Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is the Head of Policy Research of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

Don’t be a stupid cupid

This is the first of a two-part series in response to the marriage and parenthood package announced by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech 2008. It was first published on The Online Citizen.

In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a slew of measures to increase Singapore’s fertility rate. It was the second time since taking over as prime minister in 2004 that he had sought to tackle this pressing national issue, which has often been cited as the most critical issue facing our young but ageing nation.

Mr Lee explained the two-pronged approach to reversing the trend of low birth rates: Firstly, encouraging people to get married, and secondly, encouraging couples to have children.

Earlier intervention needed

It appears that the Government’s solution to the problem of young people not getting married or marrying too late is merely a tweaking of the same approach that has delivered limited success so far, that is, to fund the matchmakers.

The marriage problem in Singapore is three-fold: Firstly, people putting off marriage until too late; Secondly, society’s attitudes towards marriage, and thirdly, higher divorce rates.

When couples get married too late, they will often have more difficulty conceiving. Many may give up trying and simply opt not to have kids. The issue of older, educated women not getting married is well known and needs no further explaining.

To tackle the problem of late marriages or no marriages, we need to focus on not just singles in their 30s, but also younger people in their late teens and early 20s.

Once people leave school or university, their casual social circle tends to shrink dramatically. The uphill task of finding a partner begins from the first day of work. Therefore if the government really wants to throw money at the problem, it should consider funding matchmaking programmes directed at university-age students. This is a group that most private matchmaking agencies will likely avoid as they don’t have as much disposable income as older singles.

Even pre-university students could be beneficiaries of programmes encouraging marriage. I do not advocate matchmaking for teenagers, but there could be more programmes advising students on how to prepare oneself to be a more ideal partner in future. These programmes could cover issues like respecting oneself and the opposite sex, encouraging abstinence before marriage, healthy sexual behaviour, financial management, and grooming and etiquette, among others.

Mindset changes

Society’s attitudes towards marriage have also changed since a generation ago. Nowadays, young people no longer see marriage as critical to leading a fulfilling life. Alternative lifestyles abound and young people have many other life options to choose from. It doesn’t help that the media often portrays being married and having children as signing away one’s individual freedom.

Parents and society also need to change their mindsets that young people should wait until they have graduated and are settled in a well-paying job before considering marriage.

Too often, the excuse for not getting married is simply that it costs too much. If couples are prepared to have simple wedding ceremonies and live simply in the first few years of their marriage, it is actually quite affordable to get married.

The role of religion

The PM did not mention the critical role religion plays in getting people hitched and having kids. All the major religions in Singapore strongly encourage marriage and childbearing. Many couples met each other in church or other houses of worship.

While it would be a stretch to suggest that the Government should fund faith-based programmes that promote marriage and parenthood, this is an angle that policymakers should not overlook, given that 85% of Singaporeans have their worldviews shaped by religion.

Reducing divorces

The divorce rate in Singapore has been rising with each successive year. For couples who divorce before bearing children, this further delays childbearing or causes many to completely abandon any plans to have kids.

An increasing divorce rate has a knock-on effect on younger Singaporeans. As broken marriages become more pervasive in society, it could put off other people from getting married in the first place as they would increasingly question whether marriage is really worth the trouble and heartache.

To reduce the number of unhappy marriages in Singapore, our society needs to urgently look into this problem.

Summary

There is no silver bullet that can encourage people to get married earlier, and it is definitely not something the Government can or should do alone. It will require a national effort led by, most importantly, singles themselves, but with assistance from non-government organisations and religious institutions in partnership with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.

.

The stork is still not quite convinced

Among the goodies to be doled out by the government to encourage couples to have more kids are an additional one month of paid maternity leave, increased Baby Bonus and childcare subsidies, and more tax rebates for working mothers.

I welcome the new measures announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. I have to confess that I am an interested party — my wife is due to give birth to our first child in two weeks and we stand to benefit from these new procreation measures. (In case you are wondering, I was not one of those who petitioned the government to bring forward the effective date of these benefits.)

However the financial benefits were hardly factor in us choosing to have children. The reason is simple: Raising a child costs much, much more than any benefits the government can afford to give us. If we had decided to have kids based on the government’s financial incentives, we would have gotten an ‘F’ for our Cost-Benefit Analysis 101 class.

