Commentaries
Where have all the IBs gone – Part 3: Their cause and its effect
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2014/11/27073932/Internet-Brigade.jpg)
By Terry Xu
We have earlier discussed about the evolution of the People’s Action Party’s Internet Brigade (IB), and how a casual observer can better identify them to ascertain their subversive intent.
While it might seem trivial that any attention should be given to those who have nothing better to do than disrupt discussions online, we need to consider the broader impact of their activities and why it is beneficial to citizens as well as policy makers to completely disband the IB.Some readers have asked if there are any similar IBs who support opposition parties, if their activities online might counter those of the PAP IBs, or if such actions might lead to a greater polarisation of the online space.
Spreading falsehoods, or a falsehood in itself?
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong once remarked that only unhappy people go online. By this, we can infer that he meant people who are unhappy with PAP’s policies. Indeed, for argument’s sake, let’s just assume that the much generalised group of what the IBs would like to refer to broadly as “opposition supporters” are always commenting on Internet forums because they are either angry at the government over certain policies or over the current state of affairs in Singapore.
If so, then why would those who are really content with how Singapore is run, and are effectively living the good life as a consequence of the government’s well-thought policies, have reason to quibble with those expressing the opposite?
Why are their Facebook postings all about how “silly” or “naive” the “opposition supporters” are, and why are they defending government policies so aggressively online, despite the fact that mainstream media is already doing a stellar job informing the masses of the benefits of said good life? Why aren’t they spending their time with their family and friends, given that the majority of “happy people” are already a forgone conclusion, but choose instead to enter into debates with others online, to defend the policies of the government or the actions of certain political leaders? The answer might be found if we go back to what some PAP leaders have said in 2007:
“It was necessary for the PAP to have a voice in cyberspace as there were few in the online community who were pro-establishment, he said. As such, the committees aim to ‘observe how new media is developing and see how we can use the new media as part of the overall media landscape’, he added. ‘How do we facilitate views that are pro-party and propagate them through the Internet?’
The approach reflects comments by Rear-Admiral (NS) Lui at the PAP’s party conference in December. He called on younger activists to put up views ‘to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments’ on the Internet.”
In fact, a study of the comments made by such online supporters of the PAP would reveal this mode of “engagement” by the PAP’s “voice in cyberspace” to be a regular practice – not only for a single post, but a pattern established through the account holder’s history.
Posts tend to be overtly supportive of the PAP, its leaders and its policies, to the exclusion of everything else.
Now, such views are not in any way wrong – we are all entitled to our own opinions. But it becomes an issue when such views are masquerading as the genuine sentiments of the ground, expressed repeatedly on public platforms, which gives the false impression that they are merely “to moderate the vitriol and balance the skewed comments” online.
At times, the views expressed are also out of place, and seem little more than an attempt to seize every single opportunity to push a point in favour of the ruling party. Examples from Part 2 of this series will show how innocent looking the comments are, leading to suggestions that they are expressed by a regular citizen providing his/her opinion on the issue.
Again, as suggested in Part 2, clicking through to the profiles would reveal the authenticity of their social media accounts.
Isn’t there an opposition IB that will respond?
When the first two parts of this series were published, a number of readers asked about IBs who support opposition parties, which might serve as an effective counter, or a tit-for-tat “equalising” function. This preposition is not new. We have received such queries from time to time.
![lavey](https://i0.wp.com/theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2014/11/27073917/lavey1.png?resize=388%2C650&ssl=1)
Commenter suggesting there are opposition IBs using fake accounts. (Also, see Lavey Goh’s profile)
There are no doubt accounts created by individuals who aggressively support opposition views or denounce the ruling party that bear the same mark as PAP IBs.
However, clicking through to the profiles of these individuals would usually reveal that they are not used purely to post anti-establishment comments.
For instance, you can do a search on some of the profiles of those who have voiced out in support of opposition parties compared to those who voice against oppositions and in support of the ruling party, as indicated in the images below. In fact, these users have the semblance of “real life” account holders, with a “life” beyond participating in politics online. They have choosen not to appear online with their real faces and names for the sake of privacy, or for a sense of security that they will not be singled out and castigated for their comments. This sense of security is unfortunately false, as some individuals have found themselves in the middle of online attacks, simply for choosing not to reveal their identities.
