the week: live free or lie hard
Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh goes to court; Ng Eng Han officiates the groundbreaking ceremony at the NS Square; Vivian Balakrishnan travels to Israel to tell off their leaders
The week begins with the Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh arriving at court to be charged with lying to the Committee of Privileges (CoP) over the Raeesah Khan case in what will be part 4 of the Lie Hard series: Live Free or Lie Hard (you can read about parts 1, 2 and 3). I have written on this before so I won’t belabour my points.
Mr Singh has nothing to worry about being disqualified from being a Member of Parliament (something he was concerned about back in February 2022) as the prosecution is asking merely for a fine, and the courts generally do not mete out sentences higher than what is asked. The fine for his offence carries a maximum quantum of S$7,000, which does not cross the threshold for disqualification at S$10,000. The disqualification amount was adjusted upwards from S$2,000 in May 2022, the timing of which is very convenient for Mr Singh, though Minister Chan Chun Sing insisted that the adjustment was already in the works before Mr Singh was ever in danger of being disqualified, and through lucky happenstance Mr Singh can now rest easy. All this is good optics for the People’s Action Party (PAP), who despite having a good case during the CoP against the Worker’s Party (WP) had overplayed their hand in their relentless application of political blunt force. Now the PAP has the chance to damage the WP without disqualifying Mr Singh.
I spoke last week about rake stepping behaviour by members of the Opposition, and this is merely the latest in a long line of unforced errors. From Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s almost magnetic propensity to get POFMA orders, to Lim Tean’s endless legal troubles, to the Progress Singapore Party (PSP) being unable to hold onto a Secretary General longer than 5 minutes, to affairs and lies in the WP, the Opposition has been quickly losing members in this election cycle. I chalk this up to the inexperience and immaturity of the Opposition scene. Should people who choose to stand as Opposition in Singapore be more aware? Sure, after all they chose this path after knowing the risks. But do not forget that the Opposition in Singapore had been kept down for so long that it has a long way to go and grow. Less than 20 years ago more than half of Singapore did not even have to vote in elections, it was only in 2011 that most constituencies were finally contested, and today every member of the electorate finally have a choice. This did not come easy, and it would be very easy for it to return to a time where majority of constituencies are won by walkovers. Those who are born in the summer take the ability to vote for granted, and those who have only ever known elections where the entire Singapore has had to vote should cherish their vote, lest they lose it.
This week also sees the groundbreaking ceremony of NS Square. NS Square is to be the permanent replacement for the floating platform, and can be found at the intersection of who-asked-for-this street and what-is-it-for avenue. NS Square is set to be the permanent venue for National Day, after the National Stadium turned out to be a gigantic disappointment.1
When Singaporeans ask for more recognition for National Service, I sincerely doubt they were referring to another museum. We already have separate museums for the army, navy and air force, all of which could have been combined into one location that might actually have enough content to be worthy of being called a museum, instead of each individual branch wasting taxpayers’ money on building their individual installments. But how else can Singaporeans be compensated for their time? How much is two years of your prime worth? The cost is incalculable, and there is some truth when Minister Josephine Teo said that service to the country cannot be measured in dollars and cents. While monetary compensation is welcome for our service, the honest answer is that no amount of money will ever be enough, people will always ask for more.
And they should. There is a big cost to serving National Service. Giving a couple hundred dollars every few years doesn’t feel like you have been compensated. It certainly does not feel like the country cares for the sacrifice you have made. The fact remains that when National Service first started in the 1970s Singapore citizens made up close to 90% of the population, today it forms barely 60%. It begs the question who are you defending? Know that the Singaporean men have served so you don’t have to, and many of the things you enjoy in Singapore is only possible because of this service.
Do any Singaporeans who have served actually want NS Square? I’d like to see a poll on this because I’m fairly certain almost nobody wants this. The Singaporean male who has served National Service feels cheated when he gets out because he was promised the world but now struggles to find his place in it. The truth is that no amount of compensation can solve this, the only thing that can help is to make Singapore a place that Singaporeans want to defend. Lee Kuan Yew was right in his assessment that letting people own their homes in the form of HDB flats would encourage them to defend their homeland, but the HDB flats of today have been turned into economic units and assets by the Goh Chok Tong government and no longer represent a piece of Singapore which Singaporeans own and defend but rather just a transactional property to profit from. If you want Singaporeans to have a stake in this country there has to be something in this country worth fighting for.