If the government is hoping that the $1.6 billion they are setting aside annually for these benefits is going to increase the fertility rate by much, they are sorely mistaken.

As PM Lee pointed out himself, we are up against very powerful cultural forces working against childbearing. Greater career opportunities, a love for self-serving pleasure, a distaste for doing hands-on work, and the negative portrayal of the traditional family by the media all relegate childbearing to the bottom of the totem pole of priorities in a typical young couple’s mind.

The government needs to tackle the problem at its roots, rather than simply treat its symptoms.

In broad terms, this means investing money and resources into changing young Singaporeans’ mindsets. For example, the state could fund more programmes in the mass media that promote the joys of marriage and parenting. Or it could also fund organisations like Focus on the Family or Centre for Fathering to help them do what they do best.

It will not be easy, and it brings great risks of being accused of being a nanny state. While we may balk at any attempts at social engineering, the serious problem of low birth rates demands serious interventions. The alternative, of course, is to import more foreigners and end up becoming like Gulf emirates Qatar and Dubai where foreign talent makes up the majority of the population.

Non-traditional babies

Singapore also needs to look into nurturing babies from “non-traditional” sources.

Single mothers are an undeniable part of our social landscape. While I believe it is a mistake to have sex and get oneself pregnant before marriage, I also realise that for pregnant single mothers, that mistake has already been made. There is no point punishing the mother further — I don’t believe anyone is foolish enough to set out planning to be an unwed mother. Raising kids is hard enough with two parents, what more with just one?

More importantly, it is unconscionable to punish an innocent, unborn child for his or her parents’ sin by denying the child the benefits and the head start that other children receive.

Therefore I believe that single mothers should receive the same maternity and employment benefits as married mothers. This was an excellent point that was raised by Ms Lee Lilian at the Workers’ Party’s YouthQuake event recently. To do so will not only give her child a more equal start to life, but more importantly could encourage more single mothers to keep their babies instead of taking the easy way out by aborting their babies.

Reduce abortions, please

There are over 12,000 abortions carried out each year in Singapore. Almost a quarter of all pregnancies in Singapore are terminated. Over 60% of abortions are performed on married women. The moral ramifications of this crime against unborn humanity are far reaching and fearful to consider.

Even if one does not believe in the sanctity of an unborn human being, consider that if all pregnancies in Singapore were carried to term, our birth shortfall from the replacement level will be more than halved. Currently Singaporeans are about 23,000 births short of replacing themselves.

We need to do more — much more — to reduce the staggering abortion rate in Singapore. For a start, we need to strongly restrict the use of on-demand abortion as a method of contraception for married women. This was based on an extremely liberal and cold-blooded approach to population control in Singapore during the 1970s and has no place in baby-scarce 21st century Singapore.

Married women should be strongly discouraged — even prevented — from having an abortion without any good reason.

But what are we going to do with all these unwanted babies?

Firstly, I believe parental instincts will kick in once the baby is born, so abandonment should not be an issue.

Secondly, for single mothers who are unable or unwilling to look after their own children, there needs to be a better system for giving up babies for adoption, and for adopting local-born babies. Currently the system is so onerous that couples who wish to adopt prefer to adopt from orphanages in China than from their fellow Singaporeans.

Thirdly, the social sector needs to be expanded for more children’s homes to look after kids who are not able to get adopted out. It may sound cruel to have a child born into an orphanage, but I believe that every life is precious and we can never predict what great contributions a child may make to God’s great earth in the future, regardless of his or her circumstances during childhood.

Work-Life balance

There was little mention about concrete plans to encourage more work-life balance in Singapore. Many of mothers want to return to the workforce after giving birth. However, are reluctant to because they want to be involved in raising their kids and have no intention of returning to the rat race.

Apart from developing a more family-friendly culture, Singapore companies need to seriously look into job redesign to provide part-time or home-based work for mothers. In our digital age, telecommuting is entirely possible for many professional jobs. By hiring two part-timers to fill one full-time job position, companies will not only provide more jobs for mothers but more often than not will be able to get more than half the time from each worker.

Welfarism or financing the rich?

On a final note, I wonder if the $1.6 billion is going to be money well spent. It has been reported that over 40% of the giveaways is going to be in the form of tax rebates. Since only a small percentage of income earners actually pay taxes, tax rebates are essentially carrots used to incentivise well-to-do couples who don’t actually need the extra money. This goes against basic socialist principles (on which Singapore was founded) of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, not the other way around.

