Political Polarisation in Singapore

“The underlying problem is that we aren’t arguing policies; we’re arguing about identities, and therefore compromise is never considered a principled realisation that they might have some legitimate concerns. It is, at best, a Machiavellian strategy forced on us by the bad group.”

― Patricia Roberts-Miller, Demagoguery and Democracy

Singapore Politics

As I look back at a 2020 spent in Singapore, the first thing that comes to mind is our General Election. Filled with unusually harsh rhetoric and a plethora of iconic statements (“blank cheque”) mixed together with false claims (the 10 million), it was an election to remember, especially when one recalls how the Workers’ Party managed to win a second GRC for the opposition. Regardless of the jokes made about party members on social media, the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has fared exceptionally well as always – with 61.24% of the vote, they continue to enjoy the strongest mandate of any functioning democracy in the world. Despite such a strong showing, this isn’t considered particularly impressive when one takes a look at their track record; 2020 reflected one of lowest levels of support for the party, down from 69.86% in 2015. As aptly summarised by Prime Minister Lee, the PAP’s share of the popular vote certainly is “respectable” and reflects “broad-based support for the PAP”, but “was not as strong a mandate as [he] had hoped for”.

As Singapore matures and creeps toward its 60th birthday, critics cynically point out how we remain a muted semi-democracy and not a full-fledged, rambunctious democracy filled with political parties of all stripes jostling for influence. One also has to consider how our island was never really a beacon of democracy; from the very beginning, since 1959, we have been ruled by strongman Lee Kuan Yew and his Cabinet, who secured his grip on power by ousting his popular socialist rivals from the party.

Now, this cannot be taken to mean that the PAP ruthlessly crushes any adversaries; the leaders of today are definitely aware of and seek to address public bitterness towards them for ‘suppressing’ political rivals. No matter how much some of us may enjoy lambasting the PAP for its occasional policy slip-ups, every Singaporean has to admit that a key reason for the party’s longevity is its adaptability. Throughout history, we have seen reforms to introduce alternative voices into the debate – starting from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong’s brand of consultative politics through the 1990’s to the increase in the number of NCMPs this year, the PAP has recognised its own dominance and consistently attempted to broaden political discourse and address voters’ concerns.

The main concern that I have with regard to our nation’s politics today is the risk of increasing political polarisation. Its long-lasting repercussions will hurt Singapore for generations to come, and now it is the time for us to address this very real problem.

Political Tribalism

This year has been a troubling year for democracy. From our tropical island, we have sighed at the propagation of fake news dubbed ‘alternative facts’ during the American elections, and at the same time mourned for Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and the Belusarians’ struggle for fair elections. We pat ourselves on the back for achieving a stable middle ground; while we are not at risk of suffering from a major political party actively endorsing ‘alternative facts’, our government remains in power because it is competent without the use of force.

Although our political climate has, by-and-large, remained stable for the past 60-odd years, we are acutely vulnerable to the changing political winds which have been shaping discourse and dividing societies across the globe. Like the refusal of the Republican party to acknowledge President-elect Biden’s victory and Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump supporters as a ‘basket of deplorables’, we see how those with divergent political opinions view one another as monsters. The key question that we need to ask ourselves is, “will Singaporeans with differing viewpoints be able to engage in political discourse civilly and respectfully?”

The Deep Divide

Gone are the days when both conservatives and liberals could be good friends who could discuss policy issues without raising their voices. We see a shift to decided non-compromise; in differentiating themselves, American political parties have been found to adopt ideologically extreme positions, even as the electorate’s opinions mostly remain constant. However, over time, political parties also shape voters’ perspectives, culminating in a deepening of the political rift. Closer to home, GE2020 Reform Party candidate Charles Yeo has consistently criticised, and his social media page still mocks, the PAP for almost all its policy views, using extreme language to label the PAP as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘no-good’. When Alfian Sa’at and Raeesah Khan were accused by the government for disrupting social harmony or undermining Singapore’s reputation, the populace instantly responded with ugly bickering, much of which took place on social media with one camp demonising the other.

Such extremism and ‘other’ing of those with differing perspectives can be attributed, by some degree, to external pressures and influences. Today the political landscape has evolved. No, it is not just politics. 

At least within the Singapore context, political rhetoric has always been suffused with moving, albeit exaggerated language about progress and prosperity. Look no further than our current context, where we don masks and scan temperatures wherever we go. Strategically dubbed ‘the crisis of a generation’, the covid-19 crisis has acted as a perfect conduit through which leading politicians appeal to voters to entrust their lives into the hands of a capable, benevolent PAP. This appeal didn’t work particularly well, but we’ll get to that another time.

The point is that politicians have naturally resorted to morality-laden phrases to compel the electorate to support them. Voting for the other candidate will be ‘unpatriotic’. It will ‘suppress the rights’ of a particular group. What I can do is continue the tradition of ‘Singaporean exceptionalism’.

While such obvious appeals were less meaningful in the past, especially with your average Joe only caring about his next meal, today they enjoy newfound significance. With the rise of literacy and heightened access to education, the more affluent middle class naturally grows more interested in politics – the average voter no longer simply regards bread-and-butter issues as king, but also takes into account other policy proposals: is the environment important to the candidate? What does the candidate feel about race and religion? As one is gradually exposed to main societal issues, one slowly develops a certain opinion about what politicians are doing. Even if this policy benefits my family, is it equitable? Do I endorse the values of this particular person?

As a result, when someone disagrees with you, you automatically brand them as an enemy. They don’t even support the upholding of basic rights. They don’t value human life. Or even better, they are out to damage this country. We begin to distrust those with different value systems. Consequently, we begin to consider those in the other camp as fundamentally bad people who have no right to share their ‘bigoted’, ‘destructive’ opinions. They are the only ones standing in the way of equal rights, economic progress, fairness, equality, etc. 

You see where this is heading?

Besides heightened political consciousness (which is always better to have than not), I’d like to point out two aggravating domestic factors which have contributed to the rise of political toxicity. There is no singular dominant factor, but like building blocks, they collectively contribute to antagonism in our political climate.

The PAP’s Historical Reluctance

A major factor would be our government’s historical unwillingness to introduce alternative voices into our political scene.  The PAP, although adaptable and sensitive to a degree, has consistently blocked the entry of opposition voices into Parliament. Under the leadership of the PAP since 1959, Singapore first saw an opposition MP in 1981, almost 2 decades after independence (a feat, despite J. B. Jeyaretnam only serving for one term); thereafter, Chiam See Tong (1984) and Low Thia Kiang (1991) followed. The Workers’ Party successfully wrested away the first GRC in 2011 and has managed to retain it for the past two election cycles – acting as ‘electoral citadels’, we see that once breached, they are not easy to recover.

With such a clear history of a weak opposition presence, it is no wonder that PAP dissidents grow increasingly frustrated with the government. Only in recent years has the party shown greater willingness to embrace alternative voices; before GE2020, the Prime Minister announced that the number of NCMP seats would be increased from 9 to 12 in the event of an ‘opposition wipeout’.

However, I’d like to argue that these efforts, while laudable, are far from sufficient. They come too late. Such mechanisms only come into play once voters express their dissatisfaction with tactics – they are ‘knee-jerk’ reactions instead of genuine political reform. For example, after facing a backlash from Singaporeans in the form of a historically-low popular vote, the party tweaked several policies, including immigration quotas as well as housing and transport provisions. Although these changes address voters’ bread-and-butter needs to some extent, the way the party conducts politics has not changed. 

Rather ironically, the PAP that had once started off as a left-leaning opposition party has now transformed into a centre-right government which refuses to let go of its grip on power. In the 21st century, party members still hold the fundamental belief that they know the best for the country, and disputing their way of thinking as an ordinary citizen challenges their legitimacy.

Consider how I use the term ‘ordinary citizen’. The PAP certainly remains open to critique and challenges, but only when backed by empirical evidence and sufficient backing; i.e. if you claim that the Progressive Wage Model (our alternative to the minimum wage) is not working as it should, you need to have hard facts and the support of several distinguished academics. And of course it is important for your criticism to be backed up by evidence for it to be valid. But the problem is, many of these resources cannot be easily accessed by ordinary citizens like you and me. Interestingly, Singapore is one of the few countries in the world which doesn’t release statistics on poverty and homelessness, amongst other social indicators. Subsequently, it’s very difficult to point out flaws in policymaking unless you’re the one making these rules.

Here’s some circular logic: to be a loving critic, you need to access resources to reinforce your claims. To access resources, you need to have shown your capacity to be a loving critic.

That means that you need to demonstrate support for the party’s rule, join their ranks and then start trying to fix things – some of our best academics and politicians, including Tommy Koh, Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Vivian Balakrishnan were co-opted by the PAP for them to improve the establishment from within. However, once you’re in the establishment and among the higher-ups, it’s much more difficult for you to call for change – it not only looks bad on the party, it’ll probably also hinder your career progression. You have to toe the party line.

The main problem here is the party distrust of outsiders’ wisdom. Our Education Minister Ong Ye Kung mentioned a few years ago that there was no need for multi-party politics in Singapore because its capacity for self-regulation stabilises our political system – such is a prominent example of how reluctant the PAP is for change. Their wisdom needs to remain unquestioned; they tell sufficiently-distinguished critics, if need be, join our ranks to make change instead of lambasting us from the outside.

And here many detractors fail to break through and are systemically accused of scheming to tear apart Singapore’s social fabric. When this happens, the man on the street looks on and perceives this to be a failure of democracy, heightening his resentment against our establishment. Hence when met with vociferous defence of the PAP, there tends to be instantaneous outrage. Mistrust mixed with a lack of empathy are commonplace.

While problematic, together with a different kind of insularism, this becomes even more threatening.

The Average Singaporean Mindset

To the average non-PAP voter, fewer opposition members = less diverse representation = PAP domination = bad for Singapore.

Now I’m not talking about those few hardcore opposition voters (or God forbid, even opposition politicians) who decry the PAP as a bastion of nepotism and elitism. The insular mindset that any vote for the opposition counts has been insidiously instilled within the minds of most pro-opposition voters. Even if they do want the PAP to remain our government for the foreseeable future, many of those around me proudly proclaim that they will still support their constituency’s opposition members simply to express their dissatisfaction with the government.

In our arguably one-party state, every voter has the right to do so. But it is bad for politics – with this inherent assumption that the PAP will win, voters vote without considering the quality of our opposition. Let’s just put the dismal state of our alternative parties out in the open: besides the Workers’ Party and one or two notable members from the Singapore Democratic Party, the bulk of our non-PAP politicians are less than qualified to stand in Parliament and debate policy issues. Their arguments are incoherent at best, half-baked at worst. When questioned, much of their logic is exposed as flawed.

Voting for these politicians to represent you in Parliament makes sense, but when you see your bumbling political representative attacked and torn down for poor argumentation, you’ll probably feel like your voice has never been heard. Giving members of the opposition your vote without questioning some of their arguably xenophobic stances and lack of credibility, means that they have no incentive to improve themselves. With such lacklustre opponents, the PAP will never face the checks-and-balances that you truly desire. Moreover, they’ll have another reason in defence of their argument that Singapore doesn’t require other political parties.

