Current Affairs
Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally: A ‘renewed social compact’ or just handouts to a disempowered citizenry?
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2024/08/19073749/Lawrence-Wong-NDR-LBBVPt.png)
On 18 August 2024, Singapore’s 4th Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, delivered his first National Day Rally speech, marking a significant moment in his leadership. While his speech was filled with grand visions and promises, it often felt like a collection of motherhood statements that, while well-intentioned, lacked the substantive depth needed to address Singapore’s pressing challenges.
The Unemployment Allowance: A Reluctant Concession
In his speech, Wong highlighted the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme as a support measure for unemployed workers.
However, it is important to note that this policy was introduced last year, representing a reluctant concession from a government that has historically resisted the concept of unemployment insurance. The PAP has long opposed such measures, despite persistent calls from the opposition.
For instance, former Minister for Manpower Josephine Teo had previously expressed serious concerns about unemployment insurance during a Parliament session in 2020.
Mrs Teo argued that such a plan could reduce workers’ motivation to find new employment and decrease employers’ willingness to offer retrenchment benefits. The Workers’ Party had been advocating for unemployment insurance since 2016, with MP Sylvia Lim suggesting a fund financed by small contributions from both workers and employers to better protect workers.
However, Mrs Teo contended that Singapore’s existing approach, focusing on employment support through programmes like SkillsFuture and Adapt and Grow, was more sustainable and effective. “Our current approach of focusing on employment support has shown encouraging results and is more sustainable,” Mrs Teo said at the time.
The introduction of the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support scheme now appears less as a bold new initiative and more as a reluctant acknowledgement that more must be done to support workers in a rapidly changing economy. It is a necessary step, but one that the PAP was slow to embrace, raising questions about the party’s responsiveness to the needs of the people.
Increased Maternity Leave: A Double-Edged Sword
Wong’s announcement of additional maternity leave, including ten weeks of shared parental leave, is a welcome change for many families.
This policy is undoubtedly a positive step towards supporting working parents and promoting gender equality in caregiving responsibilities.
However, it is difficult to ignore the broader context of Singapore’s declining birth rate. The increase in maternity leave may appear as a desperate attempt to reverse this trend, which has long been a concern for the government.
While beneficial, this move might not be sufficient to address the deeper socio-economic factors contributing to the reluctance of many Singaporeans to have larger families.
The Removal of the Gifted Education Programme (GEP)
One of the more concrete announcements was the decision to discontinue the Gifted Education Programme (GEP) in its current form in primary schools.
This move signals a significant shift in Singapore’s education policy, aiming to create a more inclusive system that stretches all students, regardless of their abilities.
While the GEP has long been seen as a symbol of academic excellence, its removal could help alleviate the pressure on young students and reduce the divisiveness it has sometimes created. Wong’s plan to equip all primary schools to identify and nurture high-ability students is a step towards levelling the playing field, ensuring that talent is recognized and developed across the board.
BTO Priority for Singles: A Narrow Approach
Wong’s announcement that singles will receive priority for Build-To-Order (BTO) flats if they choose to live near their parents addresses only a narrow segment of the population.
This policy may be beneficial for some, but it fails to consider the many singles — below the age of 35 — who do not wish to live near their parents due to strained relationships or a desire for independence.
The policy assumes that proximity to parents is universally desirable, overlooking the diverse needs and preferences of Singaporeans. The lack of flexibility in this approach could alienate a significant portion of the population that seeks autonomy and personal space.
Questionable Use of Taxpayer Money: The Sports Hub and Beyond
Wong also discussed the relocation of the Singapore Sports School to Kallang, yet provided no clear information on the costs involved or the future of the existing S$76 million sports complex in Woodlands. This raises serious concerns about the prudent use of taxpayer money.
The Sports Hub is a case in point—a project marked by the controversial tearing down of the iconic Kallang Stadium to build a new facility that, at this point, resembles more an indoor stadium and has hosted only one National Day Parade. The public-private partnership model that was supposed to drive the Sports Hub’s success has been widely criticized as a colossal waste of money. Is this truly what prudent spending of taxpayers’ money looks like?
Rather than pouring funds into large-scale infrastructure projects, Singapore’s sportsmen and women need consistent sponsorship and financial support.
It is troubling that many athletes still rely on sponsorship from small businesses, like ramen shops or fried chicken restaurants, to fund their training and competition costs.
