Two weeks ago (19 Mar), a federal jury in San Francisco found Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer was a substantial factor in causing cancer in a Californian man, Edwin Hardeman. Mr Hardeman was the first person to challenge Monsanto’s Roundup in a federal court. During the trial, the 70-year-old testified that he had use the weed killer for a long period of time and at one time got it on his skin before he was diagnosed with cancer.

The ruling at the federal court followed a historic verdict last August in which a California state court ruled that Roundup caused the terminal cancer of Dewayne Johnson, a former school groundskeeper. In Mr Johnson’s case, the jury found Monsanto had “acted with malice or oppression” and awarded him US$289 million in damages. The damages were later reduced to US$78 million.

After the federal court found Monsanto’s weed killer was responsible for Mr Hardeman’s cancer, the jury deliberated on the damages to be awarded to Mr Hardeman last Wed (27 Mar) and decided on the amount of US$80 million. The jury found the German pharmaceutical giant Bayer liable because its subsidiary, Monsanto, did not warn the plaintiff of the herbicide’s alleged cancer risks.

Not surprisingly, Bayer share price dropped. It has been steadily sinking since the first adverse verdict in the Roundup lawsuit was announced last August. The drop in share price has pushed Bayer’s value down to about US$58 billion since then. It is now trading at below 60 EUR.

In fact, it was Singapore’s Temasek Holdings which helped Bayer to acquire Monsanto. It was reported in Apr last year that Bayer sold 3.6 per cent stake to Temasek for 3 billion euros at 96.77 euros per share. The money is used as part of Bayer’s plan to takeover Monsanto. Together with its existing holding in Bayer, Temasek would then own about 4 percent in Bayer after the transaction. By Jun, with Temasek’s help, Bayer successfully acquired Monsanto to become the biggest seed and agricultural chemical maker in the world.

As of Friday’s (29 Mar) closing, Bayer’s share price was 57.60 euros. Since Temasek bought 3 billion euros worth of shares at 96.77 euros in Apr last year, that means it has lost 39.17 euros per share or 40.5% of the 3 billion euros investment. So, in less than a year, Temasek has lost at least 1.2 billion euros or S$1.85 billion.

Bayer continues to deny that Roundup could cause cancer, “This (second) verdict does not change the weight of over four decades of extensive science and the conclusions of regulators worldwide that support the safety of our glyphosate-based herbicides and that they are not carcinogenic.”

Third trial against Monsanto started

The Hardeman trial is only the second of more than 11,200 Roundup lawsuits set to go to trial in the US.

A third Roundup lawsuit started in California’s Superior Court in Oakland last Thu (28 Mar). It was brought by California elderly couple Alva and Alberta Pilliod who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2011 and 2015 respectively.

Alva was diagnosed with systemic non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2011 and has been in remission since, after undergoing aggressive chemotherapy treatment that degraded his cognitive function. Alberta was diagnosed with the same cancer in 2015 after doctors found a tumor in the middle of her brain. She was declared cancer-free in 2016 following a round of chemotherapy that left her with extensive brain damage, but relapsed the next year. A second round of treatment stabilized the tumor.

The probability that both Alva and Alberta would get non-Hodgkin lymphoma is 1 in 20,000, the plaintiffs’ lawyer told the jury. Their treating physician said it was so unlikely they would both develop the same cancer that an environmental factor like Roundup was the likely culprit.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer also revealed new evidence in court, alleging that Monsanto planted one of its employees at a contract lab called Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories (IBT) in the 1970s to fake negative mouse carcinogenicity data for Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. The alleged fake data would then be used to win regulatory approval for the weed killer in 1975. The lawyer also alleged that Monsanto had planned an attack to discredit the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency, anticipating that it would classify glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015.

Furthermore, the lawyer intended to show that Monsanto had exploited “deep connections” within the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify glyphosate as non-carcinogenic. In fact, a toxicologist in the University of California at Berkeley, was “so outraged” by the EPA’s failure to follow its own herbicide-assessment guidelines that she recently resigned from an EPA glyphosate-review panel to conduct her own study of the chemical. That study, released this past February, found that glyphosate exposure increases the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The lawyer told the jury in the third trial that Monsanto has known for 40 years that Roundup causes tumors in rodents and for 20 years that it causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans, but refused to include a cancer warning to safeguard the enormous profits generated by the most widely used herbicide in the world.