Now I’d like to clarify that I have no desire to fearmonger and create the illusion that the PAP will suffer from a ‘wipeout’ in the future just because more voters express their dissatisfaction against them. There isn’t such a risk in the near future. But in the long-term, as we develop such bad habits, Singapore may be confronted by a mass influx of incapable opposition politicians who think they have the right to be there by virtue of their ‘anti-establishment’ status. What we need is credible, sharp opposition MPs who are able to shed greater light on the flaws of government policy and hold our Parliament to account.

Thus this entrenched mindset, of simply voting for that opposition member because he doesn’t wear all white, isn’t particularly good for our political climate.

Connections Cause Cracks

Our ruling party’s longstanding aversion to political challenges has in fact led to the development of voters’ insular mindsets.

The crux of the issue is that the PAP has not given our opposition the space and time to mature. With the odds stacked against them, most alternative political parties have resorted to campaign slogans with overtly nationalist undertones just to draw attention and possibly capture the votes of conservative Singaporeans. If one cannot see the possibility of a political party other than the PAP taking over, the average Singaporean concludes, then the solution must be to vote against the incumbents as much as possible. The system is rigged. Any voice of dissent is better than none, even if it belongs to a xenophobic and incoherent candidate. At least they can understand my opinions and rail against the government in my place.

This resentful relationship between our ruling party and these voters cultivates mistrust and entrenches the (unfair) perception that the opposition will permanently remain disadvantaged. Subsequently, we end up in a toxic cycle, where opposition politicians only see the light of one or two terms before being ousted for their lack of finesse, leaving an unchallenged and even more smug PAP in Parliament. Such a situation proves not only frustrating to PAP dissidents, but is detrimental to Singapore’s progress – without competition, the PAP cannot thrive and adapt to grow into its best form.

Conclusion

I’d like to once again quote PM Lee; in the aftermath of the General Election in July, he acknowledged the increased opposition presence within Parliament with a few wise words of caution. “At the most fundamental level, to make our politics work, both the Government and the opposition must share an overriding objective – to work for Singapore, and not just for our party or our supporters”.

Our government places much emphasis on how free market mechanisms, though having the potential to exacerbate inequality, increase Singapore’s competitiveness and benefit our population. They should take heed of such concepts when encountering rivals in the political arena as well. Any form of challenge to their policies (usually formulated by ‘groupthink’, for the better or worse) or way of thinking has to be embraced, for both the good of our nation as well as the longevity of the party.

As ordinary folk, there is a need to put aside political tribalism and soak in the fact that we are fundamentally alike – Singaporeans, all trying to do our best for our country.

References

https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/spore-must-avoid-going-down-path-of-polarised-politics-pm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200826161336.htm

https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/political-polarisation-among-3-key-threats-social-cohesion-globally-dpm-heng

GE2020: Singapore’s day of decision and the challenge of a generation

Legal Schools of Thought

The legal world is often complicated and messy, full of hot-button topics where one disagreement often leads to political divisions. One may wonder why all these professionals, who have received similar training in jurisprudence courses, have such contrasting viewpoints on the same issues. This week, the writer takes a look at the various schools of thought in law, and how each of them perceives common phenomenon.

Generally, the more widely-recognised legal schools of thought may be classified in the following table:

School of ThoughtCreationMain Concern
Natural Law12th CenturyMorality
Legal Positivism18th CenturySovereignty
Historical Law19th CenturyHistorical Development
Legal Realism20th CenturyApplication
Critical Legal Studies20th CenturySocial Justice

Natural Law Theory

Most of the legal systems in the world today have actually been established under natural law principles; the concept of rule of law in most Commonwealth countries, and due process in the United States, are entrenched in natural law philosophy (although the way the judiciary functions today of course may differ). This school of thought is said to have been established by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (wow!), who was then influenced by Platonic Theory.

In general, the proponents of natural law postulate that law has a direct relation to morality, and advocate for establishing the law based on human moral values. Such ‘moral values’ are established according to the laws of nature, which are ‘inherent’ and objective morals common to all regardless of culture. By extension, natural law theorists staunchly believe in the ability of human beings to determine what is moral and what is not, and the moral frameworks that may be produced can be standardised across our entire human race.

What exactly constitutes natural law in practice may be rather unclear. A good example would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as published by the UN), which would be accepted as a bill of rights in certain nations, in recognising each person’s dignity and entitlement to certain resources. A country that holds deep respect for natural law would be Kenya; encoded in Section 165 of the Penal Code, the Kenyan law against homosexuality regards same-sex marriages taboo and ‘immoral’.

With their beliefs nicely summed up in Latin as lex iniusta non est lex, natural law theorists insist that all laws have to be moral to be valid. Should the government impose an unjust law which is contrary to nature, natural law theory dictates that the people have no obligation to follow such law – because unjust laws serve no purpose, and are not truly ‘laws’ at all. For instance, natural law proved particularly influential within the civil rights movement where ‘civil disobedience’ was moral; Rosa Parks refused to obey a command to give her bus seat up to a white passenger as her conscience told her it would be unjust.

Despite how seductive natural law may seem (the notion of humans upholding only laws which are morally virtuous sounds rather utopian, doesn’t it?), application of the theory has its flaws. Not only are the basic concepts ambiguous, the application of natural law too may be made so flexible such that natural law has the potential to be utilised by virtually every existing ideology to support their own campaigns or work. For example, both sides of the abortion debate insist that their side’s argument is backed by superior morality, where one believes life begins at conception (and abortion is thus taking away one’s right to life) and the other believes in women’s rights to bodily autonomy. Ironically, while natural law proponents claim that their ideas of inalienable rights apply to everyone given how each person has similar priorities, it is notable that debates in many contentious issues (ranging from the question of same-sex marriage to capital punishment) require each side to prioritise one natural right over another. After all, with heterogenous cultures and populations, will come differing ideologies and opinions which are near-impossible to reconcile. Does everyone born into autocratic regimes such as China or Iran necessarily agree that the right to vote is a universal one? We all know the answer to this one.

Thus we uncover the underlying limitation to natural law principles: unlike what the theory suggests, there is no such thing as an innate right which all can agree on. Should liberty to choose be considered a ‘superior’ right to that of life? That is one question this theory certainly cannot answer. Legal systems clearly cannot be based on natural law theory alone.

Legal Positivism Theory

Rather than affirm that law and morality are connected, legal positivism is grounded in the understanding that law is made valid because it has been imposed by particular sovereign authorities. There is also no ‘true’ law in the absence of sovereign authority; if there is no sovereign, there is no independent political society. Should a law be imposed, people under its rule are obliged to follow it where not doing so would be unacceptable non-compliance. In this context, legal positivists do not believe in any valid argument for breaking the law, even if it is widely perceived to be unjust. 

The three main principles are as follows:

  1. Laws are commands issued by the sovereign.
  2. Such commands are enforced by sanctions.
  3. A sovereign is one who is obeyed by the majority

As English philosopher Jeremy Bentham once remarked, “law, which is the will of the sovereign, regulates the conduct of the people to which it applies.” Given how this school of thought prioritises the power accorded to leaders, dictatorships and majority governments alike may employ legal positivism into compelling their citizens to obey them by virtue of their mandate. Real-life examples such as the Taliban’s rule in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where women were denied education, illustrate how law may be turned into a dangerous tool to mislead entire populations into thinking their desires are superceded by the will of a sovereign.

Previously, legal positivism has been criticised for being sterile and inadequate given how it fails to take moral considerations and ordinary into account. For example, the theory ignores the application of international law, given how it is not imposed upon nations by a particular sovereign authority, but is a system of customary rules made possible by interstate interaction.

However, this theory doesn’t merely take into account the views of a potentially power-hungry ruler. The appropriateness of a law may be determined by both by its source and the soundness of the process of its enactment. That is, should a certain doctrine be issued mindlessly without regard for social convention, this diminishes the legitimacy of the once-sovereign authority figure and the law can be rendered invalid.

As an additional check-and-balance, precedent comes into play as well. Should judges encounter a situation in which the facts are similar to those of a previous scenario, they may apply the same rules of punishment – essentially, laws cannot be changed whenever a new government is elected. If speeding has always been defined as a vehicle travelling at over 90kmph on a highway, this definition must stand till it has been proven that it no longer suits the modern context. The fundamentals must be pondered over and voted on before any change is made, thus preventing heedless and reckless chaos in the sphere of law.

By rendering the ruling authority as automatically legitimate, legal positivism certainly may prove a rather ruthless school of thought to subscribe to. Let us take a look at some other ways in which people think.

Historical School of Law

Those in this camp assert that humankind’s contemporary knowledge is founded upon history. These beliefs, held foremost by jurists Friedrich Carl Von Savigny (1799 –1861) and Sir Henry Maine (1822 – 1888), think of history as a record of humankind’s past as well as a record of law in the past. Savigny thought of law as a reflection of the people’s will and spirit; the expression of the convictions of the people… grounded in a form of popular consciousness”.

Following this train of thought, one may say that law was not made or given, but rather found by us over a period of evolution. Sovereign rulers may possess the ability to impose rules and regulations on the people, but most commonly laws and customs are organically evolved within society without external interference. As our way of life evolves, so will our legal system in accordance with our requirements. Consequently, the historical camp rejects the notion that law is universal and everlasting. Lawyers, hence, must represent the perceptions of the man on the street.

Interestingly, Savigny viewed outlined three stages of development of the human legal system throughout history:

  1. Law as the personal commands and judgements of patriarchal rulers (in the age of the divine king, absolute power reigned unchecked);
  2. Law as custom upheld by judgements (during the oligarchies of political and military rulers, monopoly over institutions of law were maintained, and largely unwritten customs developed);
  3. Law as code (our current system, where law is heavily codified)

While law may be perceived as temporarily fitting for a society, it may always be subject to change over time, space and geography. The study of law may then be undertaken in order to ascertain the particular historical context from which particular legal ideas or institutions have emerged, and to identify connections between changes in social conditions and changes within the legal system. In essence, historical jurists consider precedent more important than moral arguments. Should the context remain unchanged, the judgment may remain unaltered.

Legal Realism

Legal realism emerged as an outraged reaction to the historical school of law around the early 20th century, as critics observed that when handing out punishments, judges tended to rule based on their beliefs, then afterward use the relevant laws to support their ruling. In essence, legal realists’ primary concern is the practicality of law – they wish to comprehend how certain rulings and actions affect law as an institution. As such, it is a rebellion against the more traditional thinking at that time, which was more based on logic and reason in theory.

This school of thought proposes that law is defined by its practice and application, a reflection of the personal views of those people people in charge of enacting,applying and enforcing it. Rather than focusing on the principles behind a law, legal realists deem its application in modern social context more pertinent – hence the name ‘realism’, where they react to the current norms – than other factors such as precedence. Therefore it logically follows that our legal system is an accurate reflection of how our lawmakers think, i.e. our laws are shaped by their own lifestyles given that lawmakers in our time are the ones in charge of the system. As a result, legal realists also generally separate morality from law. From their perspective, lawyers ought to be primarily concerned with what the law is, not what it ought to be.

In terms of application, legal realists generally find it helpful to apply the behavioural sciences – sociology, economics and criminology among others – to understand court judgments.

