Just watch the Halal Subway hoo-ha (and do nothing)

There seems to be no point trying to refute people who are determined to hate Subway’s decision to apply for Halal certification for all its restaurants. The (sometimes toxic) comment thread in their official FB account bears witness to this.

Of course Subway is going to lose some customers – that’s the point of their exercise. They’ve made the decision based on a calculation that they will happily shed the <1 per cent of argy bargy halal-haters to access the halal market.

Never mind the laundry list of reasons: that nearly all major fast food chains are halal, that businesses are free to make decisions on their product, that Subway has probably already done market research to show that they will earn more than they lose, that “halal-haters” are eating halal food all the time already… it’s not about that.

This is the madness of social media amplification – a number of insignificant voices (perhaps less than 1 per cent), account for 99 per cent of the negative noise on social media. Stanford researchers released a study showing that just 1 per cent of subreddits instigate 74 per cent of all inter-community conflicts on the “front page of the Internet”.

Social media platforms thrive on conflict. They amplify traffic and help sell ads. That in itself is a business decision, so consume at your own risk! My advice – don’t step in. There’s nothing to be achieved here by engaging with people who refuse to engage, and you’re not going to change a thing.

Although all this has implications on what harmonious interaction looks like for Singapore (still waiting for someone to report racist comments to the Police), it may be well worth considering philosopher Slavoj Žižek’s idea that being politically correct can actually perpetuate prejudice (like our externally “harmonious” yet deeply racist Singapore). It’s my thought for today, so I’ll let the ranters rant, but I’ll stay out of the fray.

Unless you’re in it for the sport… then be my guest.

 

Image from Flickr Mike Mozart, CC BY 2.0

Advertisements

Tobacco tax is good for the coffers, but risks abound

Take your eyes off the GST rate hike, if you can. I personally don’t mind so much how much tax is levied, as long as we get our money’s worth in the end (spend it well), and it doesn’t lead to any risky situations.

The G already makes more than $1 billion a year from tobacco tax. A 10 per cent hike would put a tidy $100 million more into the budget (although it wouldn’t stave off the need for the 2 per cent GST hike everyone is fixated on), and will more than pay for the healthcare costs that smokers are likely to rack up from their habit.

Don’t be mistaken – the tax hike is not really meant as a way to encourage smokers to quit. Singaporeans are surprisingly stubborn when it comes to paying taxes on things they really want, and the massive taxes we already pay for cars and alcohol have scarcely put a damper on demand.

Two things are going to happen, and one more likely than the other. The first is that smokers will feel a little hard done by – this can’t be avoided if the G needs the money. Smokers are used to being the butt of taxes anyway, since the G believes that they will not only keep smoking, but not impact the political balance significantly (it’s not like there are any pro-smoking opposition parties anyway).

Second, and more importantly, we are going to see a rise in contraband cigarettes (check out TMG’s report on the issue last year). As prices go up, it’s going to become more and more attractive to bring in illicit cigarettes, and with them the additional risks they are linked with.

Just on the surface, the G already loses about $203 million in revenue per year to contraband cigarettes, according to a 2014 report. If higher tax leads to more smuggling, then this loss figure could increase significantly.

Underneath the surface, it also floods the market with more tobacco prpducts that may not be compliant to tar, nicotine and chemical limits, is a source of funds for criminal syndicates and terrorism, and encourages other sorts of trafficking (like drugs or weapons) to piggyback along. Singapore becomes a big magnet for the inventory of illegal cigarettes around the region because with retail prices sky-high, smugglers stand to make bigger margins on their goods.

One more factor is going to push up cigarette smuggling in the near future – proposed plain packaging laws. The health ministry’s public consultation paper on plain packaging basically considered the risks of increased illicit trade non-existent, citing the Australian story, but some facts seem to bear out a different story.

KPMG study of illicit tobacco market in Australia

Chart from KPMG study of illicit tobacco market in Australia

Australian plain packaging laws came into force in 2012, and a study by KPMG showed that since that year, illicit tobacco has accounted for 2 to 3 per cent more of the tobacco market than before. The situation has prompted the Australian government to push a bill for harsher penalties for illicit cigarettes and tobacco.

Ultimately, Singapore needs to tread carefully and increase her vigilance against smuggled cigarettes, or else the financial benefits from the increased cigarette tax will not outweigh the associated risks.

 


Photo by Thong Vo on Unsplash

 

The stupid thing about IMDA ordering The Opinion Collaborative to return $5,000

Here’s the short background: The Opinion Collaborative used to publish the online news site TOC, before they split up. During that time, the organisation received $5,000 from Monsoons Book Club in the UK to run a competition – the amount was recorded as advertising revenue.

Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA) asked that the money be returned to Monsoons Book Club because it considered it to be funding from foreign sources (except for bona fide commercial purposes) that would be prejudicial to the site’s presentation of local issues. Monsoon Book Club names Mr Tan Wah Piow, a former ISA detainee, as one of its directors.

I’m not arguing about the legitimacy of the transaction – this point has already been contested by The Opinion Collaborative in its press statement. The thing that really gets to me is how easy it is for ACTUAL nefarious agendas, terrorists, and foreign influencers to get funds to publications in the Singapore socio-political space.

