I'm totally into reading again, so I'm hoping to be able to do some Circle of Tsundoku book giveaways with Milo Peng Funders soon!
(1)
Well, well, well... what do we have here? Of all the organisations and individuals, the next group to be designated as “politically significant” under the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act is… the National Trades Union Congress. Yeah, you heard me right, that NTUC.
According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, this is because of “NTUC’s close nexus and symbiotic relationship with the People’s Action Party”. NTUC has 14 days from 11 July to make representations to the Registrar and they’ll have the right to appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs if they get designated. But, given their close nexus and symbiotic relationship with the People’s Action Party, I don’t expect NTUC to put up much of a fight.
In theory, designating NTUC makes sense, for the reasons MHA stated in their release—given how close NTUC is to Singapore’s ruling party, it could potentially be used as an entry point for foreign interference. For example, NTUC has “close and longstanding relations” to the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, which, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to know, has a close nexus and symbiotic relationship with the Chinese Communist Party. Regardless of whether problematic things have happened or are happening, it makes sense for there to be transparency requirements on an organisation like NTUC. But…
…the transparency requirements under FICA aren’t exactly the most transparent. We don’t have a practice of public disclosure of lobbying activity or the interests and assets of elected officials. To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here’s Australia’s Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Public Register, where any member of public can look up activities—like parliamentary lobbying or the provision of strategic communications advice—conducted with foreign principals. (I faffed about a bit kaypohing the activities of former Australian PM Kevin Rudd... the register even lets you read the rather miffed correspondence he sent about having to declare even one-off interviews with foreign media outlets, teeheehee.) Australia also has a public Register of Members’ Interests, where you can look up “interests which may conflict, or may be seen to conflict, with [an MP’s] public duty”. (I faffed about some more and now I know that Australian PM Anthony Albanese has a mortgage on his investment property and also in June 2022 the President of Indonesia gave him a Spedagi Bamboo Bicycle.)
As Ian Chong of Academia SG pointed out back in 2021:
More extensive demands for public disclosure may prove especially helpful for enhancing protections against efforts at elite capture, that is, undue foreign interference efforts targeting and seeking to compromise top officials. Lists of politically significant persons, foreign principals active in Singapore, political donations, major donors, and reportable arrangements already available to the competent authority can be publicised as fully as possible on a transparency register. Interests, assets, and income for elected officials, political appointees, and their key assistants can be made publicly available as in Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States, including even immediate family members in the case of Taiwan. Senior public officials and their staff should as well regularly report participation in lobbying activity, with such information made public. Such disclosure enables open monitoring of elected officials paid by the public purse and their closest associates. Knowledge of close public scrutiny generally discourages impropriety among public officials.
The point is, without such public disclosure, what NTUC—to be designated because of its closeness to the PAP—is going to be expected to do is disclose its foreign affiliations and donations to an authority appointed by the PAP government. If the concern is elite capture, then getting the elite to ownself monitor ownself to ownself make sure ownself never kena capture doesn't strike me as a particularly watertight strategy.
The other thing that leaps out at me is this: while justifying FICA before its implementation, the government pointed their fingers at… well, people in civil society like me. At the time, it didn’t seem like there was much attention paid to how, instead of sidelined and struggling activists, it makes much more sense for foreign meddlers to target people and groups with proximity to power and positions of actual influence. But now that FICA has been implemented, we’re seeing these considerations in early cases of PSP designation. I wrote about this when they announced their intention to designate Philip Chan. What gives? Has there been a shift in the government’s concern about where foreign interference might come from? Or was it simply convenient to take a swipe at critics and activists back when FICA was being discussed, even though they knew we weren’t going to be a real threat? Or do they still intend to come after civil society and activists at some point, but want to start with less ‘controversial’ cases first as cover? I guess time will tell.
(2)
Now here’s an exciting thing: we know of party manifestos, but what about a People’s Manifesto? A group of civil society and grassroots groups have come together to put together just such a thing ahead of the general election (whenever that’s going to be, I’ve lost lose confidence in my September prediction at this point). This manifesto will be a document that tells all political parties what Singaporeans want to see—what we think are the most urgent reforms necessary, the vision that we have for our country.
The People’s Manifesto will be launched at a public townhall session on 3 August from 2–5pm at The Projector. Chope that slot in your calendars!
(3)
The samsui woman gets to keep her cigarette after all. The Urban Redevelopment Authority and Ministry of Health say that the Chinatown mural of the samsui woman that triggered so much debate recently can stay as is. Still, MOH says that, if prior approval had been sought, they’d have raised an issue because “the mural does normalise smoking, which is against MOH’s policy”. They’re now planning to work with the building owner “to find appropriate ways to mitigate any impact that the mural may have in promoting smoking, without modifying the mural itself”. I haven’t the foggiest what that’s going to look like. An anti-smoking poster slapped next to the mural? Another mural painted next to it of an NEA officer issuing the samsui woman with a fine? 🤷🏻♀️
The building owner has also been issued a fine of $2,000 for carrying out unauthorised work on a conserved building.
Tickets are still available for the Singapore Independent Media Fair! The booths are free to access but panel discussions are ticketed. Chope your seat here. If you get your all-access pass now you get a free drink token too.
Thank you for reading! As always, feel free to forward this weekly wrap to anyone you like, and spread the word about this newsletter!