Connect with us

Current Affairs

People cannot and should not be asked to refrain from making negative comments just because there are worse things out there

Published

6 years ago

on

There’s been a lot of talk these past few days about Israeli blogger, Nusier Yassin’s video on Singapore posted on his Facebook page, Nas Daily. Nas is well-known on the platform for his 1000-day mission to film daily 1-minute videos in various countries around the world.

After posting his most recent video in which he describes Singapore as an ‘almost perfect’ country, Nas received heavy blowback for his ultra-cheery and extremely positive take on the country. The reaction that went viral was of course the post by The Alternative View where they asked him to take up citizenship in Singapore since “he is so effusive in his praise of the country and Lee Hsien Loong” and professes to be an authority on the country. They then proceed to list out various issues that the majority of Singaporean’s face that he would have to live with as well.

In a comment responding to TAV’s post, Nas did not hold back, calling Singaporean’s crybabies and claiming that too many Singaporeans live in a bubble and lack perspective. His response has received thousands more reactions than the original posts and replies of people praising his reply and apologising on behalf of Singapore for the initial cricistim.

Now, I agree that Nas shouldn’t be targeted for his positive review of Singapore. He should have a right to say what he wants. But I think the problem here is that people are just not really good at expressing their views. Ideally, a person would lay out the justifications for their arguments. But in reality, most just resort to calling that person a liar and hurling insults when that person’s statements don’t coincide with their own personal experiences.

This is especially true when dealing with someone of a higher social status i.e social media celebrities like Nas whose videos receive millions of views. It is also especially true in the space of social media where there’s an invisible cyber wall that gives people a sense of dumb bravery to say absolutely anything that pops into their minds without first editing themselves.

The content of Nas’ video on Singapore isn’t inaccurate. It just seems a little rose-tinted especially to the average Singapore citizen or resident who is more attuned to the difficulties of everyday life in Singapore. I think the problem here is really the TAV’s (and other critics) approach that was unnecessarily hostile and out of proportion.

Of course, when I saw Nas’ video, I couldn’t avoid rolling my eyes at his extremely positive and cheerful presentation about Singapore and cringe a little at his description of it being an ‘almost perfect’ country  (while also admitting to myself that Singapore certainly has come up with some ingenious solutions to certain problems that plague many urban nations).

However, I wasn’t going to go on a massive rant against Nas for his ultra-cheerful video nor would I have resorted to name calling or saying stuff like ‘if you love it so much, then just become a citizen lah’. I mean, what kind of kindergarten-level response is that? There are better was to voice your opposition to someone’s opinions.

Not to be one sided here, I think Nas’ response to criticism wasn’t exactly classy either. Granted that he was hit with a deluge of very strong negative comments, but his approach could have been more measured. Criticising Singaporeans for lacking perspective and being cry babies is just as bad.

In his comment, he said “Why doesn’t everyone here try to live in the Middle East for a little bit? Maybe live in Israel as an Arab Muslim like me and see how it’s like to be a second class citizen your entire life.” He talks about his own experiences of living in the Middle East, of sleeping with rockets falling nearby and living in a state of war.

Those comparisons are not relevant here. People cannot and should not be asked to refrain from making negative comments about products, services or issues which they aren’t happy about just because there are worse things out there. Pointing out the flaws in your own nation does not dismiss the struggles of other nations. You can acknowledge both. Often, it is public opinion that shows the true nature of a product or service.

The same principle should be applied to citizenry and what a country does for its people. If the Singaporean people are saying that there are still major issues in this ‘almost perfect’ country that needs urgent attention, then we have to take their word for it and they shouldn’t be insulted for simply pointing that out. Without these critical opinions, one would assume that there is nothing wrong with how the country is being protrayed to be. Just like a defective product with nothing but positive reviews.

It looks to me like the situation spiralled out of proportion way too quickly (as is the norm on social media) and both sides could have done better at putting their points across without insults.

Now, let’s just move on ok?

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

1 hour ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending