Second part of extract of interview with PM Lee:

http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory…

April 16, 2008

Leading and lightening up in the Youtube Age

How will new media factor in the next general election? Can ministers loosen up and laugh at themselves? Chinese-language daily Lianhe Zaobao posed these questions in the second part of an interview with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong published last Sunday. Here are some extracts from the interview.

ON THE ELECTION RESULTS IN MALAYSIA (above) AND TAIWAN: If the PAP wants to continue to gain the people’s support, it must maintain a clean and capable gobernment. it must continue to strive for a better future for Singapore. —

What inspiration can the Singapore Government draw from the elections in Taiwan, Malaysia and even the United States?
Their situation differs from ours. Like many Singaporeans, I follow the news of the elections in Malaysia and Taiwan on TV and other media.

My conclusion is that if the PAP (People’s Action Party) wants to continue to gain the people’s support, it must maintain a clean and capable government. It must continue to reflect people’s views and continue to strive for a better future for Singapore.

If the Government is unable to satisfy these basic demands, then it is unworthy of the people’s support.

Voters will say: ‘I will not vote for you. I’m kicking you out.’ That is completely reasonable.

Facing the new media and the recruitment drive by the opposition parties, what changes do you think will take place in the next general election?
On ministers with different strengths

‘Every minister has the same aim, that is to work for the people’s well-being, but they have different working styles, ways of thinking and dealing with problems. We do not hope that every minister has the same image and the same skill. We hope that ministers will be like the 18 Luo Han monks, with their own individual specialities, their own contributions. Eighteen will not be considered too much if we can form such a Cabinet.’
... more
The next general election is three, four years away. There will definitely be new developments in new media.

Some of our media regulations were set before the previous General Election.

Some people describe it this way: One year in new media is equivalent to seven years in the mortal world. Therefore, five years of changes in the new media in one term of government is equivalent to more than 30 years in the mortal world. It’s a completely new world.

We have to renew regulations to meet the needs of the new age. We will review whether we should relax some of the regulations.

However, we will proceed with caution to avoid creating a negative impact.

It is no longer a new thing for Singaporeans to create blogs online. People can now make video clips. Previously, it was podcast. Now, it is vodcast. People film their own video clips, and upload them on YouTube.

People also use the new media to release news. It is not a problem if they are factual reports. The problem is that online video clips vary in nature.

Take Fitna as an example. It is a short film on Islam, and spreads extreme anti-Islamic views.

The United States also has such a phenomenon. Michael Moore’s movies are politically motivated. He is very anti-Republican and anti-Bush. You may be misled by his documentaries if you do not understand his background and motives.

Another related problem is how do you refute views that are wrong.

If a newspaper report is wrong, readers can write in to refute it or the newspapers can carry another report to clarify matters.

The newspaper readership is rather fixed, but it is difficult to identify readers or surfers online. How do you find them to clarify the truth? There is no way to do this. This is a problem.

Another problem has to do with the nature of certain new media.

For example, YouTube clips and political advertisements are very similar. Political advertisements cost a lot of money, including production, buying airtime on TV or print advertisements.

Singapore politics will turn bad if political campaigning costs a lot of money.

From a narrow perspective, if political parties have to produce advertisements, the PAP will have an edge because we have the resources to do so.

However, from a broader, national perspective, it is not a good thing. This is because many people will be willing to donate money to parties that need money, but political donations are never unconditional.

You win the election and after you come into power, the donors will politely ‘seek payment for debts’. What do you do for such debts of gratitude?

In developing countries, this often turns into a problem of corruption. In the United States, it is not called money politics, but campaign financing.

(John) McCain has adopted a clear stand on reforms on this problem, but he still has to campaign. He has no choice as the system is such that he has to raise funds for political advertisements.

I do not hope for Singapore to go this way.

Election culture

You once said you ‘hoped to see in Singapore a serious and objective election culture that judges things as they stand’. Has Singapore achieved that?
I think things are better now, but they still need improvement.

