Current Affairs
A decade later, the same problem: PAP’s one agency approach falls short again
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/18233733/Lee-Hsien-Loong-2014-eoexTy.png)
The People’s Action Party (PAP) government has long touted its commitment to efficient and integrated governance, yet a decade after former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s grand vision of a “One Agency” approach, Singaporeans are left wondering if these promises were ever more than mere rhetoric.
In 2014, during his National Day Rally speech, Mr Lee highlighted the absurdity of inter-agency fragmentation by recounting examples like the infamous “fishball stick” incident, where multiple agencies were involved in cleaning a single walkway.
To address such inefficiencies, he announced the creation of the Municipal Services Office (MSO) to streamline public service delivery and ensure a more coordinated approach among government agencies.
Fast forward ten years and Singapore’s newly appointed Prime Minister Lawrence Wong is still grappling with the same issues, albeit in a different context.
In his 2024 National Day Rally speech, Mr Wong admitted that the country’s regulatory environment had become burdensome, stifling innovation and increasing costs for businesses.
He pointed to the complicated process of organizing drone shows as a prime example of how bureaucratic red tape had grown unchecked. To address this, Mr Wong announced the formation of yet another inter-ministerial committee, this time to review and simplify these outdated rules.
The glaring question is: why was the “One Agency” approach, so passionately advocated by Mr Lee in 2014, not consistently applied over the past decade? Why has it taken so long for the government to recognize and address these inefficiencies?
The very fact that Mr Wong is now initiating a similar reform, albeit focused on business regulations, suggests that the PAP government has either been complacent or incompetent in following through on its promises.
The irony is hard to miss. Mr Lee’s 2014 speech was filled with optimism about breaking down inter-agency silos to better serve the public.
Yet, a decade later, Mr Wong’s speech reveals that the problem persists, and now, businesses are bearing the brunt of bureaucratic inefficiency. The new inter-ministerial committee led by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong is being touted as a solution, but it raises the question: why wasn’t this done earlier? What happened to the “One Agency” approach that was supposed to eliminate these issues?
The PAP’s failure to deliver on this promise not only undermines public confidence in the government’s ability to govern effectively but also calls into question the sincerity of its reform agenda. If the government was truly committed to efficiency and innovation, why have these issues been allowed to fester for so long? Is it sheer incompetence, or is it a deeper systemic issue within the PAP’s approach to governance?
Adding to this concern is the recurring question about inefficiencies that seem to serve political ends rather than the public good. Consider the issue of some HDB blocks having their shelters connecting to amenities built only after the Build-To-Order (BTO) flats are completed. In the eyes of some, this appears to be a way for Members of Parliament to score political points by “solving” a problem that should never have existed in the first place, had the Housing & Development Board (HDB) done its job correctly from the start.
Is this kind of inefficiency intentional, allowing for quick fixes that politicians can showcase as achievements, or is it simply another example of a government machinery that struggles to get things right the first time?
Singaporeans deserve answers, not just more promises. The time has come for the PAP government to reflect on its shortcomings and take real, meaningful action to ensure that the “One Agency” approach is not just a catchphrase but a reality in every aspect of governance. Otherwise, the cycle of inefficiency and bureaucratic inertia will continue, to the detriment of the very people the government is supposed to serve.
The post A decade later, the same problem: PAP’s one agency approach falls short again appeared first on Gutzy Asia.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Current Affairs
Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech
Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2020/09/27020206/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg)
by Alexandar Chia
This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.
Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.
Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.
Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.
As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.
Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.
Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.
If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?
In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.
Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.
And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.
This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.
These are how I suggest it is to be done –
- The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
- Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
- A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
- A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
- Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
- All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.
Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.
Current Affairs
Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun
A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/09/03132151/PHONE3.jpg)
SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.
The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.
The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.
Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.
The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.
The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.
If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.
In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.
They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.
The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.
The investigation is ongoing.
Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.
Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.
The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.
Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.
However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.
The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.
-
Singapore4 days ago
Singapore woman’s suicide amidst legal battle raises concerns over legal system
-
Diplomacy7 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Opinion1 week ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Parliament3 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
Parliament2 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Politics6 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Food1 week ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Civil Society1 week ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms