Opinions

The Lee family feud takes another turn. Lee Wei Ling, the only daughter of Lee Kuan Yew, slammed the media helping their brother, Lee Hsien Loong, repeat baseless accusations that Hsien Yang was attempting to trick his way into obtaining a larger share of their father's estate.

According to Wei Ling, the 2012 version of the will gave her a larger share than her brother. This however was superseded by the final will in 2013 when LKY changed it to equal shares for all three siblings.

The soap opera will continue for some time before this is resolved. The public is getting tired. This drama has gone on for one too many episodes.

That should not stop us from reflecting and asking ourselves, what if the incumbent PM is perpetuating fake news? What if the mainstream media is helping him?

Already, Wei Ling and Hsien Yang are disadvantaged by it. Is that fair? 

British public health specialist Lucy Saunders has said that vehicles in Singapore travel too fast on normal roads here, and suggest that a speed limit of 30km/hr would be ideal on non-expressway roads in Singapore.

Lucy Saunders is the kind of foreign talent that Singapore's government wish to attract, and to drive home the fact that foreign talents like her understand the Singapore's culture like they understand Singlish, Saunders has said that the reduction of 10km/hr on the normal roads is the difference between life and death. So, the figure of 30km/hr on Singapore roads makes sense, she has reiterated.

In other news, e-scooters and bicycles are limited to 25km/hr, so, we can all save money on expensive cars and even more expensive fuel, by ditching our cars and riding e-scooters and bicycles instead. After all, the speed limit is going to be almost the same soon, if we follow the talented foreigner who is also Britain's public health specialist. 

The Committee for Private Education (CPE), in an annual survey of about 2,800 fresh graduates from private education institutions (PEIs), found that they were more likely to be out of a job, compared to their peers in the autonomous universities.

27.2% of these fresh graduates from private institutions were either unemployed and still looking for a job, or in involuntary or part-time employment. In contrast only 9.2% of their peers from the autonomous universities (AUs) like NUS, NTU, SMU, and SUSS are in a similar predicament. 

Those who graduated from the AUs also earn a higher median gross salary ($3500) compared to $2,650 for those from private education institutions.

The disparity is stark.

Why are the standards of PEIs low compared to the AUs? Can the MOE step in to further regulate the industry to ensure that the standards in the universities do not drop further?

The MOE has sent mixed signals about attaining a degree. In the not too distant past, there was an emphasis for Singaporeans to get degrees in order to get ahead. Consequently, Singaporeans focused their attention on getting that degree at the PEIs, if they were unable to enter AUs.

More recently though, there has been a shift towards skills and knowledge, with far less focus on getting a degree.

What happens then to those who recently graduated and are unable to find employment? Aren't there opportunities for employment the civil service, the biggest employer in Singapore?

The Ministry is rightly focusing its resources on AUs. That being said, it cannot allow for standards at PEIs to deteriorate, affecting their status and credibility, and also limiting the ability of the graduates to seek employment.

Noted local socio-political commentator, Andrew Loh, in a post on his Facebook profile, has decried attempts by some parties to distinguish the usual 'bread-and-butter' issues from the fake news legislation and one's freedom of speech. Loh's position is that the two are not necessarily separate.

If the anti-fake news bill becomes law, the ability of people to share their stories and speak freely becomes curtailed. Loh used the example of how stories now on homeless people in Singapore, may, in the future be silenced because the concerned ministries can dispute the stories and charge them for spreading fake news.

In the past, Loh pointed out they can still stand by their stories even if such stories are disputed, or even if they are castigated by the Minister. This is because Loh had done due diligence and had their facts right.

The main problem lies in who is the arbiter of fact.

Loh is of the opinion that the government has to better articulate what it terms as 'false statements of facts'. 

What Loh contends is absolutely spot on.

There is no disputing that fake news is a problem. We can all become victims of fake news, be it at the individual, or even a national level. Mitigating the impact of fake news however must not come at the ability of an individual to exercise his free speech. Especially, when the facts are in order.

If our freedom of speech is taken away, what else would we have?

Sexuality education forms an important part of our upbringing. Knowledge on sexuality is normally obtained informally, through the family, peers, books, the internet, religious books/figures, and any other forms of media.

In the developed world, these informal means is usually complemented by formal sex education in schools. 

Singapore is no different. The difference between Singapore and many other liberal democracies is that the education ministry here adopts a more prescriptive approach in teaching about sexuality. The family unit, which it sees as a fundamental basis of the community, is clearly defined as one that is heterosexual.

A fundamental question that needs to be asked is if the ministry really needs to adopt such a prescriptive stance in educating the young about sexuality. 

There are many, many examples of dysfunctional heterosexual families that end up breaking apart, leaving a negative impact on the children. Does that still make such heterosexual families more desirable than homosexual, or even those single-parent families? 

By not acknowledging the presence of other types of families, they are immediately discriminating these people and rendering the LGBTQ community invisible.

Individuals who are facing an identity crisis may not know who to turn to to seek good counsel on the turmoil that they have. Instead of being helped, we are implicitly being told to hide.

Singapore has progressed very rapidly but some policies like this one have failed to keep up with changes in our society. 

This is a disservice to the LGBTQ community and the young who need to be educated on sexuality.

Both the Singapore and Malaysia governments have made progress on several bilateral issues that have hampered neighbourly ties over the past six months. Malaysia has indefinitely suspended the permanent restricted area over Pasir Gudang. On the other hand, Singapore has withdrawn the use of the ILS (Instrument Landing System) procedures for Seletar Airport, paving the way for Malaysian budget Airlines, FireFly, to fly to Seletar once again.

According to the Transport Ministers for both countries, these agreements were 'made in the spirit of bilateral cooperation'.

Are we really benefitting from these arrangements?

The one on the issue of the removal of Malaysia's permanent restricted area over Pasir Gudang is an easy one to answer. It benefits us. It means that more planes can fly or land using the approach from Pasir Gudang. 

However, on the issue on the use of ILS, the benefits are not so clear. What is happening is that FireFly can fly back into Seletar. It provides more options for travelers flying in and out of Singapore, into Malaysia. With that, there are obvious positive spillover effects in economic terms.

The issue here is, has the Singapore government gone soft with FireFly and let it get away with its own short-sighted requests in the first place? It was FireFly which requested for the use of the ILS at Seletar. Singapore authorities agreed to the request only for FireFly to stop all its flights to Seletar. Subsequently, you had the whole saga about the ILS and the airspace over Pasir Gudang.

If FireFly did not have to pay any form of penalty, what kind of signals are we sending to other businesses from the region? Can they make similar requests and only to withdraw upon implementation? Can they then expect to walk back into Singapore without the worry of having to face punitive measures?

We want bilateral relations with Malaysia to smoothen and improve so that we can both benefit from a stable environment. We should not do it by bending over backwards to them.