“You give the consumer the right to make a choice” about a chemical that “causes cancer before they buy it,” he said. “Because that failure means people get hurt, and they have to deal with the consequences. That’s how it works.”

The latest new evidence against Monsanto in the third trial was not presented in the previous two trials, where both juries found Monsanto liable nonetheless.

Meanwhile, Monsanto’s lawyer argued that the elderly couple already have several known risk factors for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Alva has a history of skin cancer – he has been diagnosed with multiple forms of it 22 times – the autoimmune disorder ulcerative colitis, and five bouts of meningitis. The lawyer said that auto-immune conditions like ulcerative colitis increase the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma. And meningitis is “an extremely rare condition” that weakened Alva’s immune system, he said.

Monsanto’s lawyer also pointed out that Alberta had bladder cancer before, which more than doubles the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hashimoto’s disease, a condition in which the immune system attacks the thyroid gland. With this condition, the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma is tripled, he said.

He rounded out his remarks by noting that 100 countries have deemed Roundup safe to sell since the herbicide was developed in 1974. He added that regulators in the US, Canada and Europe re-reviewed glyphosate after the WHO’s cancer agency announced its findings and again concluded that glyphosate is safe.

“When you see the EPA’s determination,” the Monsanto’s lawyer said, “it is backed by solid science.”

Other than California, Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer trials are also expected to start in other States soon. For example, at least two trials are scheduled to take place in St. Louis, Missouri state court in the second half of this year.

Even as more cases are waiting to be heard in US courts, more cancer sufferers are also queuing up to file suits against Monsanto. Do expect Bayer’s share price to tank further if Monsanto continues to lose more Roundup lawsuits.

The post Temasek loses close to S$2B less than 1 yr after investing in Bayer while 3rd Roundup lawsuit proceeds appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Progress Singapore Party (PSP), the new political party set up by former presidential candidate and former People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament (MP) Tan Cheng Bock has received formal approval from the Registry of Societies on Thursday (March 28).

A PSP spokesperson told The Straits Times that the Party will be making a formal announcement regarding the matter some time next week.

Quoting a Lianhe Zaobao report, ST added that PSP will most likely convene a meeting in the coming week to discuss its next move.

Previously, in an announcement made via Facebook on 16 Mar, Dr Tan announced the “in principle” approval of PSP by the RoS.

He wrote: “In response to the many queries on the status of the registration of Progress Singapore Party, I am pleased to share that our application was “approved-in-principle”, subject to us accepting some amendments made by the Registry of Societies to our Constitution.

“We have proposed some minor changes to the ROS’s amendments and are now waiting for their final reply.

“The Registry of Societies has been very helpful so far, and I look forward to their favorable response to our application,” he added.

Dr Tan made the application to form PSP earlier this year on 16 Jan alongside “twelve likeminded Singaporeans” including “some ex-PAP cadres”.

Dr Tan’s “return to politics after a long absence” driven by “a sense of duty” to represent “many Singaporeans from all walks of life”

In a Facebook post on 18 Jan, two days after the application was made, Dr Tan announced his readiness to “return to politics after a long absence”.

“Over the years, a group of us have been walking the ground, meeting many Singaporeans from all walks of life.

“In my conversations with them, I listened to their concerns, heard their fears and felt their pain. I felt a sense of duty to come forward and represent them in Parliament.

“So I decided to form a political party to add another voice in Parliament,” he wrote.

He added: “At 78 years, I have a short window that I intend to use mentoring and developing future Parliamentarians who will work for the good of our nation.

“We want to build a compassionate and truly democratic Singapore where good values and people matter. Freedom of choice and free speech without fear must be defended.

“We hope to be given the opportunity for Progress Singapore Party to be an alternative voice in parliament. In due course, as the party and candidates mature, we intend to be ready to govern the nation.

