes, we want to avoid welfarism and promote good leadership but our over-hyping on such ideas has resulted in our becoming a strong one-party and one-man autocracy creating more serious problem like legalised corruption and cronyism as witnessed in the latest SMRT saga. Today, we have to have laws to protect public interests with control on real estate agents because of some complaints of malpractices. But what have happened to our obsessive laws on controls of maids and security guards? Are we having better maids or guards because of their better English? In the mean time, at the top of society, leaders enjoy freedom to manipulate laws with writing of their own pay cheques and influx of foreigners that sacrifice people’s interests and wellbeing. Think creative for the sake of building a more creative society.
Yes, it is agreed that we need laws and regulations but overly hyped laws and regulations are just as bad. We need real estate agents to behave with proper professionalism and a simple set of pro-honesty and pro-integrity rules but please do not overreact to the point that we will prevent the individual houseowners who may be more experienced and professional in their own individual way to do better in securing their own sales or purchases for one/two of his own properties. We can afford some give and take in life to deviate from the norm without screaming our heads to have one-hundred percent control over all matters to ad nausem.
burnt or not burnt, look honest or not, he is 100% pap.
We must support SHT.
He is the next big thing.
The following is a reply to another post by PAP MP who still tries to explain away racist remarks made by Seng Han Tong over the blogTV interview in CNA:-
“Hri Kumar, you mentioned that “politicians are fair game, but if I think if you want to run someone down, it should be on the basis of what he actually said or did”. This advice comes across as overly defensive detraction to divert people’s actual strong reactions to the SMRT’s fiasco which aroused many citizens’ general unhappiness over the deeper problems like legalised corruption, cronyism and …policy failures like price fixing and privatization of government. Seng Han Tong if we are to look at his past utterances is seen by many people as a regular defender of such government mistakes, when he should be serving the people. Of course he did not deliberately make a racist remark here but only indirectly. Of course, a MP who chooses to defend wrongs of government should always be careful he does not make a verbal slip.”