Opinions

An opposition politician, John Tan, the Vice-Chairman of the Singapore Democratic Party, and a civil activist, Jolovan Wham, were both fined $5,000 after they were found guilty for contempt of court.

The duo are appealing the conviction and the sentence.

With this conviction, Tan may have lost his chance to contest in the upcoming parliamentary elections. This is because in Singapore, any individual who have been convicted and jailed for a year, or fined for at least $2,000, will be disqualified from becoming an MP.

Theirs, is a good test case for the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation bill. Wham had posted in April 2017 that for cases with political implications, Malaysia's judges were more independent than Singapore's. Tan later added on Facebook that the actions taken by Singapore's courts against Wham only served to emphasise Wham's point.

The Singapore courts have always defended its integrity.

In this case, how does one separate fact from opinion and to what extent can what Wham articulated be seen as an attempt to perpetuate a falsehood?

These are some very critical questions that the government need to adequately address.

The recent terrorist attack in Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday prompted a local Pastor to draw on a very important lesson he learned from his childhood - becoming friends is the surest way of preventing strangers from becoming enemies.

This is his recollection in full:

When I was 10 I ignorantly called my classmate a ‘black Boy’. Unhappy at being chastised by our teacher I proceeded to punch him during recess to exact my own ‘justice’.

Our parents were summoned to the Principal’s office. My father walked in and offered an immediate apology with the assurance he would make me ‘pay’ for my unwarranted indiscretion.

My friend’s mother responded with the request that in lieu of pain she should be allowed to take me to her home everyday to have lunch, do homework and play with my friend. I have never forgotten her summary, “We must make them friends and not allow them to be enemies”. I spent many memorable and happy days with them. I sat in on lessons on the Quran.

Ever since then we have been blessed with a lifelong friendship spanning 52 years now. To this day, I a pastor, am welcomed in this home as family.

We can live and embrace one another if we teach our children to be friends and not enemies. 

Dedicated to all who have suffered in Christchurch and Sri Lanka with the prayer that parents will see this as an opportunity to make our children friends.

The lesson that the pastor drew is an important one.

Due to the perceived differences in terms of our language, appearances and values, most of us choose the easy way out by being friends with people from our our own religious and ethnic backgrounds. We close ourselves to those who are different.

This is an opportunity missed.

What we don't know becomes a convenient bogeyman or enemy.

Genuine friendships take time to forge but once they do, there exist an understanding that is deeper than the mere tolerance that most Singaporeans have for one another.

For that to happen, we need to provide the youths with the right time, platform and space, instead of segregating and putting up barriers between them.

Be honest. How many of you are guilty of spreading fake news without even realising it? How many of you have received fake news from your parents or your uncles and aunties in your family chat group? What did you do about it?

Take a long hard look at yourself. 

You may have contributed to the implementation of the Protection from Online Falsehood and Manipulation (POFM) bill.

Even local legend Fandi Ahmad has not been spared from fake news. Fandi will not be serving any 15-year prison sentence. He is not serving any sentence at all.

So stop sharing the news further because by doing that, it only gives more reason for the government to justify the implementation of the POFM bill.

In a recent interview, Lee Hsien Loong defended the impending implementation of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation legislation to combat fake news, saying that such fake news must be tackled before they impact the Singapore society. He also asserted his belief that the law would not curb free speech in Singapore, and would in fact, protect locals from manipulation from both internal and external actors.

Lee is missing the point.

Singaporeans are savvy enough to understand that they may be subjected to manipulation by foreign parties that stand to benefit from seeing a divided Singapore.

What Singaporeans who oppose the bill don't understand is that why the wording of the bill has to be vague. In short, Singaporeans want greater clarity on what constitutes fake news. Lee Hsien Loong saying that freedom of speech will not be curbed by its implementation does not provide any comfort to us.

The vague wording of the law means that it can be subjected to interpretations that are contested. What Singaporeans want is peace of mind to know that they can engage constructively without the fear of persecution.

NUS has came out with a statement on 22 April 2019. In their statement, they mentioned that they have a "second strike and you are out" policy for sexual misconducts. They explained that this is because they are a educational institution and they want to give their students a second chance.

For their first time offenders, they offenders would be given a range of different punishments but not immediate expulsion. However, if the offender is caught for a sexual misconduct OUTSIDE of campus, they would be immediately expelled. 

Why is there a difference between sexual misconduct inside and outside of campus? Is it because they have a better chance of covering up the incident if they are caught in campus? If they can give an immediate expulsion to offenders caught outside of campus, can't they do the same for those who were caught in campus?

Also, where is our minister of law at this time? Should he not be talking about this incident? Or is he too held up with coming up with things like the fake news bill? Is sexual misconduct not under his purview? Does this not affect the public? What if there are hundreds of these perverts out there? Will he only do something when there are more people out there who speaks up as victims?

This issue should have been dealt with swiftly. I hope that NUS will do something about it soon. Simply unacceptable from one of the best universities in the world.

A recent CNA article took a look at Singaporean women who are choosing to undergo IVF treatment in neighbouring Johor Baru.

There are various reasons for this trend. Firstly, IVF treatments here are only open to women who are below 45 years old. Secondly, for the women aged 40 and above, the price, even after government subsidies, is more affordable in Johor. Lastly, \they are able to test the embryos before they are implanted in the uterus.

You wonder why this is the case.

Singaporeans have not been having children at replacements for a long time. The government acknowledges the problem, and have attempted to seek various solutions to meet population projection of 6.5 million population. They have provided several financial incentives for couples.

Yet, change has been limited.

They should take review their policies on IVF use and the subsidies that they are providing.

Couples who go for IVF treatments want children. Where it is medically safe and ethical, they should be provided with more support than they are currently being given.

Subsidies should be more attractive to enable the average Singaporeans access to cheap, but effective IVF solutions instead of having to go overseas for such treatments.

It is expensive to have children in Singapore. When it is also expensive for couples who want children to go for IVF treatments, they may be put off and forgo plans of having children. 

The government must get more serious about growing the local population.

She used to go to Johor Bahru at least thrice a week for six months, telling herself “to be strong” and think positively “no matter what”.

Driven by desperation and hoping for success, getai celebrity Liu Ling Ling had done her research — she chose the most popular clinic in town for her treatments.

“The nurse also told me a lot of Singaporeans (make) their babies here,” she said.

Age is a reason, as IVF for women aged 45 and older is not allowed here. But there are also other reasons Singaporeans are crossing the Causeway for these treatments, the programme Talking Point discovers. (Watch the episode here.)

And with fertility clinics seeming to boast high success rates, there is a question whether the reality is as good as promised, or are women pinning too much hope on IVF, overseas or locally?