Political Stupidity

I’ve written about Yaw’s stupidity. But it seems he’s not been the only stupid one in recent days.

Richard Wan decided to show himself at some “face-off” with TOC and got slapped almost immediately with two lawyers’ letters threatening defamation suits for libellous content on TRE. One got the feeling they were just waiting for someone to serve the letters on.

One has to wonder, why mess with an operating model that works? Temasek Review was always a cowboy town where anybody could shoot his mouth off about the PAP and its excesses. Indeed, the editorials were usually more malicious than posters’ comments.

Temasek Review had run-in’s with Temasek Holdings several times, but they played hard to get because the website owners were not only overseas, but also anonymous shadowy figures.

So PAP and other establishment figures could never get their hands on them to seek redress. The nearest they got was Dr Joseph Ong, who supposedly founded Temasek Review, but they could not show that he was still running Temasek Review.

It worked well for Temasek Review. They were able to provide netizens the forbidden fruit, they could do what TOC could not, they had high readership, and they were able to earn advertising revenue off the anti-PAP sentiments.

But now Richard Wan has blown his own cover and thus the lawyers’ letters have started.

One has to ask, is it worth it? Now Richard has to watch every single comment, vet every single editorial—knowing full well that if he doesn’t, he could be sued to bankruptcy.

He never had to do that.

In return, what will he (or TRE) get? More ad revenue? More readership? More time to play golf? No, no, no!

Does anyone else also see a gazetting coming?

What a stupid move by Richard Wan!

Those who decry the recent lawyers’ letters from PM Lee, his brother Lee Hsien Yang and Law Minister Shanmugam as a reversal of the Govt’s “light touch” to Internet regulation are also very confused people.

First, Hsien Yang is not in the Govt (and not even in the PAP), and PM Lee and Minister Shanmugam are threatening to sue in their own names, not on behalf of the Cabinet or the Govt of Singapore.

Second, the “light touch” promised by the Govt refers to the way MDA and IDA propose to regulate Internet content and service providers. In other words, instead of building a great firewall as China has done for example, they’ve used voluntary codes of conduct (eg for internet email advertising).

Third, and most important, lawsuits are NOT regulatory actions of a Govt agency, so there is no basis to relate them to the “light touch” promised by the Govt.

Fourth, PAP leaders have never said they would have a “light touch” toward libel. They’ve always maintained that they will vigorously challenge any unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, misconduct, corruption, etc.

But the PAP leaders are also being very stupid in using early 20th century tactics in an online age.

You can force people to retract unsubstantiated allegations, but you also show yourself to be intolerant, oversensitive and vindictive. People find it hard to accept that you are a victim who has been hurt by libel and not a bully demanding compensastion. By suing people into submission, instead of addressing the root cause of these allegations openly, PAP leaders cannot really win over the people.

Why do some people allege that Ho Ching was not appointed on merit, for instance? There must be a reason. Is it just PAP’s political enemies out to spread false allegations? Or is it because the situation itself is hard for most people to swallow?

If people hold on to a belief—however false—that such GLC appointments are not made on merit, it will backfire on you in every election, even if people can’t talk about it.

The issue is therefore not about getting redress for your reputation or even being able to maintain your moral authority to hold political office.

It really is about whether Singaporeans believe in the Singapore system of how GLC’s appoints its top executives, and how it affects PAP’s election chances.

Are lawsuits the best way to deal with this issue? Or is it yet another stupid move by PAP leaders?

Advertisements

About politicalwritings

Someone who sees beyond PAP and "opposition" in Singapore politics. To understand more please see the Top 10 link below.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Political Stupidity

  1. henry says:

    Mr Wan’s decision was his own doing. It must now follow its course. I believe he intends to resign from TRE and it will put some distance between him and Mr Lee.

    The PAP and the people of Singapore are very much the same animal. One key feature is that if the bellies are filled, no further questions or doubts about leadership is required.
    This pragmatism is evident in much of our comments:

    “… as long as they do their job,…”
    ” … we do not have any other resource, so I believe they are doing the right thing…”

    It also suggests that the main stream media has a damn good hold on influencing perceptions of the population.

    The comment by Mr Wan that his relatives are concerned about this development also indicates how easy it is to rattle nerves. Only when the belly is threaten will it work, and the PAP know it too well.
    We are all very well fed and will not rock the boat. People who try, must be able to secure a table full of makan…before any attempt is made… so for the moment, its ” Check & Balance”.
    No other strategy is viable.

  2. CHK says:

    Agree on the stupidity of TRE. Still confused as to why they decide to put a local face for slaughter, particularly after Joseph Ong’s incident. Really, do they naively think that they will be given a blanket impunity just by declaring they are ‘revamping’ to be a better and more responsible site – new slate wiped clean? Based on what?
    TOC has a carved a very niche and fine space. Whereas TRE has its own draw and target. Both serves different purposes. Maybe influenced by those on law-abiding side to come forward but the wrong strategy. Much better they set up a brand new site with no baggage to TRE and let it operate in parallel. Anyway, the red dot is watching in anticipation if their transition from darkness to light will succeed. Take heed everyone!

  3. Saycheese says:

    People start to question when they see HoJinx holding on without having to account for those horrendously bad investments in Merrill Lynch, ABC Learning, UBS, Shin Corp and liquidating their defensively called longterm investment in BofA right at the stock’s nadir.
    By the way, she was appointed to Temasek Holdings after her well known bad call on Micropolis. So, I think it is understandable why people find it hard to stomach this type of meritocracy. I even heard coffeshop talk that Temasek bought into F&N so that her brother-in-law could become the well paid part time business development director. The rest, they said, is history.

  4. Pingback: Daily SG: 27 Feb 2012 « The Singapore Daily

  5. Daft Singaporean says:

    Meritocracy here carries a different definition. It means you have earned enough merits by virtue of being a loyal servant, being born in prominent family, have prominent cronies, married to prominet politicians or have been the hachet man. Such merits, leads to crazy appointments with hefty salaries and benefits minus accountability. Merit-to-Crazy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s