Critical Legal Studies

Influenced by theories of the legal realists, a group of American legal scholars who termed themselves the ‘Crits’ founded the Conference on Critical Legal Studies in the late 1970’s. Set against the backdrop of turbulent social change and violence during the civil rights movement and antiwar protests, many were firmly convinced of the unjust nature of the law. Scholars eventually rejected the notion that the legal system was upright by virtue of its own historical progress, and instead cynically deemed any sort of law to be automatically associated with politics; law was therefore a means for the rich and powerful to further entrench their privilege in society. And yes – some hailing from the CLS school of thought were clearly attuned to Marxist theories and principles of distributive justice. 

Hence we may understand how the Crits assert that law may never be neutral or free from personal prejudices or values; it is used as a tool by those with the means to perpetuate certain social conditions. Law, then, is heavily intertwined with socio-economic power disparities. While such a pessimistic outlook may prove rather upsetting given how unjust hierarchical structures may be reinforced again and again by the ironically-termed ‘rule of law’, Crits also trust in the ability of the grassroots to stand up and produce meaningful social change.

Such a school of thought comprises numerous individuals with divergent beliefs. However, they do have a few common aims, inter alia:

  1. Illustrate the vague and uncertain nature of legal doctrine, and show how virtually any set of principles may be used as the basis for conflicting conclusions;
  2. Identify how certain sectors of society benefit from judicial decisions despite the indeterminacy of legal doctrine; and
  3. Expose how the entire legal system proves incomprehensible to outsiders (i.e. the man on the street) and work to make legal results look legitimate.

Conclusion

Our legal system is a messy, messy web reinforced by both principles and application. These schools of thought may help us understand what rules we are governed by, and the rationale behind them. (Or not).

Resources

  1. https://www.studocu.com/row/document/makerere-university/bachelor-of-laws/essays/schools-of-thought/5455943/view
  2. https://theprudentlawyer.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/schools-of-thought-in-jurisprudence/
  3. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/masterybusinesslaw/chapter/schools-of-legal-thought/#:~:text=jurisprudence%2C%20and%20the%20two%20main,people%20think%20about%20the%20law.
  4. https://www.studocu.com/en-us/document/university-of-leeds/jurisprudence/summaries/jurisprudence-lecture-notes-semester-1/647156/view
  5. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/abs/historical-jurisprudence/D1BF4B9B77065E3491B49E7997F1F21F

Sharia Law: What is it?

Our day-to-day lives are inextricably bound to a complex bureaucratic system of organisational principles; one may be prosecuted for an act deemed illegal by the government, despite lacking an awareness of its illicit nature. While it may seem unjust to be punished for something that may not seem to be unlawful, the law is the law, and has to be respected.

This month, the writer takes a look at sharia law – the concurrent legal system that governs Muslims alongside our secular law. What does sharia law represent, how did sharia law come to be in Singapore, and what implications does it have for the wider community?

A brief overview of sharia law

What is sharia law? Given that this system typically governs only Muslims, many unfamiliar with Islam (admittedly, including this writer herself before this) barely bother to discover what is constitutes and how it applies to our Muslim brothers and sisters around us. 

While commonly described as ‘Islamic law’, sharia law doesn’t necessarily substitute or supercede civil law, where guidelines are more of an obligation rather than something to be enforced actively by Muslim rulers (although it is quite common in the Middle East within Muslim theocracies). Derived from Islamic texts such as the Koran, sharia law, which includes multiple provisions such as prayers and donations to the poor, serves as a way of life which Muslims should adhere to. In fact, it can be a rather useful tool for Muslims to live within the boundaries of their religion; they may consult sharia law for guidance on what to do in certain situations, for instance, whether to visit a bar with their friends or not.

Such everyday matters aside, sharia law – much like any other legal system – further details a series of punishments to be inflicted. Here is when things get messy.

Controversy

There are two types of offences as defined within sharia law. The first category consists of tazir crimes, where the judge exercises discretion in determining punishment according to the context. The second category, more serious hadd crimes, warrants much more severe punishment involving fixed penalties. Examples of hadd offences are theft (punishable by amputating the offender’s hand), and adultery (which one may be stoned to death for).

Attention-grabbing headlines of helpless ‘victims’ (how ironic) suffering a slow, painful death have led to calls for the tormenting punishments that sharia law requires to be abolished or at the very least, minimised. Even the UN has objected to the famous death by stoning, condemning the punishment as one which “constitutes torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment… and is thus clearly prohibited”. One could even say that the laws may be inhumane in more ways than one; they do not deal with specific situations which may compel certain disadvantaged folk to commit crimes in the first place. After all, most legal systems are filled with grey areas which have legal scholars scratching their heads, and sharia law is no exception. While the law does provide for exceptional circumstances e.g. theft of low-value items or fruit is not punishable, many nuances remain unaddressed. is stealing a television to sell to feed one’s family really going to be punished by amputating a hand, which would compromise the chance of a poor person being able to find a job even further (and perhaps, lead to even more theft in times of despair)?

Heedless, blind application of sharia law seems antithetical to the teachings of the modern world, where most justice systems primarily aim to rehabilitate the criminal rather than to leave him with nowhere to go. A poignant example of another crime would be leaving the Islamic faith. While a controversial issue that Muslim scholars still disagree on, sharia law punishes this act by death – which seems even more peculiar given how the Koran itself declares there is “no compulsion” in religion, where the entire system causes those who follow Islam to lose their freedom in choosing from different views. 

But there’s always another side to the story. 

On the other hand, a handful of Islamic organisations insist there exist safeguards as well as a high burden of proof when applying hadd penalties – consequently, there are only a handful of folk who suffer hadd punishments every year. In fact, this system has been found to be largely welcomed with open arms by most folk who live under it within certain nations – 82% of Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan approve of the stoning of people who commit adultery; at least three-quarters of Muslims in Jordan would endorse the death penalty for leaving the religion. Still, the statistics do differ from country to country, and may perhaps there may not be such strong support for it on the ground.

The Singapore Context

Locally, sharia law is currently established within subsidiary legislation under “Administration of Muslim Law Act”, originally enacted as Act 27 in 1966, shortly after our little red dot was expelled from Malaysia. This was meant to “provide… for a centralised system of administration covering all aspects of Muslim life in Singapore”. Notably, this considerably strengthened the power of Syariah Courts.

 As a provision within the Act, the statutory body Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (MUIS) meant to oversee Muslim affairs came to life, meant to oversee and administer Islamic matters in Singapore. Currently, MUIS undertakes many roles regarding various aspects of Muslim life, including being the sole trustee of mosques in Singapore, the issuer of fatwa (Islamic decree), as well as the appointment of mosque officials and supervision of religious education.

With regard to the implementation of sharia law, MUIS has implemented measures to ensure to its best ability that no aspect clashes or overlaps with civil law. Naturally, sharia law has no hold on non-Muslims, and Muslims also face the same penalties after committing a crime. However, the law differs in terms of more personal matters such as inheritance, divorce and marriage typically subsumed under the category of ‘Family Law’- for example, married couples under sharia law are excluded from a key provision in the Women’s Charter which enables the division of assets in divorce. In fact, the concept of implementing Family Law specifically was introduced by our colonial masters – rather than it being an idea stemming from Muslims themselves.

Despite decades of Family Law in our nation, our courts aren’t perfect, and neither should we expect them to be. There are always areas for improvement, with occasional skirmishes along the way – including “the lacuna arising from the separation of powers between the Syariah Court and the civil court” – where some may find themselves trapped between civil and sharia law due to inadequate provisions.

Well, sharia law is here to stay, and has a long way to go.

Resources

  1. https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_2015-12-29_131700.html
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-27307249
  3. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/reports/2011/03/31/9175/understanding-sharia-law/
  4. https://www.mpvusa.org/sharia-law
  5. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2011/01/18/stoning-adulterers/

Huawei: Meng Wanzhou, Geopolitics and Security Interests

Any information linked to Chinese technology company Huawei has topped the headlines for the past few months, ranging from privacy concerns over 5G networks to bans over hardware. Today, the writer delves deeply into an issue that the tech giant has faced since 2018: the case of Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, due for extradition to the United States. Here is a brief analysis of the case, and its significance in the broader scheme of things.

A brief overview

Adapted from the BBC’s timeline

7 December 2018: After being arrested 6 days earlier, Meng Wanzhou (the daughter of Huawei’s founder) first appears in court in Vancouver, where it is revealed she is accused of breaking US sanctions on Iran. China demands her release.

8 December 2018: China threatens Canada to release Meng.

10 December 2018: Canadian citizens Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are arrested in China on the pretext of harming national security.

22 January 2019: The US Justice Department announces it will seek the extradition of Meng to the United States.

28 January 2019: the US charges Ms Meng with fraud and Huawei with circumventing US sanctions on Iran and stealing technology from T Mobile.

1 March 2019: Canada approves the extradition order of Meng to the United States

3 March 2019: Ms Meng, on behalf of Huawei, sued Canadian authorities over the arrest, claiming it as a “serious breach” of her civil rights.

27 May 2020: Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes rules that extradition could proceed, rejecting Meng’s application for the case to be dismissed.

21 September 2020: the Chinese Foreign Ministry urges Canada to release Meng on the basis of maintaining harmonious bilateral relations.

As of today, Meng’s case is set to be delayed till 2021 in light of the current Covid-19 pandemic.

As with every controversy, there are always two sides to the story – here, this writer seeks to explore different perspectives and further implications to these.

The significance of Meng’s case

So why has Meng been arrested? Her charges are based on allegations of her participation in bank and wire fraud in the US and misrepresenting Huawei’s relationship with a subsidiary doing business in Iran, allegedly deceiving banks into potentially violating US-imposed sanctions.

Despite Meng’s plea for the case to be dismissed, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes maintained that investigations would continue on the basis of ‘double criminality’, which demands that suspects in Canadian extradition cases must be accused of something that would constitute a crime in Canada as well as in the requesting country (in this case, the US). While Meng’s lawyers have disputed this claim previously, Holmes concluded that given that Meng was charged for committing fraud by lying, this remained applicable in Canada.

As to be expected, China has not taken this ruling well; the Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin has stated that the country’s position was ‘clear’ and ‘firm’. He has claimed that the charges levelled against Meng were only made ‘at the request of the United States’ and ‘severely violated her legitimate rights and interests’. While the same could be said for China, in initiating tit-for-tat action against Canadians Kovrig and Spavor shortly after Meng’s arrest, Wang flatly stated that the two actions could not be compared, noting that while Meng was prosecuted on political grounds, the two aforementioned were detained for posing a potential threat to Chinese national security. The Chinese’s claim that their ‘judicial organs handle cases independently’ seems a rather weak excuse – especially when, in fact, Meng could have said to be threatening American national security interests as well.

While progress on the case has stalled in light of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the accusations Huawei faces are not new – and to a certain extent, the Chinese company does have some reason to fear that the attacks are politically-motivated, whether or not they are indeed. Let us take a look at what Huawei has done, and what others think it will do in the future.

What is Huawei, exactly?

A homegrown technological behemoth founded in 1987, Huawei has grown to be a source of pride for approximately 1.4 billion Chinese – a symbol of domestic tech prowess to be reckoned with, especially vis-a-vis Silicon Valley. From 1996 onward, both the government and military dubbed Huawei an official ‘national champion’, an indication that it has potential to bolster China’s strategic aims. Ever since, Beijing has determinedly supported Huawei, along with other domestic tech firms, all in the name of preventing foreign domination in order to eke out a name for Chinese technology. For instance, the government has provided a steady stream of financial resources for the company through easy access to financing and generous subsidies —reaching up to US$222 million in grants in 2018 alone.