“In the mean time, we will work with those who share our political beliefs of country first – before either party or self,” concluded Dr Tan.

Dr Tan had previously nearly won the bid for President in 2011 which fuel the speculation that the amendments to the Constitution were made to block his reattempt at the highest office in the country.

He had announced his intention to run for Presidency in Mar 2016 before the amendments to the Elected Presidency were announced. Other than the race-based contest, the increase of criteria for private candidates meant that he would no longer be qualified to stand for the election.

Dr Tan had also filed an application to challenge the Government’s decision to regard Wee Kim Wee as the first elected president for the purpose of making the 2017 President Election as a reserved election, which was eventually dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The post Tan Cheng Bock’s Progress Singapore Party receives formal approval from RoS, now registered appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Based on a survey conducted in 2016, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam is a clear favourite of Singaporeans to be the next Prime Minister, contrary to what Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat recently said last week.

Mr Heng, who has been touted as the most likely candidate to succeed PM Lee Hsien Loong as Prime Minister, has controversially said that while young Singaporeans may be ready for someone from the ethnic minority to be Prime Minister, he thinks the rest of Singapore is not.

Following Mr Heng’s comments, a lecturer at SIM International Academy, Mark Rozells, posted a poll on his Facebook page asking people to vote on who they would like to see as their next Prime Minister, Heng Swee Keat or Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

In just three days, the poll received over 22,000 votes with a strong 92% throwing their support behind DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam.

One person commented that they wouldn’t choose either, another person said that to them, the choice between the two is a no-brainer.

Another person said that while the poll indicates strong support for Mr Shanmugaratnam, people will simply say that the older generation isn’t read, basically what Mr Heng said last week.

Yet another person noted that his choice wasn’t based on race at all. And really, when choosing a leader, race shouldn’t even be a factor, not when meritocracy reigns as it supposedly does in Singapore.

Now, in different survey commissioned by Yahoo Singapore and conducted by market research consultancy Blackbox back in 2016, the results swung the same way. About 69% of 897 respondents said they would support Mr Shanmugaratnam as a candidate to be Prime Minister of Singapore.

The poll results showed that the majority of respondents preferred Mr Shanmugaratnam over other possible candidates including Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat (25%) and Minister in the Prime Minister’s office Chan Chun Sing (24%).

Respondents were allowed to choose more than one contender for the post of PM and pick one as their top choice for the job.

Even in this respect, Mr Shanmugaratnam was top choice of 55% of respondents, far ahead or Mr Heng and Mr Chan who were named top choice for only 9% of respondents each.

The poll also showed that Mr Shanmugaratnam was a favourite among different age groups, ethnicities, and people of different socio-economic status. More than half of Malay and Chinese respondents chose Mr Shanmugaratnam as their top candidate while 80% of Indian respondents did the same.

Clearly, this is contrary to Mr Heng’s recent comments that older Singaporean’s are not ready for a non-Chinese PM. Responding to a question a the public policy and global affairs programme at a forum held in Nanyang Technological University’s (MTU’s) School of Social Sciences, Mr Heng said that based on his own experience of walking the ground and working with people from all walks of life, he doesn’t think that most of Singapore is ready for a Prime Minister of an ethnic minority.

Mr Heng has received backlash with many calling him out for the racist nature of his statement. International human rights lawyer M Ravi pointed out that Mr Heng’s comments imply that the administration has succumbed to the racism of a minority of people – older Chinese Singaporeans – who are opposed to the idea of a non-Chinese PM.

Separately, Peoples Voice Singapore’s Simon Lim suggested that Mr Heng’s statement is a breach of legislation that guarantees the equal treatment and rights of all minorities.

The main takeaway here, though, is that Mr Heng’s view or rather the view of his party is unsubstantiated, as the Blackbox survey has revealed. So is Singapore not ready for a non-Chinese PM or is the ruling PAP not ready?

The post Do Singaporeans actually not want a non-Chinese PM or is it the PAP that’s not ready? appeared first on The Online Citizen.

A mid-term review of the Research, Innovation and Enterprise 2020 (RIE 2020) plan resulted in Singapore putting in more funds for the research and development (R&D) efforts in three key areas, namely digital technologies, cell therapy manufacturing and food security.