The content of newspaper reports is definitely more substantial. The level of debate is also higher. Of course, not every article has fresh views, but the overall standard has risen.

In Parliament, the standard of our MPs is not bad, objectively speaking. They may not speak as well as their counterparts in developing countries, Australia, the United States or Britain, but our standard of debate is rather high.

Our MPs do a lot of preparatory work and they speak with substance. Of course, at times, their debates may not be exciting enough, but they do their homework and put forward good views.

When debating the Budget, they may have only two, three minutes to speak, but they speak convincingly and their opinions are worthy of consideration.

Some Nominated MPs have also generated much buzz with their controversial views. The Government may not agree with them, but it is good that they speak their minds freely in Parliament and they should do so. By doing so, we have reached our objective of setting up the NMP system.

As for the opposition MPs, they actually seldom debate in direct opposition to the Government.

Chiam See Tong does not speak as much now. Sylvia Lim speaks rather carefully and seems restrained. Of course, this is good.

Although Low Thia Khiang is very smart, he seldom debates on the core substance of policies. He seems more keen on catching the Government on its shortcomings, so as to embarrass the Government.

This is very different from his impassioned speeches at election rallies. His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise government policies and not to propose alternatives.

The value of doing so is limited. Such a strategy neither enhances policies nor raises the standard of political debates.

Does coffee shop talk meet the criteria of the serious and objective election culture that you envisioned? Some academics and commentators see their responsibility as just to provoke the Government into new ways of thinking, regardless of whether their views are right or wrong. How do you regard such an attitude?
I do not know if this is your interpretation of them or their real intention.

My opinion is that many of those who criticise the Government or cannot accept government policies genuinely feel their opinions are not wrong.

Although we go all out to explain policies to the people, they may not understand completely and accept totally, especially the finer points of the policies.

It is not difficult for people to accept the broad principles of policies, but for the finer points, it is not easy.

Actually, if we test people’s knowledge of the policy details, I think journalists and PAP MPs may not make the passing grade.

Therefore, I think the people who criticise Electronic Road Pricing or means testing are not just doing it to provoke the Government so that the Government will have new ways of thinking.

The people truly do not see why the Government is proposing such measures. The Government has actually explained, but they remain sceptical about the policy.

Nevertheless, some things have to be carried out. If you conduct a poll on whether national service should be implemented, I believe the majority of Singaporeans will support it.

However, if you ask them whether we should have goods and services tax, I think many Singaporeans will say we shouldn’t. We have to accept the fact that we cannot get 100 per cent support for everything.

Can ministers laugh at themselves?

Online, there are still many people who would present what a minister has said in another way. Would it not bring leaders closer to the people if they could laugh at themselves?
We should know how to laugh at ourselves. That is very necessary. If we show a stern face every day, not just the people, but also our family members will find us repulsive.

However, if the people feel you are like a clown and lose respect for you, will your words still carry strength? Will people still take your opinions seriously?

In the United States, journalists covering the White House organise a ‘Gridiron Dinner’ yearly where the President and Vice-President are invited to attend and personally go on stage to create comic relief.

I think it is fine if one does not go overboard in ridiculing oneself.

However, I observe that the real motive of this dinner is not to create the opportunity for the President to draw closer to the people, but to dampen the respect that journalists accord the President. We should strike an appropriate balance between self-ridicule and respect.

Instead of falling for the pranks of others, could our leaders work on their image, so that they would cause people to feel that they have more character and are more colourful?
We can do more in this aspect, but we do not want to create a personality cult.

I feel journalists should focus their reports on a leader’s opinions and views towards policies and events.

Occasional reporting about the clothes he wears, his personal style and his hobbies is not a problem.

However, it may not be a good thing if the private life of a political figure becomes the main news item.

At the same time, not every minister is willing to go public about his personal life and hobbies. Even if they are willing, their families may not agree because they also hope to have privacy.

People see government salaries going up and are of the opinion that the Government should also satisfy their various demands. How would you handle these expectations?
If you ask MM Lee, he would say Singapore needs a bad government for a period of time for people to be aware of the world situation, the true reality.