It has attained the title of the world’s leading provider of 5G technology – no small feat in the race to win the crown of digital champion, particularly in the context of the ongoing US-China trade war. Much like its government, the Chinese company has made dozens of sweet promises to countries interested in developing 5G, even claiming that it ‘prioritises technology development’ in these nations. So why is the world concerned about such enthusiasm?

Huawei the Threat

While not state-owned, Huawei has been under fire for having close ties with the Chinese government (as with all Chinese firms, surely good relations with the CCP can’t hurt, can they?), where foreign officials have pointed at ‘vague’ intelligence laws that could be invoked to force Huawei to hand over data to the government on the pretext of national security. For example, the 2017 National Intelligence Law, which dictates any Chinese firm or person is obliged to “support, assist and cooperate with the state intelligence work” when needed, is frequently quoted to justify these concerns. While fears about this insidious threat have been heightened in light of the ongoing US-China trade war, distrust of Huawei has been around longer than we think. Even back in 2012, a report from America’s House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence indicated that the usage of Huawei-made equipment could “undermine core U.S. national security interests”, indicating the perennial threat of espionage that Huawei poses to the western world. The fact that the founder and current CEO Ren Zhengfei had been a member of the People’s Liberation Army for more than twenty years certainly does not assuage existing concerns.. 

Such claims are compounded by Huawei’s controversial history; from being accused of stealing American trade secrets back in 2003, to violating trade sanctions on Iran and having stolen intellectual property from T-Mobile in 2019, the tech giant has long suffered from a bad rep. Naturally, these contribute to growing apprehension about Huawei, to the extent that it has been banned in multiple countries including Britain and Italy.

Huawei the Ambiguous

Despite apprehension about its proximity to the Chinese government, Huawei has distanced itself from the ruling party, emphasising repeatedly that its equipment has never been used, and will never be used, to spy. In January 2019, Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei made a statement that he would protect the interests of Huawei users at all times, and not hand over sensitive data used for government spying. To further prove their point, in May that year Huawei commissioned a report from a law firm supporting its argument that it cannot be forced to spy, but others lawyers around the world said the Chinese security law has never been tested. 

Allegations about Huawei’s unreliability have been tainted by geopolitical considerations. In the midst of intense discussion with regards to the ban of Huawei from 5G telecoms network in Britain, it was revealed that the British government privately told the company that this decision was taken out of ‘geopolitical’ reasons rather than anything else following huge pressure from American President Donald Trump. The plot thickens further: during intense secret negotiations, Huawei was “given the impression” that such a decision could potentially be revised in the future, dependent on the United States’ foreign policy towards China.

Most prominently, authorities and experts have pointed out that security risks are inherent in almost all 5G networks, and are not limited to Huawei alone. An example would be how the UK’s Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre Oversight Board reported that such risks are ‘impossible’ to resolve. Much like the rest of the code running the world, Huawei’s code is ‘complex and unsafe’. Even the European Union recommended targeted restrictions on high-risk suppliers, but dismissed the notion of an outright ban on Huawei. However they do acknowledge that Huawei presents a greater risk than others, by virtue of its ties to the Chinese government. 

Conclusion

Needless to say, the embroiling of the Chinese tech giant in scandal after scandal deserves close attention before we come to any conclusions about the nature of its intent and operations. This writer believes that in spite of Huawei’s protestations of innocence, it is far from clean. Nonetheless, we must examine any event involving Huawei with discretion – the facts may be exaggerated, or decisions may be made, with vested interests and other considerations playing a pertinent role behind the scenes. Let us not seek to paint Huawei as a one-dimensional villain; instead, let us balance our approach and keep an open mind.

References

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/huawei-chinas-controversial-tech-giant

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3012714/too-much-risk-huaweis-ties-chinese-government-us-defence-chief

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jul/18/pressure-from-trump-led-to-5g-ban-britain-tells-huawei

https://www.lawfareblog.com/risk-analysis-huawei-5g

https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/donald-trump-china-huawei-ban-crisis-a4149716.html

Why is racial discrimination illegal on employment websites but not on social websites such as Facebook or Tinder?

In answering this question, I present justification for the disparities in legislation governing racial discrimination versus social websites. The primary question to be answered is whether existing differences between the former and the latter in terms of the nature of individuals’ interaction justify the disparity in racial discrimination laws. Hence, this essay presents contrasts in how racism manifests in their respective public and private spheres, the implications of racial discrimination and finally the feasibility of regulating racial discrimination in both situations. I will proceed to refute other propositions in defending my argument.

Before delving into my argument, it will be helpful to clarify what racial discrimination constitutes. 

The United Nations defines racial discrimination as there being differential treatment based on “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, or ethnic origin” etc. which nullifies or impairs the equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (OHCHR, 1965). This treatment derives from unwarranted racial prejudice.

A main line of argument is that racial discrimination on employment websites is subsumed under the public, formal sphere of work, while it is part of an individual’s private life in the case of social websites. A key tenet of legislature is the distinction between the regulation of behaviour in the public versus private spheres of life; in this case, anti-discrimination laws are put in place to regulate undesirable behaviour in the contained environment of work on a national or regional level. Without legislation, purposeful racial discrimination on employment websites serve as a way of achieving corporate success, where implicit bias makes up their decision-making process in shortlisting job applicants, mistakenly informing them that certain races or ethnicities would value-add to the company more so than others. Such action condones the perception that certain groups are less capable than others, undermining the foundations of a fair and just society and hence constitutes a “public harm” (Barnett, 1986). We can see form here that the basis of anti-discrimination law on employment websites is to reject any possibility of racial bias within corporations, setting a benchmark for social behaviour, particularly stemming from the principle that institutions have a societal responsibility to maintain “public perception of virtue” (Mnookin, 1982) i.e. equality regardless of race.

This differs from racial discrimination on social websites where users work on a personal individual capacity, where protections on freedom of speech are warranted given racial discrimination manifests as personal opinions occurring due to a focus on religious or moral values ( Haidt & Graham, 20190), without openly attacking the capabilities of an entire group in itself on a formal platform. Outlawing racial discrimination in social discourse effectively bans the external manifestation of prejudice on informal platforms, and much like censorship which prevents users from sharing ‘socially unacceptable’ thoughts, interferes with users’ flow of thought and directly threatens individual autonomy of thought in allowing the government to “mould… reality to its own liking” (Gey, 1996). This startlingly resembles the way Orwellian Newspeak operates, where the government effectively manipulates the way users think. While social platforms are not fully private, the outlawing of racial discrimination in the private sphere of conversation, no matter how seductive the notion may seem in preventing further manifestations of undesirable racism, involves covert manipulation we must seek to avoid.

A further point to note would be how government purview of companies’ online behaviour has generally been welcomed, versus how it is deemed intolerable by the public when it comes to individuals’ social media platforms (look no further than public backlash following the Singapore Raeesah Khan scandal). While public sentiment does not directly justify the ‘legality’ of racial discrimination on social platforms, it enhances the persuasiveness of the side that argues for the clear delineation in legislature between public versus private spheres of life.

Following the same train of thought, I find that while the wider social implications of racial discrimination on employment websites directly target individuals’ civil rights necessitating a ban, whereas racial discrimination on social websites do not necessarily occur with malign intent and frequently have a diminished impact on society as a whole, requiring scrutiny but certainly not coercive legislature. Discrimination in the workplace directly impacts working relationships, where individuals denied opportunities experience socio-economic disadvantages. Such behaviour is an explicit attack on individual rights compromising their welfare, which is particularly pertinent given a primary purpose of company law is to “advance the aggregate welfare” of those involved in the firm’s purposes (Armour et al., 2009) – any violation warrants their protection. In the social media context, however, racist comments or posts do not directly compromise the wellbeing of an individual. They instead reflect attitudes to race, where racism is widely acknowledged to be “the water in which fish swim” (Brown et al., 2003) i.e. racial discrimination on the part of an individual is manifested by current societal contexts, embedded in institutional realities.

A prominent argument for racial discrimination being made illegal on social websites is that online racial discrimination inevitably manifests into physical action which needs to be addressed. Indeed, there exists a clear link between psychological racial prejudices and occurrences of racism in the real world (Shweder, 1990), where racist individuals have wielded the Internet as a tool to perpetuate violent action against minority groups e.g. Anders Breivik in Norway and the Pittsburg synagogue shooter Robert Bowers. However, I find it dubious that such racist tendencies frequently manifest into especially severe real-life actions; the proportion of anonymous comments that used profane, racist or hateful language was twice that of non-anonymous comments (Santana, 2014). This suggests a correlation between widespread Internet anonymity and the existence of racial discrimination, where users conceal their identity with the main aim of expressing their frustration, not necessarily with the end-goal of inciting others to violence. Even if online racial discrimination does manifest in real life in the form of snubbing other races or ethnicities in social contexts, they are difficult to track or prove. Severe cases leading to acts of violence or institutionalised racism will be dealt with severely. Furthermore, not all forms of racial discrimination are out of ill will, and may instead benefit certain segments of society. In fact, social websites provide a platform for positive racial discrimination at users’ discretion, where individuals indicate their preferences for future partners on dating apps, or even try to connect with those from their home country (Sender, 2018). For example, Grindr has an ethnicity filter for minorities to find other members of their community. This mindset is simply not racist; seeking out partners is a personal choice which has direct implications for future life happiness. Therefore given unique circumstances as well as the lack of propensity for online racial discrimination to translate into identifiable physical action, there does not exist legislature curbing racial discrimination on social media.

The long-term effectiveness of enacting anti-discrimination law is yet to be seen in all aspects of life; legislature is not a deus ex machina that can fix all forms of racial prejudice leading to discrimination. While the optimists among us argue for their effectiveness given well-proven benefits of racial diversity in the workplace in improving productivity and performance, where companies will be incentivised to seek a more diverse range of employees, the reality is starkly different where 72% of senior executives at 16 Fortune 500 companies are white males. Even if there exists greater racial diversity, statistics merely indicate surface-level tolerance; showing nothing about shifts in racist attitudes. Legislature’s focus on individual bias alienates “systemic and cultural processes that perpetuate” racist behaviour (Salter, 2017). Despite multiple landmark statutes and government agencies curtailing racism (from the US’ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to Gambia’s Labour Laws) one could say the prevalence of racism remains. While not as outright as before, increasingly taking the form of ‘ambivalent racism’ (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) or ‘suppressed’ racism (Gushue, 2004), racial discrimination remains a recurrent theme in many minorities’ lives. Especially at the workplace, racism remains prevalent. All legislature can do is to curtail its public spread and prevent institutionalised racism in the public sphere of life, where those seeking jobs are not subject to undue distress and be deprived of job opportunity. Similarly, should any anti-discrimination law be enacted on social websites, given the undercurrents of racist sentiments that that legislature is unable to eradicate, it would serve the primary purpose of preventing the proliferation of racist sentiment online. However, this aim is made nearly obsolete given the widespread existence of ‘filter bubbles’ curated by social media algorithms, where users exist in echo chambers surrounded by like-minded peers. The spread of racial discrimination on social websites is mostly restricted to segments of users who are already racially prejudiced, who are as likely to continue their misguided behaviour in the absence of such content. Thus, we lack the impetus to enact anti-discrimination laws in the social realm on the Internet given the lack of any significant impact on wider society, in contrast to the same laws overseeing employment websites which tangibly impact an individual’s career prospects and morale.