The maternity leave payments should not simply be based on one’s last drawn salary. Can you imagine: a mother who makes $20,000 a month will get $40,000 cash from the government and $40,000 from her company when she would surely have enough savings and investments to not need that money. Therefore I believe that maternity leave benefits should be capped at $3,500 per month so as not to finance the rich to make them even richer.

Similarly tax rebates should be capped at say the first $3,000 of taxable income. In other words, a person earning $10,000 a month should not get any more tax rebates in absolute terms than someone earning $3,500 a month.

Conclusion

No one can fault the government for not trying hard enough to raise our flagging birth rates. But political will, str
ong as it may be, is up against much more powerful societal forces. We need to step out of our box and radically change our approach if we are going to edge our birth rate closer to the elusive replacement level.

.

Improving on the Govt’s plans for public transport

This was my prepared speech at Speakers’ Corner on 13 September 2008.

Good evening friends and fellow commuters! Thank you for taking the time to come down to Speakers’ Corner this Saturday evening to attend our little event. We are truly very grateful for your presence and we hope we have made it worth your time!

My name is Gerald Giam and I am representing The Online Citizen in summarizing our policy paper on improving public transport in Singapore. This paper was a culmination of over 2 months of work by our writers. It has been sent to the Minister for Transport, the Leader of the Opposition and the Public Transport Council for their consideration.

The government released a Land Transport Masterplan in January, setting out its plans for improving our land transportation system in the coming years. Among the key findings was that public transport was falling behind private transport as the mode of choice for Singaporeans. The Masterplan had proposed measures to address this.

What the LTMP overlooked

While we must give credit to the government for some good proposals in their Masterplan, there are several major issues that need to be further examined:

Firstly, a rapidly increasing vehicle population. As the government lowered the cost of buying a car, the number of cars has increased more than 8% over the last few years. In contrast, road length increased by just over 1%.

Yes, they have compensated by increasing ERP charges. But I doubt it will encourage car owners to switch to public transport as they would have already spent so much to buy their car — so why not just use it to the max?

Secondly, lack of competition in public transport. As you all know, there are only two main public transport operators — SMRT and SBS Transit. Not only do they not have any outside competition, but they are not really competing with each other either. They operate rail lines that serve different areas, and they often discontinue bus services that run parallel to their own MRT lines.

Thirdly, insufficient government investment in public transport. Even the chairman of the PAP’s Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport expressed disappointment with the speed at which MRT lines are being built.

And lastly, there was little mentioned on how to address environmental damage caused by motor vehicles.

Recommendations

TOC has come up with a detailed list of recommendations on how public transport can be improved. Time doesn’t permit me to go through every one of them, but I’ll highlight some of our key recommendations to the government:

1. The targets for increasing public transport mode share should be much higher. Currently only 50% of journeys in Singapore are made using public transport. This is low compared to other cities like Hong Kong, Tokyo and London. The government’s current target is increase it to just 70% by 2020 — but only during morning peak hours!

That is definitely not a “stretch goal”! We feel the target should be increased to at least 75% of total daily journeys.

2. Currently, bus interchanges are owned by LTA, and bus operators are the tenants. We feel that operators should be allowed to collect rent for shops and advertisements at bus interchanges, just like at MRT stations. This would ensure that they don’t depend on only bus fares in order to earn revenue, and will help make it harder for them to justify increases in bus fares.

3. More competition should be introduced in both MRT and bus services. Currently MRT operators are awarded a 30-year contract. This should be reduced to as few as 5 years, so that the operators are kept on their feet.

For buses, more private transport companies should be allowed to compete with SMRT and SBS Transit, especially to offer more premium and direct bus services.

4. There needs to be much tighter regulation of public transport companies to ensure compliance with standards and force them to do better. For a start, the staff strength of the PTC should be beefed up so that they are able to conduct quarterly spot checks on both bus and rail services. A lack of compliance should be met with fines in the range of $100,000 or more.

5. We need more public accountability in public transport. Currently, the PTC is government-appointed and their deliberations on allowing increases in fares are somewhat of a state secret. The Government Parliamentary Committee for Transport is an all-PAP outfit. There needs to be a multi-partisan parliamentary transport committee that includes opposition members as well, so that all Singaporeans are represented.