To prove the point, The Opinion Collaborative has returned the $5,000 to Monsoons Book Club, which then gave $6,000 to The Opinion Collaborative, which is now all legit because The Opinion Collaborative has been de-linked from the website TOC. It’s a big “F U” to IMDA.

And, had this organisation been one with intentions to influence local politics, it would have been just as easy to hand that $6,000 on to any other news site, run an ad or promo, and fund some other agenda. IMDA’s regulations are powerless to actually stop the flow of money by determined actors. I’ve asked before: what’s the point of the local/foreign definition anyway?

In the end, this leaky IMDA rule only serves to burden upright publications with paperwork, while those who want to disguise payments can easily do so (and they are encouraged to hide their money trails). This is a worse situation all around.

Meanwhile, the G’s war on fake news doesn’t seem interested in addressing this regulatory weakness at all.

 

Photo by Priscilla Du Preez on Unsplash

Hri Kumar Nair is right – there’s a hole in our Constitution

Former PAP MP, now Deputy Attorney-General Hri Kumar Nair was right to say, at the court hearing on whether Madam Halimah Yacob’s vacated MP seat should trigger a by-election, that there is no part in the Constitution that says that the rest of the MPs in the affected GRC should resign as well.

In fact according to him there is no part of the Constitution that says that they shouldn’t resign. And according to his interpretation of the Constitution, there is also no clear indication that there ought to be a by-election, even should ALL the MPs in a GRC resign or vacate their seats. There are, in Mr Nair’s reading of the law, no provisions at all.

Sure, Mr Goh Chok Tong triggered a by-election in his Marine Parade GRC in 1992 to get a vote of confidence for his fresh Prime Ministerial post. All his MPs resigned then, but apparently, the Constitution is unclear on whether that by-election was mandatory. It was a moot point, of course, since the President and the PAP, still in power, had the right to call for a by-election, whether it was mandatory or not.

Since then, GRC seats have been vacated by the resignation of Choo Wee Khiang for cheating (Jalan Besar GRC, 1999), the deaths of Dr Ong Chit Chung (Jurong GRC, 2008) and Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar GRC, 2015), and of course the resignation of Halimah Yacob to run for the presidency (Marsiling-Yew Tee GRC, 2017). In most of these cases questions were asked about whether a by-election should be held, and the G was correct (to the same extent that Mr Nair is correct)  to point out that the Constitution did not demand that other MPs in the GRC resign.

This claim, assuming Mr Nair is right, falls short – the constitution does not even require a by-election if all the members of a GRC vacate their seats.

Mr Nair said the Government’s interpretation of Article 49 (1) is that a by-election is only required when all GRC MPs have vacated their seats (although the article does not actually say this), but then went on to say that Article 49 (1) does not apply to GRCs, because it was enacted during a time when there were only Single Member Constituencies (SMCs).

This is quite a double standard for Mr Nair to say that 49 (1) has an interpretation for GRCs while at the same time being unapplicable to GRCs. It sounds as if he is completely confused.

If we, however, would be so charitable to concede Mr Nair’s point about Article 49 (1), then there has been a massive loophole in our Constitution since 1988, and of course the silent accusation that the PAP government of the time did a damn shoddy job of the Constitution Amendment Act. And that subsequent governments also neglected to shore up this weakness.

Mr Nair was also derided for saying that the “GRC scheme was designed to ensure minority representation at the point of elections” because some took it to mean that minorities merely had to ‘cross the line’ before their race became irrelevant.

It was no defence either to hark back to Goh Chok Tong’s 1988 speech (at the second reading of the Constitution Amendment Act to introduce GRCs) where he said that “GRCs are meant to ensure a multi-racial Parliament, not a multi-racial team in the constituency”, since there was no provision either to determine at what point Parliament would be considered to have enough minorities. If that (to ensure a multi-racial Parliament) was the purpose of the constitutional amendment, then I would say that the legislation is a shoddy piece of work that does not serve this purpose effectively, since it doesn’t even tell us what would constitute adequate minority representation in Parliament, since minority candidates can resign and not be replaced. If in theory every single minority MP can vacate his seat and still trigger no by-election, then the Constitution, and the GRC system in it, does not effectively safeguard a multi-racial Parliament.

So, if Mr Nair is right, then our Constitution is a bloody shambles, and needs fixing immediately, and some people really need to answer for the mess they made in 1988, and the tardiness in cleaning it up.

And if Mr Nair is wrong, then it is time for a by-election.

 

Featured image via TMG.

One simple rule for safer sidewalks

 

I’ve been riding an electric scooter for over three years, and it seems that over the last six months, we have become the scourge of the sidewalk. And the road.

Of course, those that flout the law should get their due punishment, but bad hats and morons aside, we want to make our too-narrow pavements and shared spaces safer for everyone.

Hence I propose this basic code of conduct that I hope will reduce risk significantly: KEEP LEFT.

That’s all. We’re trained to do it on the road. We’re trained to do it on escalators. We can see how much easier it is to anticipate danger, and allow a faster flow of traffic (even foot traffic) if everybody behaves more predictably.