National Service is unfortunately the third rail of Singaporean politics. Neither the PAP nor the Opposition would ever dream of changing it - either by abolishing it for the males or making it compulsory for the women. It is a political minefield, best left unexplored, so they skirt around the edges throwing in handouts like NS life and increasing the NSF pay, or decreasing the amount of time served. There needs to be a real conversation to be had about why we still need to maintain such a large traditional ground force, especially given the huge technological advances that have happened between the 1970s when NS was first implemented and today.
On the part of the PAP, keeping the Singaporean populace under a constant siege mentality is always to their advantage. Minister Chan Chun Sing understood this of course: the PAP wins votes when the people feel under attack, so the people must always feel under attack. The constant reminder that the McDonald House was bombed during the Konfrontasi, that back in 1991 Malaysia and Indonesia did a military exercise on Singapore’s birthday (can you believe the nerve?) and that the exercise was called *gasp* Pukul Habis (did you know that means TOTAL WIPEOUT?)? The constant reminders in school and in the army that we could be under attack at any moment, and that since 1997 every household in Singapore needs to be equipped with a bomb shelter, are all testament to furthering this siege mentality.
Let me be clear, I’m not saying the world is not a dangerous place, it is. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the fact that China is conducting the fastest military expansion since WWII is cause for concern. Singaporeans like the idea of having a standing military, and National Service is still very popular by most opinion polls. It certainly does not seem like a winning issue for the Opposition to campaign on. Because of this there is no room in Singapore for an honest conversation about National Service and its place in Singapore’s future. There will be no talk about whether we still need a large conventional ground force (despite the fact that we keep saying we harbour no desire to capture land, something a large ground force is good for), there will be no talk about actual benefits for Singaporeans who have served the country, and forever will the specter of the original sin of National Service hang over any discussion about gender equality in Singapore. There will be no change until either a political party in Singapore can summon the political will to start a discussion, or the Singaporean populace finally decides that they want change.
Until then, I guess all we have is NS Sqaure.
This week, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan leads a delegation of Singaporean MPs to the Middle East. I have already said my piece on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and will refrain from going into more detail. Suffice to say, I find it curious that Minister Balakrishnan finds it his place to tell Israel that they have “gone too far”. This is despite the fact that Minister Balakrishnan agrees that there is a right to self-defense, that should Singapore undergo an attack similar to that of October 7th we would also strike back. Will Minister Balakrishnan also go to Myanmar and tell the Junta that they have gone too far? Will Minister Balakrishnan go to Russia and tell Putin that he has gone too far? Or is Israel the only country we will personally visit to tell off?
The question I have for anyone who thinks that Israel has “gone too far” is what do you think they should do? Israel is not in possession of magical terrorist killing lasers that discriminates between terrorists and civilians. I find it puzzling that people who have no military experience suddenly find themselves armchair generals who can navigate the incredibly complex war against a non-conventional army in one of the most notoriously complicated areas to wage a war in. I note that Minister Balakrishnan wished for a ceasefire and for the hostages to be returned in his interview with the press. Why is he putting pressure on Israel on this front? If the hostages were returned and Hamas unconditionally surrenders today there would be a ceasefire tomorrow.
But it seems so much of politics is performative nowadays. It is easier to talk to a democratic ally of Singapore and engage in finger wagging, telling them they have gone too far than to tell a terrorist group that you wish they would return hostages and surrender so their people can finally know the peace of a ceasefire.2 Elections are coming up, and I know there are no small number of Singaporeans who sympathise with the Palestinian plight. And so the performance must continue.
The National Stadium comes in at 9th place (as of 2024) on the list of most expensive stadiums in the world, costing Singaporeans $1.33 billion dollars. The National Day parade was held there once and never again, due to various design flaws which made it so there could be no parachute segment (which is a staple for National Day), and attendees could not see the fireworks outside the stadium. The stadium also suffers from reportedly poor audio quality, which begs the question who approved the design for the stadium in the first place? And why is it so expensive if it’s not fit for any purpose?
As I’ve said before I acknowledge as the Prime Proposition: all war is bad. I sympathise with the Palestinians who are enduring the unendurable now. However that does not change the fact that I think the Palestinians can only know true peace of a two state solution if Hamas ceases to exist.