6. To ensure affordability for the low-income groups, the quantum of public transport vouchers should be increased. Currently, $30 of vouchers per family costs the government only $3 million, which is really a drop in the ocean. We believe that the government can afford to be much more generous than that.

7. Finally, we need to be concerned about the environmental impact of vehicles on the roads, including buses. We believe that Singapore should move towards a CNG-only bus fleet. CNG runs cleaner, so buses will produce less pollution and have lower maintenance costs. If cities like New Delhi in India can do it, I don’t see why Singapore can’t.

But this will require large investments by the government, as the companies will not be able to do it alone. The building of more CNG refuelling stations should also be subsidised. More CNG refuelling stations, would make it more attractive for even car owners and taxis to switch to CNG vehicles.

Summary

Ladies and gentlemen, I have just outlined some of our recommendations to improve public transport in Singapore. This is by no means exhaustive. And I’m sure many you, my fellow commuters, will have many more suggestions on how to improve our system.

I’d encourage you to speak out. Don’t just suffer in silence. Petition your MPs, write in to the papers, or even to us at TOC. Let’s all do our part to create a better transportation system for not just ourselves, but for our children as well.

Thank you very much.

Merdeka Malaysia

On the eve of Anwar Ibrahim’s promised date for his takeover of the Malaysian government, it looks like all systems go. The takeover may not happen tomorrow, but judging from events in recent days, it’s not a matter of “if” but “when”.

First the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) started panicking and sent their MPs off on a “study trip” to Taiwan in a bid to prevent them from defecting on Sept 16th.

Then the Home Minister basically served the government on a silver platter to Anwar when he ordered the arrest of a young journalist, a prominent blogger and a senior opposition MP under the ISA. Journalists from normally pro-government newspapers arrived at the government press conference wearing black, in protest.

Even the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), a component party of the BN has openly criticized the arrests. The Star, which is owned by the MCA, called them “most ridiculous”.

And finally, Zaid Ibrahim, the law minister today quit in protest at the ISA arrests.

Anwar has promised to dismantle pro-Malay affirmative action in favour of pro-poor affirmative action if he gains power. He has also promised to crack down on corruption, make government procurement more transparent, and free the judiciary and media from government interference, as well as ensure religious freedom.

If he manages to pull all that off, I have no doubt that Malaysia, with its vast natural resources, will have no problem catching up with its more prosperous southern neighbour in a matter of years. More interestingly, a politically liberal Malaysia could make staid Singapore look like a vestige of a past era.

I wish Malaysia and Malaysians all the best as they begin their next lap.

.

Thank you for attending TOC’s public transport forum

I would like to say a big THANK YOU to everyone who took time off your precious Saturday evening to attend our public transport forum at Speakers’ Corner today.

Thank you also to my fellow bloggers who helped publicize the event on your blogs.

There were over 100 people in attendance — one of the largest turnouts at Speakers’ Corner since it started. The event received good media coverage in all the print and broadcast media.

Even if you did not get a chance to speak, your attendance was a powerful message in itself to the government that Singaporeans are very concerned about the public transport fare hikes and service standards.

I hope to get a chance to meet more of you at our next event. :)

.

The Online Citizen to hold Speakers’ Corner event

I will be speaking at Speakers’ Corner this Saturday. Please come down to support! :)

——————

The Public Transport Council (PTC) is expected to disclose its decision on whether to approve revisions for public transport fares by September 30. To engage the public in discussion about the expected fare hikes, The Online Citizen (TOC) will be holding an event at Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park this Saturday, September 13, at 5pm.

At Speakers’ Corner, presenters will discuss various aspects of public transport, including a proposal written by TOC’s writers with suggestions on improving Singapore’s public transport system. Copies of the TOC proposal will be made available to members of the public at the event.

Andrew Loh, TOC’s deputy editor said: “We feel that ordinary Singaporeans must speak up on this issue of public transport as it affects hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans daily. This is even more crucial when deliberations on the issue by the authorities are not open to the public.”

Members of the media are invited to cover the event.

* * * * *
In tandem with the Speakers’ Corner event, TOC is currently hosting a “Public Transport Week” on its website, theonlinecitizen.com, from 8 to 14 September.

During the week, TOC has highlighted the issues which ordinary Singaporeans are concerned about – such as the service standards of the transport companies, the profits made by them and suggestions on how to improve the commuting experience.

All these with one intention in mind: To make Singapore’s public transport system world class, which is the declared aim of the Singapore Government.