There are also two other factors that suggest that a proper and organised – with the possibility of being paid or rewarded – IB for opposition parties does not exist.
First, no opposition party leader had openly asked their members and supporters to fight on every (cyber)street corner.
Second, a close scrutiny of the kind of co-ordinated attack on opposition parties that we see across online platforms hardly exists among those who go online to support opposition parties or express anger at the PAP. Although there are cases where this might appear to be so – such as the case of Roy Ngerng being sued by PM Lee – such efforts at defence pale in comparison to the efforts and coordination by supporters of the establishment.
Net effect: Astro-turfing
The net effect, then, is an online narrative that is heavily skewed towards the views of PAP IBs. IB online activism tend to revolve around instances where the political stakes are high, such as the reputation of the PM or a Minister, or for key government policies. Granted, this does not happen on every single piece of news or online content we see, but the bad thing is that it happens on issues that matter the most to the nation.
There is also no telling when such activism will be ramped up. Perhaps nearer to the general elections?
This effectively makes our piece of cyberspace rather unhealthy for the casual user, who would be in all likelihood take such views to be those of the “average Singaporean”. Clearly, they are not. Co-ordinated online attacks by PAP IBs are meant to skew perspectives through sheer numbers, or divert attention from the actual policy issues by antagonising those who voice displeasure at these policies.
Such efforts by IBs are best described as astro-turfing, and while on their own harmless, such activities have the potential to disrupt a proper assessment of public opinion on issues and policies, be it by other citizens or policy makers.
More importantly, given that the PAP has clearly voiced no qualms about their IBs hiding behind the vile of anonymity to swing public opinion in the party’s favour, the question to ask would be whether the PAP has actively sanctioned such activities, or is merely unaware of the effect that such activities have in social media.
Where has all the political leadership gone?
Ironically, for all the chest-thumping about anonymity online, the PAP Ministers and MPs purportedly behind the IBs have not made any form of protest against such activities or requested for them to “come clean”. Has the political leadership effectively lost control of what might have evolved to become an online splinter group of vigilantes fighting to defend the “truth” about how great Singapore leaders are in reality?
Of course, they might be then excused for not taking to task a bunch of loose cannon they have no means of controlling. But for identifiable platforms that openly support the PAP, the establishment similarly did nothing.
While Ministers and MPs criticise bloggers for “taking issues out of context” and misleading the public with information, the fact that pages like FAP and FLOP continue to operate in a manner which seeks to demean opposition members and its supporters through misleading headlines and quotes taken out of context, with no word from the PAP MPs, is a double standard by itself.
A month or so back, FAP’s Jason Chua apologised to Abdul Salim Harun for posting an image of him with falsified information, in an attempt to discredit him. Abdul Salim Harun was tagged by a fake account, Jin Zheng (profile no longer accessible), which some suspect to be a pseudo account of Jason Chua himself. The apology came after Abdul Salim Harun made a police report against FAP for harassment.
Let us also not forget who shared the photo of the CPF lady’s residence on their page, trying to lead public to think that the lady is not telling the whole truth. No MP spoke about this nor exclaimed their astonishment at the antics of such fanpages.
To be fair, no one is stopping supporters of the PAP from expressing their views in public forums. Decisive and deliberate astro-turfing by IBs, on the other hand, prevents the public and policy makers alike from understanding ground sentiments. The PAP is actually not doing the government any favours by allowing this to happen.
More importantly, members of the public need to be aware of the presence of such entities so that they would not be misled on issues and matters in Singapore.
Being aware of the Internet Brigade would allow us to take a step back from their vitriol and focus on the social discussions that can help shape Singapore the way it should be.
