I went for a TCM massage yesterday, then went to the gym, then walked a lot and sat under the hot sun all afternoon and now I can't move without making old lady groaning noises. I fear my Tiger Balm days are not far off.
(1)
I’m writing this part of the newsletter on Friday afternoon in the vicinity of Clementi Police Division HQ, where three people are being questioned for their involvement in pro-Palestinian activity. On 13 January, Students for Palestine staged a memorial on the National University of Singapore campus: they laid out 124 pairs of shoes, along with a burial shroud, in front of a building housing a research alliance between Singapore and Israel. Each pair represents one murdered Palestinian student and one Singaporean student in solidarity.
On Thursday, the police showed up at the homes of some of the students alleged to have been involved. Four students’ homes were searched; the things confiscated included clothes, phones and laptops. One student was made to suspend their social media accounts. Three students were questioned in their own homes while others were told to present themselves at the police station.
At a time of huge losses from scams that must surely translate to heavy investigation caseloads for law enforcement, it’s ludicrous that the police are wasting resources like this, raiding homes and interrogating people for a memorial made up of shoes.
I looked up the definition of an “assembly” in the Public Order Act:
Does a memorial without human bodies even qualify as an “assembly”?
Anyway, about 30 people showed up in solidarity with those being questioned. This is something that happens more and more: when someone is called up by the authorities, others turn up to show that we will no longer be frightened off or isolated from one another.
This is part of a shift among Singaporeans and civil society that I wrote about in January:
Kirsten Han
Also related to Palestine: Workers’ Party MP Gerald Giam asked a parliamentary question about Singapore’s position “on the unilateral proposals for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that involve the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza”. He also asked a supplementary question on whether Singapore “has sought the US’ clarifications on what it intends to do to follow through with President Trump’s proposal regarding Gaza”. In response, Minister for Foreign Affairs Vivian Balakrishnan reiterated Singapore’s belief in that Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. He said that while “we have not been consulted by the US on this specific proposal that President Trump announced some time ago”, Singapore’s position is clear.
Okay, but Giam wasn’t asking about whether the US consulted Singapore on Trump’s horrifying proposal—please lah, the idea that Trump would have consulted Singapore on this is just a joke. But since Trump has let that proposal come out of his mouth, then what is Singapore’s response? “Everyone is aware of our position on this,” Balakrishnan says, but I highly doubt Trump is aware of anything more than his own whims. Is Singapore going to act on our belief in the right to a homeland for the Palestinian people by at least engaging the US to say “hey, that’s fucked up eh”, or are we going to just keep harassing the young activists who’re actually putting their money where their mouths are?
(2)
K Shanmugam, our GCB king, is making good on his threat to sue Bloomberg. He and Tan See Leng, the manpower minister, are suing Bloomberg and journalist Low De Wei for defamation over Low’s article that mentioned their property transactions. Bloomberg had previously been POFMA-ed by the Ministry of Law for this article. Although Bloomberg complied with the Correction Direction—because it would have been a criminal offence not to—they disagreed with it, indicated an intention to appeal and said that they stood by their reporting.
That isn’t the only Shanmugam/GCB-related thing that happened this week: the Ministry of Law also POFMA-ed The Online Citizen and a YouTube channel over stories about what’s going on at Shanmugam’s Ridout Road property. TOC had highlighted significant works going on at the property and asked questions about approval records and why this big undertaking is being carried out when Shanmugam’s lease is only up to 2027. On Factually, the government confirmed that Shanmugam hasn’t been assured of his tenancy being extended beyond 2027—ooh, do they plan to put it up for public bidding?—but said that all the approvals are in order and Shanmugam is paying “the full costs of the earthworks conducted since 2024”.
TOC has issued a response: “Instead of addressing the substance of the concerns raised, the government has compelled TOC to label its reporting as false without providing a meaningful explanation that addresses the core issues of transparency, policy inconsistencies, and accountability.”
A POFMA order is particularly problematic when, as TOC says, effort had been made to reach out for comment before the story ran. If there were facts that needed to be corrected and issues to be clarified, why was that not done in response to questions? It’s very unfair for public officials to refuse to comment or respond to questions, then turn around and POFMA the media outlet when they go ahead with the story. This sort of practice sends a warning to journalists and media outlets: go ahead without the input (which can be withheld) of the powerful and there could be repercussions later. It creates an environment where the refusal to comment on a story could be enough to kill it completely because journalists and editors might be too afraid to run it—what a convenient, insidious censorship tool!
(3)
The government has once again rebuffed calls to end the practice of transporting migrant workers in lorries. It’s not practical, Amy Khor, Senior Minister of State for Transport and Sustainability and the Environment, said, because it could hurt businesses and bring about the demise of smaller firms. And if these little companies collapse, that’ll delay our HDB flats and hospitals and MRT lines—the horror!
This cuts right to the heart of who we are as a people. Are we really okay with putting fellow human beings in dangerous, demeaning situations for our own comfort and convenience? Are we really okay with making those who are least privileged and most exploited among us bear the risks and costs because the government and employers aren’t stepping up? The issues that Khor mentioned: costs, lack of bus drivers, etc. are all government/employer issues for them to solve. And we’ve seen how decisive they can be when situations arise and the political will is suddenly there. So why should migrant workers have to put up with this because there isn’t enough political will to sort this shit out? What does it say about us as a nation that we allow this to happen? What does it say about the people we’ve elected to represent us that they feel comfortable enough to make these arguments in Parliament with no sense of shame?
Around the region
Looking for writing from elsewhere? Check out these newsletters from around Asia:
🌏 Asia Undercovered
🇰🇭 Campuccino
🇮🇩 Indonesia at a Crossroads
🇲🇾 The Malaysianist
🇻🇳 Vietnam Weekly
Thank you for reading! As always, feel free to forward this weekly wrap to anyone you like, and spread the word about this newsletter!