The focus should be on nurturing talent and providing the necessary resources for athletes to succeed, not on building grandiose structures that may not deliver the intended results.
The Future of Singapore: A Question of Identity
Wong concluded his speech with a grand statement: “We want this Singapore to be around for a very long time—for the next thousand years and beyond.”
However, this statement rings hollow when considering the current demographic trends. With the decline in birth rates and the ageing of Singapore’s pioneer and Merdeka generation, the future of Singapore will likely be shaped by immigrants.
The descendants of those born after Singapore’s independence may become an extreme minority within the next fifty years, leading to a significant dilution of the Singaporean identity. The government’s construction plans, alongside the speculation of a planned 10 million population, make this scenario seem not just possible but probable.
A Vision with Little Room for Freedom
One of the most glaring omissions in Wong’s speech was any meaningful discussion about greater freedom, liberty, or a shift in the government’s approach to governance. Instead, his focus remained on facilitating the lives of citizens—or, more accurately, managing them as cogwheels in Singapore’s economic machinery.
Wong’s call for a “renewed social compact” with Singaporeans, while sounding noble, raises significant questions about what this compact truly entails. As Wong himself put it, the new social compact is about ensuring that “every Singaporean feels there is hope; where all citizens, even the most disadvantaged amongst us, know that they can get a fair shot in life, that they can get ahead if they make the effort and work hard.”
Yet, this framing reveals a vision where citizens are primarily seen as workers, expected to stay motivated and productive without questioning the broader direction of the nation. This compact does not seem to embrace the idea of citizens as active participants in shaping the country’s future, but rather as individuals who must keep working within the established system.
Wong’s idea of hope appears to be limited to economic advancement, not democratic participation or the appreciation of one’s voice and vote.
This is particularly concerning given the PAP’s history of pushing through unpopular policies with their supermajority, such as the amendments to the presidential election process, the enactment of laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), and, more recently, the sale of Income Insurance to German insurer Allianz. These actions highlight a pattern where the government acts unilaterally, often disregarding public opinion.
Under Wong’s predecessor, Lee Hsien Loong, whom Wong served alongside for the past decade, civil rights have been further suppressed, surpassing even the stringent controls seen during late Lee Kuan Yew’s era—a significant and concerning development. Wong’s approach, despite his rhetoric of renewal, does not appear to deviate from this path. What he seems to want is for oppressed Singaporeans to focus on their working lives and not be active citizens who challenge or influence the country’s direction.
Wong’s speech also touched on the pressures of life in Singapore, acknowledging that people “do not want to be trapped in an endless rat race, or be caught in a constant cycle of comparisons based on narrow definitions of success.”
Yet, by recognizing this, Wong inadvertently highlights the very nature of the system he oversees—a system where citizens are indeed trapped in a rat race, where their choices are limited to either continuing to run or stopping in their tracks. There is no suggestion of empowering citizens to leave the track entirely, which would require a shift towards greater democratic engagement and personal freedoms.
Instead, Wong’s vision seems to be one where citizens remain in their lanes, focused on their work, while the broader decisions about the nation’s future remain firmly in the hands of the PAP.
Aspirations vs. Reality
Wong’s first National Day Rally speech reflects a leader attempting to navigate the complexities of governing a modern, diverse Singapore.
While his speech was filled with lofty aspirations, the lack of specific policy details, coupled with the government’s continued emphasis on control and economic efficiency over individual freedoms, leaves much to be desired.
The positive developments, such as the removal of the GEP and the introduction of additional maternity leave and unemployment support, are overshadowed by the broader concerns about the direction of Wong’s administration and its ability to truly address the needs and aspirations of the people.
As Singaporeans look to the future and the upcoming General Election, which must be held by November 2025, they will be watching closely to see if Wong’s leadership will continue to mirror the approach of Lee Hsien Loong’s administration—offering tidbits and handouts in the form of subsidies and grants while prioritizing the state’s economic ambitions over the freedoms and rights of its citizens.
The post Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally: A ‘renewed social compact’ or just handouts to a disempowered citizenry? 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’
-
Parliament2 days ago
Minister Shanmugam rejects request for detailed information on visa-free visitor offences: Cites bilateral considerations
-
Parliament3 days ago
PAP MPs attack WP Gerald Giam in Parliament over NTUC independence from ruling party
-
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