Part 1: Evolution of PAP’s online counter-insurgency
Part 2: Catch them if you can
![](https://theonlinecitizen.s3.ap-northeast-2.amazonaws.com/uploads/2023/03/26202010/TOC_newlogo_small.webp)
Commentaries
Lim Tean criticizes Govt’s rejection of basic income report, urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Lim Tean, leader of Peoples Voice (PV), criticizes the government’s defensive response to the basic living income report, accusing it of avoiding reality.
He calls on citizens to assess affordability and choose MPs who can truly enhance their lives in the upcoming election.
SINGAPORE: A recently published report, “Minimum Income Standard 2023: Household Budgets in a Time of Rising Costs,” unveils figures detailing the necessary income households require to maintain a basic standard of living, using the Minimum Income Standard (MIS) method.
The newly released study, spearheaded by Dr Ng Kok Hoe of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP) specifically focuses on working-age households in 2021 and presents the latest MIS budgets, adjusted for inflation from 2020 to 2022.
The report detailed that:
- The “reasonable starting point” for a living wage in Singapore was S$2,906 a month.
- A single parent with a child aged two to six required S$3,218 per month.
- Partnered parents with two children, one aged between seven and 12 and the other between 13 and 18, required S$6,426 a month.
- A single elderly individual required S$1,421 a month.
- Budgets for both single and partnered parent households averaged around S$1,600 per member. Given recent price inflation, these figures have risen by up to 5% in the current report.
Singapore Govt challenges MIS 2023 report’s representation of basic needs
Regrettably, on Thursday (14 Sept), the Finance Ministry (MOF), Manpower Ministry (MOM), and Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) jointly issued a statement dismissing the idea suggested by the report, claiming that minimum household income requirements amid inflation “might not accurately reflect basic needs”.
Instead, they claimed that findings should be seen as “what individuals would like to have.”, and further defended their stances for the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) and other measures to uplift lower-wage workers.
The government argued that “a universal wage floor is not necessarily the best way” to ensure decent wages for lower-wage workers.
The government’s statement also questions the methodology of the Minimum Income Standards (MIS) report, highlighting limitations such as its reliance on respondent profiles and group dynamics.
“The MIS approach used is highly dependent on respondent profiles and on group dynamics. As the focus groups included higher-income participants, the conclusions may not be an accurate reflection of basic needs.”
The joint statement claimed that the MIS approach included discretionary expenditure items such as jewellery, perfumes, and overseas holidays.
Lim Tean slams Government’s response to basic living income report
In response to the government’s defensive reaction to the recent basic living income report, Lim Tean, leader of the alternative party Peoples Voice (PV), strongly criticizes the government’s apparent reluctance to confront reality, stating, “It has its head buried in the sand”.
He strongly questioned the government’s endorsement of the Progressive Wage Model (PWM) as a means to uplift the living standards of the less fortunate in Singapore, describing it as a misguided approach.
In a Facebook video on Friday (15 Sept), Lim Tean highlighted that it has become a global norm, especially in advanced and first-world countries, to establish a minimum wage, commonly referred to as a living wage.
“Everyone is entitled to a living wage, to have a decent life, It is no use boasting that you are one of the richest countries in the world that you have massive reserves, if your citizens cannot have a decent life with a decent living wage.”
Lim Tean cited his colleague, Leong Sze Hian’s calculations, which revealed a staggering 765,800 individuals in Singapore, including Permanent Residents and citizens, may not earn the recommended living wage of $2,906, as advised by the MIS report.
“If you take away the migrant workers or the foreign workers, and take away those who do not work, underage, are children you know are unemployed, and the figure is staggering, isn’t it?”
“You know you are looking at a very substantial percentage of the workforce that do not have sufficient income to meet basic needs, according to this report.”
He reiterated that the opposition parties, including the People’s Voice and the People’s Alliance, have always called for a minimum wage, a living wage which the government refuses to countenance.
Scepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs
In a time of persistently high inflation, Lim Tean expressed skepticism about the government’s ability to control rising costs.
He cautioned against believing in predictions of imminent inflation reduction and lower interest rates below 2%, labeling them as unrealistic.
Lim Tean urged Singaporeans to assess their own affordability in these challenging times, especially with the impending GST increase.