In this respect, TOC writers spent the past two months coming up with its set of recommendations for the authorities. The proposal paper will be sent to the Minister for Transport, the PTC and the public transport companies and will be made available on TOC’s website.

* * * * *
For clarifications and further information, please contact Mr Andrew Loh, Deputy Editor, The Online Citizen at editor@theonlinecitizen.com.

Police: Stop justifying the unjustifiable

Straits Times Forum
9 Sep 2008

Why WP didn’t get permit for event

I REFER to last Thursday’s letter by Mr Tan Ghee Gay, ‘Why ‘no’ and ‘yes’?’, regarding police decisions with respect to the Workers’ Party’s (WP) proposed mass cycling event last year, and the carnival on Aug 31.

Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places due to the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. This applies to events organised by all political parties. For this reason, police rejected WP’s application to hold a mass cycling activity in East Coast Park, to commemorate its 50th anniversary in September last year.

The event on Aug 31 was very different. The permit was issued after taking into account the organiser and the nature of the event. It was organised by the PAP Community Foundation, which is a registered charity and not a political party. The event was not assessed to have the potential for disorder and unruly behaviour. It was a carnival that involved children and families from various kindergartens and educational institutions. The Prime Minister, as guest of honour, and a few other guests, made their entrance by cycling a short distance. During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.

DSP Paul Tay
Assistant Director (Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force

If I were the media relations director of the Singapore Police Force (SPF), I would advise my staff to stop justifying what is unjustifiable.

Of course technically PAP Community Foundation (PCF) is not a political party. But the current police policy seems to be aimed more at preventing opposition political parties from holding outdoor events, rather than maintaining law and order.

There are a myriad of outdoor events that could cause disorder, including events held by the PAP and its subsidiaries. A logical conclusion of the SPF’s policy banning outdoor events by political parties is to ban rallies altogether during the election period.

In any case, I feel I need question the SPF’s impartiality when I read the last paragraph: “During the event, a sum of $664,000 (which had been raised earlier) was distributed to 17 charities, including Beyond Social Services, Children’s Aid Society and Chung Hwa Medical Institution.”

Why are the police doing the job of the public relations manager of the PCF?

.
.

Bloggers do not advocate "near free-for-all"

This was a letter sent by Choo Zhengxi to the Straits Times in response to an article about the so-called “Bloggers 13”. We were not granted the right of reply.

Your article in “‘Bloggers 13’ want near free-for-all” (Straits Times, Sept 4) misrepresented our group’s response to the discussion paper of the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS).

Contrary to the article’s headline, we do not advocate a near “free for all”. Indeed, the very first paragraph of our April 2008 report explicitly cautions against caricaturing any side as wanting a “free-for-all”, adding: “The real issue is what kind of regulation can allow us, as individuals and as a society, to harness the benefits of free speech while minimising the harm that such speech can cause.

The report also claimed we were “ignoring” AIMS’ proposals except in relation to changes to the laws on political content online. In fact, our 20-page proposal to MICA in April encompassed a broad spectrum of cyberspace related issues including a suggestion for the formation of a community moderation mechanism called IC3 to deal with controversial online speech including extreme racial and religious views. The proposed IC3 is to be made up of content providers,
internet technology users, and internet content consumers. This was discussed at a public seminar we held on 21 June 2008, which was attended by the chairman of AIMS, Mr Cheong Yip Seng.

However, we make no apologies for concerning ourselves largely with political control of the Internet in our recent press statement. We find it curious that ST considers our silence on some parts of the AIMS report to be more worthy of reportage than what we actually do
say. The effect, once again, is to caricature rather than inform.

It is unfortunate that the caricaturing we warned of in our proposal is practiced by a national newspaper. The report in Today was, in contrast, considerably more nuanced and reflective of our position. It is a pity that the Straits Times, despite being the larger and ostensibly more serious newspaper, seemed less patient with details on this occasion.

The full text of our response to AIMS can be found at www.journalism.sg and elsewhere on the web. The blogger deregulation group will continue to elaborate on our community moderation proposal for submission to MICA.

.
.

e-Engagement – A paradigm shift needed

Below is the transcript of my email interview with the Straits Times’ Zakir Hussain. The article appeared in Straits Times Insight today, “Engagement in progress“.