A final argument apropos of anti-discrimination law would examine the feasibility of enacting it through lens of feasibility i.e. if it may be meaningfully enforced and social behaviours be put under sufficient purview. In the realm of employment, companies operate under public law abiding by a strict code of rules and regulations and subject to closer scrutiny. The billions of personal conversations and tidbits of the mind that appear daily are nearly impossible to examine individually. Adding onto the difficulty of tracking racial discrimination is the often ambivalent nature of content on social websites, where parody and satire in the form of “ironic racism” (Rossing, 2019) by activists are regularly mixed with genuinely racist material. While there do exist algorithms with the ability to categorise different types of content and flag out offensive speech, the lines between satire and racial discrimination easily blur with great margins for error by machine-based learning systems trained on data.  Legislature, as heavy machinery, ultimately remains unable to quickly adapt to ever-changing conditions of online publication and distribution of content, particularly in the context of the ever-evolving Internet. Even with manual tracking, there exist numerous pieces of legislature targeted at social websites that have been widely condemned for providing the potential for abuse, for instance, Singapore’s POFMA which grants extensive power to the government to determine what a ‘falsehood’ constitutes. When humans have the leeway to decide what constitutes discrimination, particularly in the context of social websites on which users undertake a casual style of writing, it is difficult to objectively determine instances of racial discrimination through an mpartial lens. Especially in the context of nations with strong ties between the pillars of governance, where laws are regularly subject to undue influence or pressure from other institutions even while concerning universal issues including climate change (Birch, 2020), the nature of racial discrimination laws may change as frequently as the government of the day. This starkly contrasts with corporate law governing employment websites, with a neutral set of guidelines laid out in black-and-white. In today’s polarised and fractured political climate, our institutions are arguably not yet sufficiently mature to tackle racial discrimination from a non-partisan point of view.

Given that racial discrimination maliciously targets and attacks the inherent capabilities of many minorities, on the surface, it seems logical to conclude that all forms of it need to be curtailed. However, remaining cognisant of the public versus private spheres of behaviour, differences in the implications of racial discrimination as well as the effectiveness and feasibility of anti-discrimination laws sufficiently justify the disparity in the treatment of racial discrimination on employment websites versus social ones. Indeed, while the notion of such a law is desirable, one needs to balance idealism with practicalities, together with the chilling effect it may have on the freedom of thought and personal communication. Instead, the focus rightly is on ensuring potential workers do not suffer from prejudiced racial discrimination, safeguarding their civil rights and allowing equal socio-economic opportunities for all.

Bibliography

Armour, J., Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2009). The essential elements of corporate law. Harvard Law School. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Kraakman_643.pdf

Barnett, E. (1986). Four Senses of the Public Law-Private Law Distinction. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 1-3.

Bliuc, A. (2019, February 18). This is how racism is being spread across the internet. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/racism-in-a-networked-world-how-groups-and-individuals-spread-racist-hate-online/

Bond, S. (2020, June 5). LinkedIn CEO Condemns Employees’ ‘Appalling Comments’ On Race. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/05/870855035/linkedin-ceo-condemns-employees-appalling-comments-on-race

Chinn, S., Hart, P. S., & Soroka, S. (2020). Politicization and Polarization in Climate Change News Content, 1985-2017. Science Communication, 42(1), 112-129.

Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F.(2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological science, 11(4), 315-319.

Gey, S. (1996, December). The case against postmodern censorship theory. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 145(2), 1-6.

Gould, W. (2019, October 22). Are you in a social media bubble? Here’s how to tell. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896

Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140-150

Gushue, G. V. (2004). Race, color-blind racial attitudes, and judgments about mental health: A shifting standards perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(4), 398.

Jameel, M., Yerardi, J. (2019, February 28). Workplace discrimination is illegal. But our data shows it’s still a huge problem. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/28/18241973/workplace-discrimination-cpi-investigation-eeoc

Jones, S., Donnelly, G. (2017, June 17). Why We Logged Every Fortune 500 Company’s Diversity Data, Or Lack Thereof. Fortune. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2017/06/16/why-we-logged-every-fortune-500-companys-diversity-data-or-lack-thereof/

Mnookin, Robert H. “The Public/Private Dichotomy: Political Disagreement and Academic Repudiation.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130.6 (1982): 1429-1440.

Rossing, J. (2019). An Ethics of Complicit Criticism for Postmodern Satire. Studies in American Humor, 5(1), 13-30. doi:10.5325/studamerhumor.5.1.0013

Salter et al. (2017). Racism in the Structure of Everyday Worlds: A Cultural-Psychological Perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science 27:3, 150-155.

Santana, A. (2014, January 22). Virtuous or Vitriolic. Journalism Practice. DOI: 10.1080/17512786.2013.813194

Birch, S. (2020). Political polarization and environmental attitudes: a cross-national analysis. Environmental Politics, 29:4, 697-718, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1673997

Sender, K. (2018). The Gay Market is Dead, Long Live the Gay Market: From Identity to Algorithm in Predicting Consumer Behavior. Advertising & Society Quarterly 18(4), doi:10.1353/asr.2018.0001.

Tynes, B. (2015, December). Online racial discrimination: A growing problem for adolescents. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/12/online-racial-discrimination

United Nations, General Assembly, 21/06, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, A/RES/21/06 (1965, December 21), retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/cerd.pdf
Valfort, M. Do anti-discrimination policies work? IZA World of Labor project. Retrieved from https://wol.iza.org/articles/do-anti-discrimination-policies-work/long

Singapore:#GE2020

July 2020 – Election fever is in the air. Citizens of the little red dot has just experienced Nomination Day, where the various political parties competing in Singapore’s General Election have unveiled their spate of candidates to be contesting for the existing seats in Parliament. What do we expect?

Electoral Landscape

Rules and Regulations

The Singaporean electoral system is rather unique in the sense that not all elected Members of Parliament (MPs) are directly voted in by the people on an individual basis. Since the 1988 amendment to the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, the majority of MPs have been elected into Parliament as part of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) in which at least one candidate must belong to a minority race. On Polling Day, voters thus choose between teams of candidates rather than individuals. While such a rule may seem anti-democratic – many have speculated that incapable MPs may have been elected only by the virtue of teaming up with a heavyweight minister – GRCs have certainly boosted efforts in achieving racial equality and ensuring minority representation. The remainder of the MPs contest as individuals as per normal rules, in Single Member Constituencies (SMCs). 

The ruling People’s Action Party is known for longstanding political dominance since independence – since the 2018 toppling of the Barisan Nasional government in nearby Malaysia, the PAP has attained the position of the third-longest existing ruling political party in the world, only beaten by the North Korean Workers’ Party and the Chinese Communist Party. Given decades of supermajorities in Parliament (for context, they currently enjoy one of 82%), amendments in 1984 (to the same pieces of legislature as previously stated) have provided for the presence of Non-Constituency Members of Parliament (NCMPs) “to ensure that there would always be a minimum number of opposition members represented in parliament”. Under the scheme, the losing opposition candidates with the highest percentage of votes secured during a general election, subject to a minimum of 15 percent of votes cast, can be offered seats in parliament if the number of elected opposition candidates falls short of the minimum number.

The GRC System

While was portrayed as a way to ensure minority representation in Parliament quickly turned into a hot-button issue for the past few General Elections, where numerous opposition party candidates have criticised the introduction of the GRC system as a barrier to entry against opposition members. After all, the formation of 4-to-5 member GRCs requires substantial funding that smaller parties may lack. It has further been deemed as a way to bring relatively unknown or even incompetent candidates into Parliament, simply by virtue of their teammates’ credibility. Despite the PAP’s argument that campaigning in teams act as ‘training’ for the inexperienced where they may learn from their more experienced counterparts, some may see it more as unknown politicians riding on their seniors’ coattails. On Page 221 of his recently-published book Tall Order, even our previous Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong of the ruling PAP has revealed that founding father Lee Kuan Yew declared ” without the GRC, Teo Chee Hean on his own, standing in a single ward, might not win against somebody like Chee Soon Juan (a formidable opposition member” — this presents a strong argument for the political implications of the GRC, and how it may be manipulated as a tool for incumbents’ advantage.

Notwithstanding critique from retired politicians such as ESM Goh, government continues to rigorously defend its position on GRCs, although they have undertaken some steps (for instance, eliminating mammoth 6-member GRCs and aiming to reduce the average size of constituencies) to address concerns over high barriers to entry for the opposition.

Overview of GE2020

The Electoral Boundaries Review Committee has marked out the electoral map with 93 constituencies, consisting of 17 GRCs and 14 SMCs – and for the second time since independence, all seats are being contested.

Party Slogans & Promises

People’s Action Party – Our Lives, Our Jobs, Our Future

Workers’ Party – Make Your Vote Count

Progress Singapore Party – For Country For People

Singapore Democratic Party – 4 Yes 1 No

People’s Voice – Make Singapore Our Home Again

Here is an interesting comparison of the main political parties’ manifestos, including their electoral promises and takes on a variety of issues.

Highlights

Despite this year’s short 11-day provision for campaigning, GE2020 has been considerably more emotionally-charged than most, with drama beginning even before Nomination Day, where prospective PAP candidate Ivan Lim’s name was withdrawn from the list after a huge scandal, and 8 GE-related police reports filed over the course of campaigning.

Character Questioning

Ivan Lim 

Raeesah Khan

Lighthearted Jokes

DPM Heng’s East Coast Plan

Charles Yeo’s Chinese Speech

Tan Cheng Bock’s Blunder

Unexpected Election Delay – Polling extended by 2 hours

Covid-19 Throughout the World

It’s Day X of lockdown here in Singapore (haven’t we all lost count already? – but to the best of the writer’s knowledge, it’s actually Day 56: the last day, hallelujah!), as we are just completing our lockdown even while various countries in the continent are gradually re-opening shops and businesses. The current virus situation remains volatile throughout the world, although undoubtedly, some nations are faring better than others. Here we examine the timeline of the outbreak, and the global uncertainty surrounding Covid-19’s origins. We also see a multitude of reasons for the disparities in predicament across the globe, and see how big a role leadership has played in the control (or lack thereof) of Covid-19. What does the virus tell us about human behaviour and our tendencies in times of crisis?

The Origins of Covid-19

Adapted from The WHO Timeline

31 December 2019: The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission reported a cluster of cases of pneumonia in Wuhan, Hubei Province. Eventually, a novel coronavirus was identified.

1 January 2020: the World Health Organisation had set up the IMST (Incident Management Support Team) across the three levels: headquarters, regional headquarters and country level

  • This enabled an emergency response to the outbreak

12 January 2020: China publicly shared the genetic sequence of COVID-19. 

13 January 2020: A confirmed infection emerges in Thailand – the first confirmed case outside of China

22- 23 January 2020: An Emergency Committee was convened to assess whether the outbreak constituted a public health emergency of international concern. Due to the lack of available evidence, independent members from around the world were unable to provide sufficient response, and sought to seek more information before coming to a conclusion.