After that, everyone would realise what actually is a good government.

I do not want to take such a route. I hope to think of other ways for Singaporeans to understand our situation, compare it with other countries, and I hope the people understand what we should do to keep to a more steady path of development.

How far is the Government willing to go in abandoning old views?
We are willing to start from scratch when considering every problem.

Other than the very basic principles, there is no policy that cannot be discussed and reconsidered.

Of course, it is unlikely that we will change basic national policies like whether Singapore needs independence, whether we need a multiracial country, whether we should maintain our meritocracy system.

However, apart from these policies, we are willing to reconsider other policies.

Nevertheless, we must understand that for policy changes, today you may think that they are correct, and the day after tomorrow, after some thought, you may say why were you so stupid at the time for not seeing the consequences.

Policies must be flexible, and yet have long-term stability. These are two conflicting considerations, but we should strike a balance between them.

Look at China. They have long-term and relatively stable policies, especially in foreign affairs.

Their consideration is based on China’s national interest. Their perspectives towards the United States or South-east Asia are consistent and stable. They can bide their time over 10, 20 years.

It is difficult for the United States to maintain such stability because its leadership changes every four years.

Even if the President comes from the same party, the Cabinet members will change, with new ministers, a new Secretary of State and new perspectives.

The different faces of Singapore

By SEAH CHIANG NEE

PM Lee on Internet lessons

According to an article published by Today newspaper entitled “PM Lee on internet lessons“, while the recent parliamentary elections in Malaysia have been described as a “political tsunami” in which the Malaysian government’s underestimation of the Internet played a significant role, PM Lee Hsien Loong prefers to think in terms of of “simple truths”.

What are these “simple truths”?

PM Lee told Lianhe Zaobao in an interview, “My conclusion is this: If the People’s Action Party wants to continue to have the support of the people, it has to maintain an incorruptible and capable government, continue to reflect the wishes of the people, and continue to strive for a better future for Singapore.”

My immediate response to PM Lee is to ask him to read my article on the Iceberg of Singapore Politics.

In a nutshell, the PAP is doing none of what PM Lee has prescribed. The PAP government has demonstrated its incompetence: look at the shameful and inexcusable escape of JI terrorist Mas Selamat who limped out of the highest security detention centre in broad daylight. The PAP government no longer acts according to the wishes of the people: the working class has been disenfranchized by loss of jobs and stagnant wages due to the indiscriminate import of foreigners. Finally, the PAP government no longer enacts policies for a better future: our CPF system has become a sinking ship due to overcommitment of funds in expensive HDB housing which should have a cash subsidy and not just a market subsidy, and the government has thus far been unable and unwilling to address the issue of declining productivity and economic competitiveness which has allowed global inflationary pressures to feed into the local economy at a faster rate.

Hence, the PAP government no longer deserves the support of the people.

PM Lee also revealed in the Lianhe Zaobao interview that the government would be updating the regulations on new media in time for the 2011 elections. He said, “We will study if we should relax parts of the regulations but we will look at this issue very carefully, to prevent any adverse effect.”

Clearly the PAP government is under pressure to liberalize political content on the internet, and return Singaporeans their voice and freedom of speech which is actually granted under Part IV of Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution. Nonetheless, the government is hesistant about doing so, for fear that the growing dissent and discontent will lead to an uproar much like what has happened in Malaysia.

Citing prominent examples such as Dutch right-wing lawmaker Geert Wilders’ criticizing of the Quran and American filmmaker Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentaries, PM Lee criticized political content on the internet as being prone to controversy and falsehoods, and its tendency to be used as tools of political propaganda.

My rebuttal to him is that exactly the same can be said of traditional news media, as is precisely the case for Singapore and Malaysia.

It is the job of readers to decide which commentaries are factual and relevant, and what they wish to believe in. It is not the job of the government to decide what is right or wrong on the internet, as far as political content is concerned. That is why oppressive legislation such as the Films Act and rules regarding election advertising should be repealed.