He warned that a 1% rise in GST could lead to substantial hikes in everyday expenses, particularly food prices.
Lim Tean expressed concern that the PAP had become detached from the financial struggles of everyday Singaporeans, citing their high salaries and perceived insensitivity to the common citizen’s plight.
Lim Tean urges Singaporeans to rethink election choices
Highlighting the importance of the upcoming election, Lim Tean recommended that citizens seriously evaluate the affordability of their lives.
“If you ask yourself about affordability, you will realise that you have no choice, In the coming election, but to vote in a massive number of opposition Members of Parliament, So that they can make a difference.”
Lim Tean emphasized the need to move beyond the traditional notion of providing checks and balances and encouraged voters to consider who could genuinely improve their lives.
“To me, the choice is very simple. It is whether you decide to continue with a life, that is going to become more and more expensive: More expensive housing, higher cost of living, jobs not secure because of the massive influx of foreign workers,” he declared.
“Or you choose members of Parliament who have your interests at heart and who want to make your lives better.”
Commentaries
Political observers call for review of Singapore’s criteria of Presidential candidates and propose 5 year waiting period for political leaders
Singaporean political observers express concern over the significantly higher eligibility criteria for private-sector presidential candidates compared to public-sector candidates, calling for adjustments.
Some also suggest a five year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before allowed to partake in the presidential election.
Notably, The Workers’ Party has earlier reiterated its position that the current qualification criteria favor PAP candidates and has called for a return to a ceremonial presidency instead of an elected one.
While the 2023 Presidential Election in Singapore concluded on Friday (1 September), discussions concerning the fairness and equity of the electoral system persist.
Several political observers contend that the eligibility criteria for private-sector individuals running for president are disproportionately high compared to those from the public sector, and they propose that adjustments be made.
They also recommend a five-year waiting period for aspiring political leaders after leaving their party before being allowed to participate in the presidential election.
Aspiring entrepreneur George Goh Ching Wah, announced his intention to in PE 2023 in June. However, His application as a candidate was unsuccessful, he failed to receive the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) on 18 August.
Mr Goh had expressed his disappointment in a statement after the ELD’s announcement, he said, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) took a very narrow interpretation of the requirements without explaining the rationale behind its decision.
As per Singapore’s Constitution, individuals running for the presidency from the private sector must have a minimum of three years’ experience as a CEO in a company.
This company should have consistently maintained an average shareholders’ equity of at least S$500 million and sustained profitability.
Mr Goh had pursued eligibility through the private sector’s “deliberative track,” specifically referring to section 19(4)(b)(2) of the Singapore Constitution.
He pointed out five companies he had led for over three years, collectively claiming a shareholders’ equity of S$1.521 billion.
Notably, prior to the 2016 revisions, the PEC might have had the authority to assess Mr Goh’s application similarly to how it did for Mr Tan Jee Say in the 2011 Presidential Election.
Yet, in its current formulation, the PEC is bound by the definitions laid out in the constitution.
Calls for equitable standards across public and private sectors
According to Singapore’s Chinese media outlet, Shin Min Daily News, Dr Felix Tan Thiam Kim, a political analyst at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) Singapore, noted that in 2016, the eligibility criteria for private sector candidates were raised from requiring them to be executives of companies with a minimum capital of S$100 million to CEOs of companies with at least S$500 million in shareholder equity.
However, the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates remained unchanged. He suggests that there is room for adjusting the eligibility criteria for public sector candidates.
Associate Professor Bilver Singh, Deputy Head of the Department of Political Science at the National University of Singapore, believes that the constitutional requirements for private-sector individuals interested in running are excessively stringent.
He remarked, “I believe it is necessary to reassess the relevant regulations.”
He points out that the current regulations are more favourable for former public officials seeking office and that the private sector faces notably greater challenges.
“While it may be legally sound, it may not necessarily be equitable,” he added.
Proposed five-year waiting period for political leaders eyeing presidential race
Moreover, despite candidates severing ties with their political parties in pursuit of office, shedding their political affiliations within a short timeframe remains a challenging endeavour.