23 January 2020: Singapore confirms its first case of Covid-19, the infected being a 66-year-old Chinese national.

30 January 2020: 7818 cases confirmed worldwide, with the majority in China, and 82 cases reported in 18 countries externally. China received a “high” risk assessment.

11 March 2020: The WHO confirms Covid-19 as a pandemic due to the widespread alarm and the severity of the virus.

What caused it?

It is public knowledge that the virus first emerged from the now infamous Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, Hubei Province, where live animals (often exotic ones) were sold. Scientists have now declared that Covid-19 likely originated in bats, although they have not yet determined the exact species that managed to transmit the virus to humans. The crucial question key to forestalling future pandemics has not been answered – how exactly was this virus passed onto humans from animals? Evidently, the scientific community remains in the dark as evidence has emerged of human-to-animal transmission of the virus as well; several tigers in a Bronx zoo have tested positive for Covid-19, as the first ever animals to be infected.

Despite the fears of pet-owners that the virus may be transmitted to their beloved cats and dogs at home, there remains no known cases of further animal-to-human transmission besides those affecting animals in zoos. Such a peculiar phenomenon further raises questions as to the right way to tackle the spread of a virus, and whether we ought to be concerned over the potential resurgence of the virus after it has died down in humans. Is there a possibility that after zero new infections in humans, seemingly-innocuous animals will begin transmitting a deadlier, more lethal strain of the virus back to us again? That remains to be found out.

How various countries fare

Global Performance

As of May 12 2020, there have been around 4.2 million confirmed infected Covid-19 persons, with the world’s largest economy (the United States) ironically topping the charts in this case as well with around a third of the infected cases. Around 1.5 million patients have recovered, however, the virus has about a 6% mortality rate where close to around 300,000 others have perished from the virus.

Toluna, a media company based in Paris, has found a way to measure citizens’ satisfaction with their governments’ handling of Covid-19, with government response evaluated across the political aspect, business, community and media. The results are in fact rather expected. With an index score of 85, China takes the top spot with the most Chinese rating its battle against Covid-19 favourably across all four indicators. China is followed by Vietnam (77), and somewhat surprisingly, the United Arab Emirates and India are at the third spot with 59. In fact, New Zealand (56) is the only country in the West with a score higher than the global average (45). This reveals the huge dissatisfaction that those in the West have with their ruling regimes.

East Asia

How have they dealt with it?

Given that the virus outbreak began from Hubei province, it is indeed rather unusual that these Asian nations, in close proximity to the Chinese giant, have been faring better than their Western counterparts. The first confirmed cases were detected in Japan, Thailand and South Korea, where the Covid-19 spread rapidly due to a lack of social distancing measures put in place. As the virus hit Asia in the early days of the global outbreak, the result was insufficient time to respond and a lack of data on the virus itself, leaving scientists frantically scrambling to stop a virus that had the potential to kill millions in densely-populated, thriving cities. Data from the same study done by Toluna indicates that around 70% of Japanese citizens indicated that they felt their government was not ready to deal with the outbreak 

Despite such obstacles, various governments are now successfully reopening their countries and allowing citizens to roam the streets again. As early as 8 April this year, China reopened the city of Wuhan, the original epicentre of the outbreak. For the past month, the city has seen low numbers of cases compared to the thousands seen in February, where life has almost gone back to normal. On May 6, the South Korean government began to relax its strict social distancing rules, while still emphasising the need for reduced contact and the social responsibility each person bears for stopping the spread of Covid-19. May 14 marked the lifting of Japan’s state of emergency as the number of infected cases have drastically dropped.

Possible Resurgence?

Some outsiders point out the possibility of new virus clusters and a surge in infected cases (look no further than South Korea, who re-imposed measures), criticising their handling of the situation as rash and impudent given that a cure for the virus has yet to be found while the rest of the world grapples with the outbreak. Although one could certainly say that re-opening economies present health risks, damage to the economy should lockdowns persist far outweighs the little danger the virus poses to the general population. In the event where populations retain some sense of social responsibility and governments take active steps in contact-tracing (such as what South Korea has done), the further spread of Covid-19 can be effectively contained.

Europe

Ah, Europe – the continent spanning the cultural capital of the world, filled with the great works of Picasso, Beethoven as well as the place of birth of various scientific inventions such as plastic and the telephone. Arguably the region with the most tumultuous history with regard to health disasters, from the Black Death to the Spanish Flu, one would have thought its citizens have emerged stronger and more resilient after braving disaster after disaster throughout the centuries. Sadly, this time, Europe’s handling of the virus is second to only the United States in terms of ineptitude. Despite insurance company Aetna International claiming that “the region is home to some of the best and most established health care systems in the world”, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has indicated that Europe suffers from the highest numerical death toll from the coronavirus.

As of 13 March 2020, the WHO deemed Europe the active centre of the pandemic. Although this focal point has since shifted to another affluent continent, Europe has seen the rapid spread of Covid-19 across a relatively short period of time. The number of cases per country had doubled over periods of around a mere 3-4 days, with ‘frontline’ nations such as Italy or Spain seeing the number of infected persons doubling every 2 days. This may be due to the laissez-faire approach adopted by many governments blindly putting faith in their people to follow strict social distancing guidelines (enforced with a lax attitude), which has been unable to curb movement of people and facilitating the spread of the virus.

Hope for the future

Despite all the doom and gloom surrounding Europe’s dismal situation, From June onwards, Italy welcomes travellers and tourists back to picturesque tourist spots.

The United States

One of the last developed economies to be hit by the virus, one would have thought that the nation with the largest GDP in the world would have been adequately prepared.  The first case in America was identified in Washington state on January 21, and now the situation has spiralled out of control, resulting in the US becoming a hotbed of infections and extensive community spread. A Reuters report in April suggested that the Covid-19 outbreak in America will soon prove more lethal to the population than any flu season for the past 50-odd years.

The failure of the world superpower to effectively come up with a remedy to the swift spread of the virus has further tainted its less-than-pristine reputation. Rather than acting as a world leader should (in rallying all nations, regardless of ideology or political beliefs together), the Trump administration has instead blamed China. From cutting off critical funding to the WHO in the struggle against the virus, to insisting on referring to Covid-19 as the “Wuhan virus”, and perpetuating the nonsensical conspiracy that the Chinese deliberately used its population to “seed” the virus throughout the world – we can see that the American response effectively hinders global cooperation in battling the deadly outbreak. 

South America

The new epicentre of Covid-19, where the deadly virus’ spread has been exacerbated by populist politicians’ flagrant dismissal of the virus and to the incredulity of many, leaders claiming victory over the pandemic despite evidence showing otherwise. As of 25 May, there exists 636,000 confirmed cases and more than 31,000 deaths – one of the highest death tolls in the world with a 4% kill rate. The dearth of medical testing facilities, and the subsequent lack of rigorous testing, in fact suggests that the outbreak is even more serious than the present situation.

The silver lining lies in the hope that these strongmen may see approval ratings nosedive after their abysmal failure to contain the virus (despite it hitting Latin America’s shores relatively late on 4 February), and more capable leaders will be tasked to take up the mantle of dealing with the repercussions of Covid-19’s rapid spread.

Africa

Covid-19 hits less-developed economies the hardest: in comparison with their more well-off neighbours, poorer nations suffer from relatively less-equipped healthcare systems, and an economic system that depends on manual labour with close interaction of people. Africa is almost certainly the poorest continent in the world, where most of the continent’s nations rank amongst the bottom 50 GDPs. The toxic combination of labour-intensive work, as well as a lack of preparation, African economies have taken a beating from the virus, and are hoping to recover.

On 1 June, South Africa just loosened a lockdown in an effort to revive the struggling economy (battered by the strict lockdown imposed by President Cyril Ramaphosa at the end of March, made worse by the fact that it was already in recession before the coronavirus). Despite the immediate surge in cases that came afterward, one could say that the further spread of Covid-19 is worth risking given the lockdown would have caused half the population who live below the official poverty line to perish from lack of basic necessities. Given that the median age of Africans is 18, by far the youngest in the world, and that the virus usually proves fatal to only the elderly, trusting in herd immunity may make more sense. 

Public Response to Covid-19

Fragmented & Divided

The deliberate politicisation of Covid-19 has led to a chaotic and disunited response, not the best for fronting a virus that has crippled economies worldwide. Rather than working together, the countries leading in scientific development across the world have decided to come up with a virus by themselves, in a race to be the main leader against the pernicious outbreak. Trump’s presentation of the virus outbreak as a blame game, in which the loser is China and the winner is whoever manages to ‘cure’ Covid-19, encourages individualism and nationalism that heightens tensions between nations even further in the volatile climate of economic downturn. Should countries instead choose to make peace and help one another out, collaborating in search of the cure for the virus, a solution can be found much more quickly and efficiently. For sure, too many cooks spoil the broth – but having only one team working on a cure is much less efficient than the coming-together of bright minds that can piggyback on one another’s ideas to come up with the most ideal vaccine, or whatever the solution takes the form of.

In times of crisis, the worse of us emerge.

No matter that a solution has taken so long to emerge. For the average individual, the focus is on surviving often length and tedious lockdowns imposed by his/her home government, and putting themselves in as secure as a position possible to last. As a result, a slew of panic-buying occurrences has emerged, where some shoppers at an Australian supermarket were even caught on camera brawling over – guess what? – tissue paper. It has become a recurring joke that the ‘hoarding disease’ is spreading more quickly than Covid-19; taking over millions and compelling them to stock up on as many basic essentials as possible. News items that have made the headlines include a violent brawl over toilet paper in Western Sydney, a racially-aggravated assault on a Chinese student in London, and even the hurling of pebbles at security officers Réunion Island – there has been no end of brutality and heartlessness since the beginnings of Covid-19. Billy Ocean’s witticism “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” is ordinarily used as a pick-me-up line for encouragement, but in these unusual times, does it mean only the most savage and most selfish members of humanity will survive the storm of the virus?

For sure, there have been occasional flashes of human compassion here and there, with an outpouring of support for the most vulnerable around the globe. From a national clapping exercise to laud the efforts of frontline essential workers in Singapore, to massively generous handouts for retrenched workers, one may say that there is still some hope for humanity in times of crisis, and claim that well, humans can still be selfless in times of need. Such a view, however positive, only holds true in the circumstances where the humans in need are those that others know personally.

When starting up a charity, or even picking a cause to advocate for, the advice doled out to volunteers and social activists is always “do something you’re passionate about.” Those who lend a helping hand choose for whom or what to act as a pillar of support. Emotions for a cause and the sense that one can make a difference drives that kind of determination. So what does that tell us about when we help and why?

Human Lifestyles & Behavioural Tendencies

Humans have traditionally lived in ‘packs’ or ‘tribes’ – small groups where everyone knows one another and the survival of an individual depended on the survival of the entire community. Assisting another member was akin to benefiting oneself, because ultimately the welfare of an individual was linked to that of others. In the modern-day context, this behaviour manifests itself as “othering”, where humans treat those outside their immediate community in an intrinsically different way from their own members. We see this in everyday life: people from one race, ethnicity or religion automatically treat their immediate friends or fellow brethren with much less hostility and much more warmth than others.