Faster traffic overtakes on the right, of course, and it is the speedster’s responsibility to check for safety. This rule applies to everyone – strollers, walkers, oblivious video-on-mobile watching phombies with headphones in, bikes, scooters, e-scooters, runners, crawlers, and aunties with shopping trolleys.

Of course, it would also be good if e-scooter riders would also slow down before overtaking, say “good morning, excuse me” instead of going ballistic with the bell, and wear a helmet, but that’s another set of rules for this specific group.

But for now, KEEP LEFT. Please.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Misaligned walkway: ST pulled its punches so hard, it hurt its own face

Oh, I’d like to think that ST’s poor coverage (that pun landed right on my lap) of a badly-aligned walkway in Jurong was just shoddy journalism. Sadly, it looks like it’s their best attempt at a cover-up. It took nearly a year for the project to get done, several residents of the area have told me, but ST dodges that fact and more.

Rulang Primary Jurong West Misaligned Walkway, screenshot from FB.

Check out that headline for a start. Instead of something factual, like “LTA leaves project half-done for nearly a year”, or something gentle like “LTA explanation for covered walkway: it was according to plan”, ST chooses to go instead for “LTA clears up mystery of misaligned sheltered walkway in Jurong West”, which is already watered down from their initial headline “LTA solves mystery…” (see the URL). Wow, way to turn a bad project into a heroic act.

Then, the paper doesn’t even ask the very basic question of how long the walkway has been misaligned. Clearly LTA has the exact date, but noooo, don’t ask them. And don’t ask any long-time residents either. Instead, get a date from a teacher who just joined the school next door in July 2017, and who says that the joke of a walkway was already there when she joined.

And of course, no questions posed to LTA about why social media outcry resulted in the crossing getting fixed in just one day, when it took nearly a year of, what, nobody on the project noticed that something was amiss? Residents not saying anything? Grassroots didn’t raise it to the MP? MP doesn’t walk the ground? (Check the GRC map if you want to know who).

Any other reasons for the year-long delay? How much feedback has LTA received about the walkway since it was built? ST doesn’t even ask these basic questions. For shame.

Meanwhile, PAP propaganda channels are going into overdrive to criticise those that criticised the project. Shoddy journalism opens the door to fake news, but I don’t even know if you could call this shoddy journalism – perhaps more like ass-covering (for which you get the stink of faeces on you), or punches pulled so hard that the paper might as well hit itself in the face.

Low key Middle Ground upper management

It was the opportunity of a lifetime – the chance to work on a solidly-funded news portal with one of Singapore’s most seasoned journalists. How could I pass it up? All I needed was to pull together the seasoned journalist, the news portal and the financial resources to keep the publication viable.

I met Bertha when she had just started up Breakfast Network and was looking for writers. A mutual friend suggested that I could contribute as a volunteer and I was happy to, since I had been blogging on socio-political issues for a while. Bertha was happy to give me a shot and that was the start of a wonderful year where I received my first lawyer’s letter threatening to sue the site for defamation, marked my inaugural participation in a G press conference as a member of the media and watched a whole drama with the MDA unfold. I was keen to sign up to MDA’s demands, but that was a corporate call in the end.

When Breakfast Network was finally closed down, going back to blogging didn’t seem to be quite enough for me. My work in a small PR agency kept me busy and paid the bills for my burgeoning family, but what could have been at Breakfast Network always nagged at me. It was a job left incomplete; an opportunity not seized; a risk not taken.

I spent the next year following up with Bertha, and through her, found the resources to get a newsroom and a small company up and running. As with a new company I had no illusions: nothing would go according to plan, so I detailed a year-long blueprint so that there would be a plan that nothing could go according to. We tried to reconstitute the wonderful ex-Breakfast Network team and offer them something more substantial.

Why, though, would I step away from 12 years of agency life and my stable and growing public relations firm (disclosure: I’m still on the board) to go into the tough, saturated market of publishing, especially in Singapore, where even the incumbents have trouble doing profitable business? Did I really hope to be able to run a sustainable business?

Management scion Peter Drucker said that “there is only one valid definition of a business purpose: to create a customer”. And that is what I hope to achieve at The Middle Ground as publisher. I want to gather readers around our way of doing the news and in so doing, influence the way society thinks. It is long-term thinking; it is something for the next generation, something that doesn’t pander to short term results like mere traffic and clicks but that builds fundamental values.

This is the country and the world I hope to leave to my children – one with citizens who are discerning of the news and of the flow of information (a REAL smart nation), who know the difference between fluff and subject expertise, who can handle both sides of an argument, who respect intellectual property and who are intelligent enough not to get offended or alarmed by satirical articles.

I want this industry to adapt and thrive because we all need it to, and am happy to be one of what I hope are many other news publications and magazines that can chart a new way forward in the digital age and beyond.

And that is why I am trying to fill this gap, even as our team works to fill the digital pages in The Middle Ground. Thank you, dear reader, for reading and for engaging with us. You are our Middle Ground and it is you whom we hope to serve and foster.