A notable instance is Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who resigned from the People’s Action Party (PAP) just slightly over a month before announcing his presidential candidacy, sparking considerable debate.
During a live broadcast, his fellow contender, Ng Kok Song, who formerly served as the Chief Investment Officer of GIC, openly questioned Mr Tharman’s rapid transition to a presidential bid shortly after leaving his party and government.
Dr Felix Tan suggests that in the future, political leaders aspiring to run for the presidency should not only resign from their parties but also adhere to a mandatory waiting period of at least five years before entering the race.
Cherian George and Kevin Y.L. Tan: “illogical ” to raise the corporate threshold in 2016
Indeed, the apprehension regarding the stringent eligibility criteria and concerns about fairness in presidential candidacy requirements are not limited to political analysts interviewed by Singapore’s mainstream media.
Prior to PE2023, CCherian George, a Professor of media studies at Hong Kong Baptist University, and Kevin Y.L. Tan, an Adjunct Professor at both the Faculty of Law of the National University of Singapore and the NTU’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), brought attention to the challenges posed by the qualification criteria for candidates vying for the Singaporean Presidency.
In their article titled “Why Singapore’s Next Elected President Should be One of its Last,” the scholars discussed the relevance of the current presidential election system in Singapore and floated the idea of returning to an appointed President, emphasizing the symbolic and unifying role of the office.
They highlighted that businessman George Goh appeared to be pursuing the “deliberative track” for qualification, which requires candidates to satisfy the PEC that their experience and abilities are comparable to those of a typical company’s chief executive with shareholder equity of at least S$500 million.
Mr Goh cobbles together a suite of companies under his management to meet the S$500m threshold.
The article also underscored the disparities between the eligibility criteria for candidates from the public and private sectors, serving as proxies for evaluating a candidate’s experience in handling complex financial matters.
“It is hard to see what financial experience the Chairman of the Public Service Commission or for that matter, the Chief Justice has, when compared to a Minister or a corporate chief.”
“The raising of the corporate threshold in 2016 is thus illogical and serves little purpose other than to simply reduce the number of potentially eligible candidates.”
The article also touches upon the issue of candidates’ independence from political parties, particularly the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP).
It mentions that candidates are expected to be non-partisan and independent, and it questions how government-backed candidates can demonstrate their independence given their previous affiliations.
The Workers’ Party advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency
It comes as no surprise that Singapore’s alternative party, the Workers’ Party, reaffirmed its stance on 30 August, asserting that they believe the existing qualifying criteria for presidential candidates are skewed in favour of those approved by the People’s Action Party (PAP).
They argue that the current format of the elected presidency (EP) undermines the principles of parliamentary democracy.
“It also serves as an unnecessary source of gridlock – one that could potentially cripple a non-PAP government within its first term – and is an alternative power centre that could lead to political impasses.”
Consistently, the Workers’ Party has been vocal about its objection to the elected presidency and has consistently called for its abolition.
Instead, they advocate for a return to a ceremonial presidency, a position they have maintained for over three decades.
-
Opinion4 days ago
Singaporean voters and the ‘Battered Wife Syndrome’
-
Diplomacy3 days ago
India PM Narendra Modi meets with PM Lawrence Wong; Four MoUs signed
-
Food3 days ago
NTU stall food prices questioned after parent pays S$6.30 for meal
-
Politics2 days ago
PAP adopts SDP policies after criticizing them: Dr Chee urges Singaporeans to see through tactics
-
Civil Society5 days ago
CIVICUS Monitor labels Singapore as ‘repressed’ for crackdown on civic freedoms
-
Opinion6 days ago
Is the shuttle bus service at Marine Parade town cluster just a S$1 million political ad campaign?
-
Economy4 days ago
IRAS reports S$80.3 billion in tax revenue for FY2023/24, a 17% increase from the previous year
-
Parliament4 days ago
Workers’ Party to question Govt on Mobile Guardian breach and entry of extremist preacher in upcoming parliamentary sitting