Despite the romantic notion that mankind is inherently altruistic, patterns of behaviour over the years has ultimately informed us of the reality that in fact, we do not treat every person equally. If given a choice to save the life of a brilliant scientist who is on the verge of curing cancer, or your funny best friend who has been pickpocketing the entire city for the last decade, more than 90% of humans would probably pick the latter in a heartbeat. This is best explained by Robert Ardrey in his book The Territorial Imperative, published in 1966. If one accepts the concept that humans are tribal animals without need of “the other,” described as anyone not of their tribe, we can see how humans are more inclined to assist some groups than others. Personal connections, that give one a sense of worth, outweigh moral benefit to the larger community of humankind, which is too vast to cultivate a sense of belonging, anyway.

That is not to say that having personal favourites is a cardinal sin. Humans have adapted to welcome people like themselves over a long period of time out of the necessity of survival, and connecting more easily with those, say, of your own race, doesn’t make you a racist or xenophobe. Such natural behaviour can be kept in check when necessary. Nevertheless, this tendency isn’t exactly harmless either, lending itself to problematic behaviour during the Covid-19 pandemic. We receive countless phone calls and displays of concern from our friends, family or even neighbours – but how often are we concerned about those outside our immediate community? Essential workers who battle the virus every single day are at best, given a measly tip or superficial acts of supposed kindness, while we stock up on essential goods and give those out to our loved ones in fear of others nabbing them first. In times of need, such an irrationally selfish herd mentality propagates throughout the population, resulting in our current situation: where there are enough goods for everyone, but not everyone has enough goods.

Moving Forward

In a pandemic, let’s take some time to give some thought to the truly needy. No matter how disastrous your toilet paper situation may be, the chances are that you have some other form of tissue sitting around in your home, eagerly waiting to be used. In all likelihood, you have a roof over your head and are living in comfortable conditions suited to your needs. Already, you are more fortunate than the approximate 21% of people who do not enjoy “adequate living conditions”. Consider yourself fortunate, and count your blessings.

Show some empathy by perhaps smiling at the fatigued, overworked essential worker who has dropped by to deliver some food or package of sorts. Resist the urge to grab as many toilet paper rolls as your arms can carry. And sometimes, when politicians can’t even agree, let us try to be the ones who link arms in a united global effort to confront the monster that is Covid-19.

Greta Thunberg: TIME’s Person of the Year

This is a little something that this writer has been reflecting on this quarantine season! It’s a bit late to mention this accolade – we’re wondering how climate activism may take place in this age of social distancing and lockdowns, so this article may be a little relevant to us all 🙂

Last year, Greta Thunberg, the 16 year-old Swedish environmental activist waging a war on climate change, had the honour of being the youngest person ever to have been named TIME’s Person of the Year. What Greta does to combat climate change has been a rallying call for millions of frustrated youth around the world, has been praised by panel after panel of advisors who have been fighting to give her accolade after accolade, and has been criticised by countless others who believe that she is not making a real difference. This article is not merely yet another evaluation of Greta’s efforts to fight climate change, but aims to assess her worthiness of the TIME’s Person of the Year award, and what implications her successful nomination may bring.

What is the significance of the award?

According to TIME magazine’s website, “every year, TIME names the person (or people) who wielded the most influence in the previous 12 months”. As Time’s then-managing editor Walter Isaacson put so aptly back in 1998, the title is awarded to “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse”.

Do note the “for better or for worse” – the award isn’t simply about publicly acknowledging the good work that the nominees have done. Rather, it symbolises what issues the world has been shaped by for the past year, and what will or can be done further. Previous persons nominated include Adolf Hitler in 1938, Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 and more recently, Donald Trump in 2016 amongst other notorious faces.

What has Greta done?

Greta Thunberg today is the beacon of hope for many youth around the world, who have come to see her as an inspiration and her activism as a step in the right direction towards tackling the age-old issue of global warming. Indeed, she has come a long way from 20 August 2018 – when she first started striking for climate change, cutting a lone figure outside the school grounds.

Before she had first begun her career of activism, Greta was already doing what she could at home. Since 2016, she has been encouraging her parents to lower their carbon footprint and their environmental impact by making a slew of lifestyle changes, including becoming vegan, upcycling, and giving up flying. These seemingly minor adjustments have made a huge impact on her parents’ lives – notably, Mrs Thunberg, who is an international opera singer by profession, had to give up her career since it involved many trips by plane.

To raise awareness about her cause, the teenager first posted about her strike on social media platform Instagram – where it quickly grew viral. More conspicuous youth activists began taking up her cause and subsequently, this lone young girl with Asperger’s started inspiring hundreds and thousands of her peers to #Skolstrejk för klimatet – “School strikes for climate” in Swedish. On September 20 last year, the numbers even rose to 4 million across 161 countries – the largest climate demonstration in history.

Eventually, she has gone on to travel around the world, making monumental speeches at a plethora of influential global platforms, including the UN Climate Action Summit in New York, the United Nations Climate Change Conference and the World Economic Forum. The frequency of her public appearances in the past few years have certainly increased the influence she has exerted on both disgruntled teenagers and distinguished world leaders alike. What exactly does this mean for our world?

Greta’s Impact – the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Greta Effect

Greta Thunberg’s impact is aptly summed up by Isabella Prata, mother of 2 climate strikers in Brazil, in a concise quote: “Greta is an image of all of this generation.” 

The Good

Greta’s impassioned, fierce and almost angry cries to the world for action have arguably compelled millions to take action. Here’s how.

Greater Awareness

  • Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change & Development in Bangladesh, was quoted as saying: “… As a climate change scientist who has been working on this issue for 20 years and saying the same thing for 20 years, she is getting people to listen, which we have failed to do.”
  • Last June, Swedish Railways indicated a rise of 8% in the total number of Swedes taking the train instead of the plane.

Direct Action

  • Organisations & Corporations:
    • Chief executive Edward Hanrahan of ClimateCare, ‘a profit for purpose’ environmental and social impact company, has observed a rapid spike in carbon offset from ~2m tonnes to 20m tonnes over the past 18 months
    • Gold Standard (the standard for climate and development interventions to quantify) has noted an increase in income from individuals and small corporations paying for carbon offsets by up to 4 times through its platform.
  • Governments & Agencies:
    • The UK:
      • Environmental Secretary Michael Gove was quoted as describing Greta’s voice as “the voice of our conscience,” as he “felt great admiration, but also responsibility and guilt” for not doing “nearly enough to address climate change and the broader environmental crisis that we helped to create.
      • Ex-leader of the Green Party Caroline Lucas, proclaimed that Greta’s meeting with prominent party leaders (including Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Blackford) – had compelled them to begin regular cross-party discussions on climate policy
    • Last September, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, together with other E.U. states, attempted to endorse a climate package aiming to end greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The Bad

She is done with debating.

While Thunberg’s calls for drastic action as to the way we approach climate change are much-needed, her criticism of world leaders and her advice to them isn’t exactly very constructive, either. She wants world leaders to focus on climate change as their number one priority. Climate change, from being a unifying problem that everyone has to solve to save their planet, has since turned into a point of contention. Many issues arise from the combating of climate change, but in this case, Thunberg simply wants action, not distraction or further discussion.

Thunberg straightforwardly assumes that since European’s original intentions of tackling climate change are sincere, their inaction is hypocritical. Such a point of view fails to take into consideration other perspectives on climate change – for instance, many experts still disagree on the best way of tackling the issue. Challenging Thunberg’s argument cannot be dismissed as climate change ‘denial’ –  there is a need to accept alternative worldviews. In fact, the best solutions are the brainchilds of discussion, waiting and seeing – the opposite of what she most desires. As put by Christopher Caldwell from the New York Times, “Patience may be democracy’s cardinal virtue. Climate change is a serious issue. But to say, “We can’t wait,” is to invite a problem just as grave.”.

She simplifies the issue.

In her Ted Talk in Stockholm, Thunberg boldly put it out there that “the climate crisis has already been solved”, and claims “we already have all the facts and the solutions. All we have to do is to wake up and change.” Is this really the case? If resolving the crisis was just a matter of researching and using that knowledge to lower rising temperatures or save habitats, it’s highly doubtful that the climate problem would remain unsolved today. The climate issue has much more far-reaching implications than just on our earth – it affects ordinary everyday human beings as individuals, big businesses, political parties, and causes ripple effects on society as a whole.

There are definitely powerful corporations or organisations out there who stand to benefit from activities that continue damaging the Earth, and their attempts to push back green initiatives aren’t due to their lack of understanding that they are harming nature – rather it is because their own vested interests prove more significant than the climate change issue. Do we have a solution to combat the huge extent of their influence? Are we now able to prevent them from influencing politicians to go against climate-friendly programmes? Not yet. That is a huge part of why solving the climate issue is such a complex and onerous task to take on – that almost everyone around the world has not been able to figure out yet. Thunberg still does not realise that.

The Ugly

Leaders have deemed the 17 year-old’s efforts as childish attempts to rebel against the status quo, fearing that it may be a symbol of more deep-rooted political dissent and a means of undermining their own authority. This has resulted in often personal attacks against Thunberg  rather than her movement in itself, as politicians rally their support base against her, resulting in Thunberg herself becoming a source of polarisation. Is this what we want to see – global icons (who originally intend to make our society a better place) dividing the world?

  • After Thunberg was named as Time’s Person of the Year, American President Donald Trump expressed outrage on Twitter, claiming that the youth had an “anger management problem” and ought to “a good old fashioned movie with a friend” to calm down.
    • In fact, in 2016, Trump was the one who was given the honour of receiving this award – is he now upset at having to share the stage with this young girl whom he doesn’t really like?
  • Russian head of state Vladimir Putin has expressed doubts about her efforts, accusing her of being “kind” but “misinformed”

Final Evaluation and Future Implications

We can see that Greta Thunberg’s intentions are noble – who can fault a climate activist for campaigning to save our dear polar bears? – and that there is a pressing need in this world for someone like her, who dares to openly voice her opinions on the world stage and contend with intimidating political figures from around the globe. She is an inspiring figure with so much zeal and tenacity – it takes a certain amount of drive and passion to sacrifice one’s education to advocate for a cause alone outside a Parliament when no one may be even listening. Her actions are certainly laudable, given her actions that have successfully inspired an entire generation to rise up and take control of their own destinies in calling for more action against the earth’s warming. In this aspect, Thunberg’s status as the Person of the Year is particularly telling in the year 2019, a year full of record-high temperatures and reports of melting ice caps.

Despite such a worthy cause, it is imperative that we do not merely regard Thunberg’s campaign as an entirely commendable phenomenon that we are obliged to wholeheartedly support. The nature of her perhaps over-simplified message makes it difficult for it to convince large groups in power to take in her suggestions, and her lack of tolerance for other priorities or standpoints makes it difficult for others to come to a compromise with her or agree with her message. While Thunberg is well-meaning and has the potential to bring about real change, it may take a little alteration of her main beliefs and message to transform her dreams into reality.

The Job Dilemma

Getting a job perennially remains at the forefront of every graduate student’s worries. It is especially a struggle in the job market for those hailing from Singapore – a small nation that prides itself on world-class universities (that supposedly churn out capable additions to the workforce) while simultaneously utilising much foreign talent. In this article, the writer will respond to a recent controversial and evocative speech made by the Minister for Trade and Industry, Mr Chan Chun Sing, further examining current policies as well as underlying sentiments of Singaporeans with regard to foreigners in the job market.