———————-

Straits Times (ST): Aims suggests the Government should take part in online discussions and post comments on blogs, train civil servants how to respond to online comments, find ways to show people online that feedback is taken seriously, and set up a youth panel to consult on new media trends, among others. Would we be able to get your thoughts on some of these recommendations, and on a few other questions?

ST: The Aims committee has recommended that the Government launch an e-engagement drive. But it also conceded that while governments worldwide have been experimenting with various forms of e-engagement, there’s been no perfect model. What sort of e-engagement model should the Singapore Government be looking at? What should the point of e-engagement be?

Gerald (GG): There needs to be a paradigm shift in the government’s thinking with regards to e-engagement. As a general approach, instead of pouring money and resources into building it’s own online platforms (eg, Reach), where it tends to only preach to the choir, it should venture out to engaging the “unconverted” on the latter’s turf.

The point of e-engagement should be (1) to help citizens understand policies or proposed policies, (2) gather feedback on its policies, and (3) present a softer, more personal touch to governance.

The government should consider issuing press releases, releasing embargoed papers or speeches, and inviting citizen journalists to cover press conferences and official events. Popular socio-political blogs could be issued press passes like the Malaysian government did for Malaysiakini and other online media. This is a good way to encourage citizen journalists to firstly, report rather than simply comment from a distance; and secondly, to provide fairer and more balanced coverage.

Ministers and senior officials should not be reticient in granting interviews with credible online media if asked.

ST: Are you in favour of the Government getting involved in online conversations by responding to forum posts, or engaging online voices by responding to blog posts? Or would you find this intrusive?

GG: Yes, but I think the government needs to still be selective about which areas it ventures into.

The vast majority of bloggers who don’t blog about political issues would not appreciate it if a government official posts a comment “correcting” them for inaccuracies in their blog rantings. However there are a few serious political bloggers who would appreciate a response to their ideas and suggestions, even if it comes in the form of a strong rebuttal. The response could be a comment on a blog, or a full reply to an article posted online. Serious blogs would be happy to grant the right of reply to the government or any other party.

It would be better if politicians and government officials engage in their “personal” capacities, meaning there is no need to parade one’s full designations, titles and ministries when posting a simple comment on a blog. Blogosphere is an egalitarian world where the quality of your ideas counts more than the titles you carry.

Civil servants should be allowed to comment online on policy matters outside the purview of their ministries, as long as they do so in their personal capacity and they do not divulge classified information. They should not be required to seek their permanent secretaries’ approval before speaking or writing to the media (including online media) on a matter that does not directly concern their ministry.

The Information Ministry is already actively monitoring blogs and Internet forums. It would be nice if the government could at least acknowledge some of the good ideas that are generated online, instead of constantly implying that serious political discussion is absent from the Internet.

ST: What are the potential pitfalls of e-engagement?

GG: I can’t think of any.

ST: What are the plus points?

GG: See answer to (1).

ST: An oft-heard comment about the online world is that it fosters intelligent arguments but also the circulation of half-truths. Will e-engagement cause online comments to become more ‘responsible’?

GG: This “oft-heard” comment is itself a half-truth. The vast majority of material put out online are what the bloggers themselves believe to be true, or are their personal opinions. The few “untruths” are in fact satire that no one takes seriously outside of its comic value.

Yes, I believe e-engagement if done selectively will cause people to be a bit more circumspect in posting their comments. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Internet experts have highlighted that people become much more polite when they know you are listening.

ST: E-engagement can also flow in the other direction – from citizenry to government. (www.mysociety.org from the UK is an example) What initiatives can there be from the citizenry? How might they encourage/induce government to join the conversation they initiate? Where do you see sites like TOC fitting in this?

GG: I think there is a whole lot more that Singaporeans can do with the freedoms we already have. We need to rid ourselves of our “government must initiate” mentality. If we have a passion for something and see a gap that others (including the government) is not filling, then we should step forward, organise ourselves and get something moving.

One sector that is well placed to “self-organise” is the NGO sector, which includes charities and non-profit organisations championing various disadvantaged groups and causes. Many voluntary welfare organisations (VWOs) are very close to the ground and can see first hand the social problems in our society. Unfortunately, VWOs in Singapore seldom play an advocacy role, but are content working quietly behind the scenes. If more of them were organise themselves, rally public interest around their causes, we could see a transformation of the government-NGO-citizen relationship, a more engaged citizenry and a much more responsive government.

.