Finally, PM Lee took the opportunity to take a potshot at the Opposition MPs in Parliament.

He said, “In fact, they seldom engage the Government head-on in Parliamentary debates. Potong Pasir MP Chiam See Tong speaks less nowadays. Non-constituency MP Sylvia Lim’s speeches are rather cautious and reserved, which, of course, is a good thing.”

PM Lee has openly acknowledged that he deems Opposition members being cautious and reserved as a good thing. Of course, it is a good thing for the PAP. But it is definitely not a good thing for Singapore.

On Workers’ Party’s chief Low Thia Khiang, PM Lee said: “He is very sharp but he seldom debates about the thrust of government policies and the broader issues. It seems like he is more passionate about nitpicking and making the government look bad, which is quite different from the rousing speeches he gave in the election rallies.”

He added: “His attitude is that his responsibility is just to criticise government policies, and not to offer alternatives.”

My rebuttal to PM Lee is this: Has the government been able to rebut the points made by Opposition politicians, or have they merely skirted the issues? Also, why are we paying the Cabinet tens of millions of dollars a year if all they want is to push the buck to others and expect others to come up with alternatives to bad government policies?

While PM Lee’s assessment of Low Thia Kiang’s lack of depth and substance is certainly valid, he has conveniently evaded the real underlying issues once again: that the PAP government continues to lack accountability to the people.

It is my hope that voters will make full use of the ballot box at the next election to send a strong signal to the PAP that their arrogance and lack of regard for transparency and accountability can no longer be tolerated.

http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=165

Strike while the iron is hot.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With the very recent historic Malaysian protests unseating their government, protesters should do it in Singapore now. As the saying goes strike while the iron is hot; while the Malaysian protests are still fresh in our minds.

No one can honestly doubt the great power of protests. With the Internet and instantaneous spread of news throughout the world, not only with script but also with glaring images; it is impossible for any government to ignore public protests. In the past, news of protests from one area may not have traveled to another. But now preventing news of any action in any part of the world, let alone any part of the country, is impossible.

During the Tak Boleh Tahan protest of March 15, 2008 in front of Parliament House, the entire Singapore public saw with shock and aghast the brutal way in which police officer ASP William Goh pushed and dragged unarmed law abiding protesters into police cars to be driven away to police prisons. Great damage was done to the reputation of the Singapore government that day; not so much because of the protests but because of the high handedness of the Singapore police.

Singaporeans should keep up the momentum and make hay while the going is good. Watching police brutality against these protesters on the Internet, half the population of Singapore have already been alienated against this government. Keeping up the protests and provoking the police to further such acts will alienate the other half of Singapore.

Don't let this opportunity slip you. The moment is now. Protest now. Injustices abound. There is no shortage of major issues. CPF. $3.7 million ministerial salaries. Food prices. Rice prices. The repatriation of foreigners. The suicides. The poverty. The injustice to Singapore Chinese Malays and Indians as well as others. The arrogance of Lee Junior. Press censorship. Free speech. Free expression.

Remember this. Singapore's reputation around the world has already been ruined. The SDP has successfully managed to expose the charade that goes on there. Now if you agitate, your voice will be taken even more seriously. Lee cannot afford to alienate world opinion. Singapore is not Communist China.

The power is in your hands. The power to protest. Use it.

Gopalan Nair

http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008/04/strike-while-iron-is-hot.html

for those who understand malay (me included, he he), anwar gave an impassioned speech earlier this week on his return to politics at kampung sultan sulaiman.

you tube has almost the full speech. search anwar returns - part 1 onwards.  

he took digs at umno, including a certain mahathir.

i gotta say i am mesmerized by his oratory skills. a fantastic wordsmith, he has a way to hold and control the crowd. he pose a real threat to the ruling BN. pakatan rakyat can wrest the governing of malaysia from BN, on the strength of anwar alone.

i think the challenge is post-Anwar. is there someone in the midst who has the political will and leadership to step into his `big shoe'. malaysia politics is not finished yet. lots more action to come.