The writer wishes to clarify that this article is not meant to be an unsympathetic attack on the government to decry its efforts at boosting Singapore’s economy. Rather, its purpose is to illustrate the insecurities and anxiety of a whole generation of young Singaporeans concerned about their livelihoods, their hopes and their dreams.

What was this speech about?

In a Parliamentary sitting on January 6 this year, Mr Chan Chun Sing attempted to address concerns about the workforce from MPs Pritam Singh (the Workers’ Party chief) as well as Liang Eng Hwa (representing the Holland-Bukit Timah Group Representation Constituency).

In essence, he emphasised the following:

  • Singaporeans benefit the most from the economy’s growth, rather than foreigners
  • Continuous growth and upskilling ought to be a priority for Singaporeans in order to stay relevant
  • The high quality of foreign workers brought in to occupy PMET (professionals, managers, executives and technicians) positions
  • The importance of increasing productivity in the workforce to boost the economy

The purpose of education

What is a fact related to education that Singaporeans love to shout about? One need not look further than the allocated Education budget – it is well-known that our education sector is one of the only in the world that takes up around 20-22% of government expenditure. Year after year, the government boasts about its great emphasis on providing quality education to each and every child in Singapore – especially so given the 6 years of formal education afforded to citizens, often followed by secondary and tertiary education. 55.76% of Singaporeans aged 25 years and older have completed post-secondary education, as compared to 27% of citizens from countries part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In this aspect, the pride and joy of the nation is arguably its so-called “world-class” universities that a sheer number of local students compete to get into year after year.With education at the forefront of its priorities, one can expect schools to be well-equipped with resources to groom future generations, and that young Singaporeans are groomed with the best quality education to have the abilities to lead and pioneer future industries. In essence, despite its many shortcomings and its role in creating an education “rat race” of sorts, we all know that the Singaporean education system is something to shout about.

Despite its reputation for producing outstanding students who have excelled in various sectors (to raise one example, we have Deanna See, who won a scholarship from a Zuckerberg-funded foundation), the current system we have here today is still not sufficient to further Singapore as much as desired. The writer acknowledges that – no matter how exceptional a nation’s education or talent development system may be, it will always require outside talent for it to grow to its fullest potential. In developing sectors such as digital, medical technology (medtech) and financial technology (fintech), the government is planning to introduce a scheme that increases flexibility in Employment Pass applications, recruiting more top talent who can “who can take technology companies to the next lap”.

In the very same speech, Mr Chan attempted to adopt a more conciliatory tone by appealing to Singaporeans’ pride, stating that “young Singaporeans who are coming out from the universities and polytechnics to join these new companies are better educated and have much better opportunities than the generations before”.

The Singaporean Dream

These very words were uttered by one of our Cabinet Ministers, “The real competition is Team Singapore, comprising Singaporeans, PRs and foreign workers here, competing with the rest of the world to give our fellow Singaporeans the best chance possible to win, not just in Singapore but across the entire globe.”

It is all very well for one to imagine a world in which foreigners flock to Singapore’s shores in search of attractive job opportunities, simply with the objective of contributing to the welfare of Singaporeans. In a world full of jingoistic nationalism – one need not look further than the US-China trade war to see how protectionism has seeped into our global trade system – is it simply too idealistic to believe that foreigners are genuinely invested in Singapore? While the writer understands that the Minister means that overseas talent can fulfill their own career objectives while boosting the Singaporean economy, the writer will like to question if everyday Singaporeans truly feel good about that. Bearing in mind that the purpose of attracting such talent is for the betterment of underdeveloped industries to ensure that Singapore consistently forges ahead, it is for certain that the economy will benefit. While the Minister remains optimistic about the average Singaporean’s job prospects, let’s look at it from a different perspective. In this context, let us present a similar example to the one Minister Chan has raised.

Singaporean Worker A from an underdeveloped but fast-growing industry, and earns around $5,000 a month as a senior employee. Worker A is keen to upgrade his/her skills while aspiring to lead the company to greater heights as a manager, and thus strives to find opportunities for growth. Meanwhile, foreign Worker B arrives in Singapore and is quick to be recruited by the company, instantly taking up the managerial position and is in-charge of Worker A’s team. Worker B earns a monthly wage of $10,000 and successfully achieves the objective of growing the company way faster than any Singaporean could have, supposedly. Worker A is recognised for his/her efforts and thus is promoted, earning $7,000 a month.

Is there something wrong with this narrative, presented to Singaporeans to explain the benefits the economy reaps from recruiting foreign talent? For starters, there is a basic underlying assumption that Singaporeans are inherently incapable of pioneering and leading upcoming industries. For all our talk about the versatility of our universities and our superior education system, we subconsciously acknowledge our continued lack of skills at the same time. There exists a sort of “let the foreigners do it, they know the best” mentality – something which we are somehow proud of. Several government representatives have come up with different arguments in support of schemes to attract overseas professionals – one of which is based on the fact that Singapore had wooed foreigners in the 1960’s in the same manner and had achieved “immense success”. A universally-acknowledged fact is that Singapore was indeed a third-world nation severely lacking in human resources at that point of time, and sorely needed to attract pioneers from all over the world to kickstart the economy. The purpose of bringing in such manpower was to train and equip Singaporeans with the relevant skills to start our own enterprises, such that generation after generation of citizens may remain at the forefront of emerging businesses.

Within the span of these fifty years, various sectors in our nation have grown from strength to strength, as Singapore emerges as a global innovative powerhouse leading the way in many fields. It is a necessity that Singapore continually attracts global talent to help further these sectors, and to ensure that while we are land-scrace, we are not lacking human resources in any way. Currently, the government is fulfilling that objective: with a steady influx of capable migrants and workers, who bring in fresh ideas and skills, we can see that these overseas professionals have done a lot for our country. The writer acknowledges the various benefits of schemes that bring in foreigners.

Nonetheless, this writer disagrees with the way that the argument for the continual influx of foreign workers is being presented to Singaporeans. Currently, what is being advocated for is the bringing-in of fresh manpower to lead Singaporeans in up-and-coming sectors. The fundamental principle behind this argument is that Singaporeans are still rendered incapable of leading the way forward, and still need to rely on overseas professionals to progress our very own economy. Fifty years on, from third world to first in one generation – and we still have the need to beg overseas talent to come and stay to help us out? It is all very well to carry out recruitment for the sole purposes of supporting and maintaining organisations’ global standing, but for them to steer the direction instead?

Last thoughts

While it can be said that certain foreigners are more well-equipped for existing jobs than most Singaporeans, it is ultimately Singaporeans who stay and continue to inspire generation after generation of youth to pioneer new sectors and innovate. It is our own country that we wish to see being progressed by our own people, after all – but are new policies encouraging overseas professionals to be the one continually taking the lead instead?

In today’s testy global political climate with strong anti-foreigner sentiment, more and more citizens feel wronged as policies are presented in such a manner that seems to benefit overseas workers rather than home-grown talent. What can be done instead is for new schemes and policies to be presented in a different light, and that new workers can be seen as supporters of industries, rather than the ones to be lighting the way – which is what Singaporeans are supposed to be doing, aren’t they?

The Eerie Rise of Nationalism

Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.

George Orwell

Recent events such as the election of self-proclaimed right-wing nationalists in several European states act as a beacon of the onslaught of controversial nationalist sentiments. Whilst nationalism invariably stems from intense patriotism which some view as positive, the writer’s view is that nationalism brings about more harm than good, due to its impact on the economic and political global world order and the resulting ramifications.

The imposition of threats and implementation of assertive nationalist policies by larger states result in weaker countries suffering collateral economic damage. One prominent example is the US-China trade war. Since the declaration of the “America First” policy focused on reducing trade deficits, the USA has imposed trade tariffs in industries like farmed and consumer goods, even on its longstanding allies, Canada and Europe. Contrary to Trump’s assertion that such policies boost local production, support Americans’ livelihoods and ultimately the national economy, the writer supports European Council President Donald Tusk’s contrasting viewpoint that “trade wars will lead to recession” and for causing “senseless disputes”. A textbook example of how trade has affected the global economy is Germany which relies heavily on international trade whereby 40% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was derived from exports in 2018. This year, German trade group BGA revised its 2019 growth forecast for German exports from 1.5% to 0.5%. Consequently, the reluctance of larger states to export and import commodities due to protectionist barriers impede trade flows. Trading hubs such as Singapore who rely heavily on international trade in a thriving, open global climate to boost its economy suffers collateral damage as a result thereof. This demonstrates that international trade disputes driven by nationalism are often based on drastic measures stemming from paranoia in response to perceived threats which discourage free trade and disrupts supply chains. This causes economic slowdown in both large and small countries, leading to major economic repercussions.

Further, aggressive nationalist policies threaten national security and creates political instability. An example is the spat between Japan and South Korea which originates from South Korea’s demand for compensation for comfort women mistreated during World War Two, which then became a major issue of contention. Protectionist economic policies implemented on both sides (in the name of “self-sufficiency” and national interests) have severed economic ties between South Korea and Japan. This stand-off subsequently transcended economic boundaries, with both countries refusing to renew an intelligence-sharing pact which would have given access to information on North Korea’s nuclear activities. Such flagrant displays of nationalist sentiments heighten tensions needlessly and create regional distrust, damaging international cooperation. The Korea-Japan spat shows the extent to which nations are willing to push towards sacrificing national security in order to remain nationalist. Smaller global players, who traditionally turn to symbols of trust such as defence treaties to bolster one another’s security, are confronted with the nationalist mindset of “every man for himself”. This causes them to be more susceptible to attacks on their sovereignty and stability. Thus, nationalism diminishes the ability of states to thrive in the larger global order, threatening their survival.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned ramifications, there are others who believe that nationalism can be positive as a sign of pride, boosting a nation’s status and economy while acting as a rallying cry to unite populations. Whilst there exists civic nationalism (displayed by Mahatma Gandhi during the Indian independence movement) which can boost national progress, it is jingoistic nationalism that hinders international cooperation (via aggressive policies such as tariffs or the scrapping of deals under the guise of protecting national interests) which is the emerging trend today. Nationalism may bring about benefits in the short term via improved domestic production and the reduction of trade deficits, but consider the larger impact of its long-term and detrimental consequences for nations engaged in diplomacy and international cooperation. Stubborn nationalists acting out of heedless pride implement reckless policies and cannot compromise for the common good create escalating tensions for nations in conflict. The writer echoes Winston Churchill’s wise words: “we have no lasting friends, no lasting enemies, only lasting interests”. Nationalist policies lead to conflicts of interest when perceived as forms of self-preservation, deteriorating relations and decreasing opportunities for cooperation. Such spats worsen international relations and cannot be condoned. Whilst patriotism reflects admirable loyalty for one’s country, over-indulgence in nationalism prevents leaders from engaging in balanced diplomatic negotiations, and thus carry repercussions such as the failure to secure long-term benefits in strategic partnerships.

This essay submits therefore that nationalism leads to belligerent policies with economic turbulence and political instability as its outcomes bring more harm than good. Nationalism remains relevant to us all as an important and contentious global issue. Its revival shakes up international relations as nations increasingly look inward, building an atmosphere of distrust threatening the future of economies and security of states in this interconnected world.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started