According to a press release by National Research Foundation (NRF) on Wednesday (27 March), these additional investments will boost the “good progress” of the S$19 billion initiative which was launched in early-2016.

Ever since the RIEC embarked on the journey in 2006 to enrich the nation’s science and technology capabilities and values; progress has been made in terms of international recognition and significant breakthroughs by local scientists, as well as foreign companies like Dyson with their advanced product development facilities.

RIEC’s chairman, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke at a press conference after a RIEC meeting about the significance of research, innovation and enterprise to Singapore’s development, especially in practical and useful products including autonomous vehicles.

“We must and we will continue to invest in science, technology and innovation in a balanced, sustained and sustainable manner. (This is) in order to keep Singapore competitive and relevant globally, and seed exciting new opportunities for our future economy,” Mr Lee said.

In regards to the mid-term review of the RIE2020, Mr Lee affirmed that Singapore is on track with the digital revolution but they are also sharpening focus and fine-tuning adjustments to their plans.

Earlier this month, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced that the Government will invest an additional S$500 million to strengthen digital technologies and automation expertise; out of which, S$200 million will be invested in the nation’s supercomputing capability and network speed and ability.

Meanwhile, about S$41 million will be given to the National Robotics Programme to deploy more robotics technology while the rest of the funds would be used to expand existing programmes like Al Singapore and foster new capabilities in digital trust, the social science of digital technologies, and computational law.

Singapore will also be ploughing in S$80 million to develop a commercially scalable platform and improved technology to assess the quality of cells manufactured in the field of cell therapy, whereby intact living cells injected into patients help them to fight cancer or restore tissue or organ function.

“When you look at the future, it’s beyond what we currently manufacture today. Small molecules, biologics and cell therapy will be part of the future and we want to anchor those investments here in Singapore,” said Dr Benjamin Seet, executive director at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research’s (A*STAR) biomedical research council.

Besides that, some S$144 million from the RIE2020 plan will also be allocated for R&D work in sustainable urban food production, future food, as well as food safety science and innovation to meet the newly announced target of producing 30 per cent of the nation’s nutritional needs by 2030. Two Centres of Innovation focusing on aquaculture and energy are due to be opened in Temasek Polytechnic and the Nanyang Technological University by June and April, respectively.

Mr Lee also brought up the issue of the Government to achieve more progress in RIE investments from partnerships between the public and private sector. Currently, Singapore spends about 1 per cent of its gross domestic product on RIE efforts, while the private sector spends between 1.2 and 1.4 per cent, with an increase due to economic growth.

NRF chief executive Low Teck Seng said that there is still a need for more companies to incorporate R&D into their operations. He also highlighted the importance of continuous stock-take in science and technology as part of their ambition to grow the nation’s economy and build solutions to address national challenges.

Prof Low elaborated on NRF’s role in this area, stating, “The industry is not spending rapidly enough so we will need to keep pushing our tech consortia idea and others to see to get them more involved. In terms of tech deployment and diffusion, can we be more effective? I think we can.”

The post Singapore to boost R&D funding for digital tech, cell therapy manufacturing and food security appeared first on The Online Citizen.

A Public Sector Data Security Review Committee has been convened by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) in the wake of several cybersecurity breaches involving public healthcare databases in recent months, the latest being the data leak involving over 800,000 blood donors by a Health Sciences Authority vendor.

The HSA database breach is the third cybersecurity breach concerning public healthcare databases in Singapore that has been reported thus far in recent months, following the HIV registry leak and Singapore’s largest cyberattack to date, the SingHealth data breach involving the particulars of around 1.5 million patients, including those of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

PMO added in its statement on Sun (31 Mar) that its “comprehensive review” of data security practices across the entire public service sector will include examining “measures and processes related to the collection and protection of citizens’ personal data by public sector agencies, as well as by vendors who handle personal data on behalf of the Government”.

“This review”, said PMO, “will help to ensure that all public sector agencies maintain the highest standards of data governance”.

Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security Teo Chee Hean has been appointed as the Chairperson of the Committee, who will lead the Committee comprising “private sector representatives with expertise in data security and technology, as well as Ministers involved in Singapore’s Smart Nation efforts”, namely Vivian Balakrishnan, S Iswaran, Chan Chun Sing, and Janil Puthucheary.

Mr Teo is also the Minister-in-charge of Public Sector Data Governance, according to PMO.

The Committee has been tasked to conduct the following measures:

• Reviewing the Government’s methods of securing and protecting citizens’ data from end-to-end, including the role of vendors and other authorised third parties;
• Recommending technical measures, processes and capabilities to improve the government’s protection of citizens’ data, and response to incidents; and
• Developing an action plan of immediate steps and longer term measures to implement the recommendations.

PMO added that the Committee will be assisted by “international experts and industry professionals, from both the private and public sectors”, in addition to “an inter-agency taskforce formed by public officers across the Whole-of-Government”.

Previously, said PMO, “the Government has progressively enhanced security measures to safeguard sensitive data”, including implementing the Internet Surfing Separation policy in 2016 and disabling USB ports from being accessed by unauthorised devices in 2017.

Additionally, PMO highlighted that “the Government has also increased the number and types of internal IT audits to check on agencies’ data access and data protection measures”.

“Nevertheless, the Government acknowledges that recent data-related incidents have underlined the urgency to strengthen data security policies and practices in the public sector,” added PMO.

“This is essential to uphold public confidence and deliver a high quality of public service to our citizens through the use of data. The work of this Committee will complement our efforts to achieve our Smart Nation vision,” PMO assured.

The Committee’s findings and recommendations will be submitted to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong by 30 Nov this year.

The post PMO convenes Public Sector Data Security Review Committee, following recent cybersecurity breaches in public healthcare databases appeared first on The Online Citizen.

On Sat (30 Mar), at least 500 people went to Hong Lim Park to protest against Hyflux. Many are looking at losing 80-97% of their life savings and retirement funds which they have invested heavily in Hyflux preference shares and perpetual securities (i.e, high-risk bonds).

So far, some estimated 34,000 retail investors have invested a sum of around $900 million dollars in Hyflux preference shares and perpetual securities offered via two tranches in 2011 and 2016. This sum is almost twice of the $500 million lost by the 10,000 retail investors in the Lehman Minibond saga back in 2008.

The media reported yesterday (31 Mar) that one of the investors, Mdm B. Chua, 62, had lost $6,000 while her husband $100,000 investing in Hyflux preference shares and perpetual securities. It was reported that they invested in Hyflux because “Temasek had invested” in the company.

Mdm Chua said, “We invested in Hyflux because government support for the company was very strong. We invested because Temasek had invested. And Temasek must have done its due diligence.” In other words, Mdm Chua thought the government and Temasek know everything and know what’s best for the country. The couple thought they could trust the government.

“When banks sold the securities to us, they told us ‘Temasek invested, so don’t worry. And if you don’t buy, somebody else will’,” Mdm Chua added. “Investors went in because it was a national asset.”

“Many of us had kept quiet initially. But I felt I had to come to the protest. We must voice that we do care,” she said. Indeed, many hold the same view as Mdm Chua.

After the news was reported yesterday, Temasek immediately wrote a letter to ST Forum to clarify. The letter was published today (‘Temasek and its unit have not had investments in Hyflux since 2006‘, 1 Apr).

Mr Stephen Forshaw, Head of Public Affairs from Temasek International, responded saying that Temasek’s investment in Hyflux was “part of an initiative during the early 2000s to invest in Singapore small and medium-sized enterprises”.

This was to “support their growth in promising sectors”, such as water technology, he said.

“Upon completion of its investment objectives, Temasek exited its Hyflux investment,” he clarified on behalf of Temasek.

“This was before 2006, as noted in the news article – well before the issuance of Hyflux preference shares in 2011 and their perpetual bonds in 2016.”

In other words, Temasek is saying that it had already got out of Hyflux before the issuance of Hyflux preference shares in 2011 and their perpetual bonds in 2016.

Mr Forshaw went on to say that Temasek does not have any investments in Hyflux since 2006.

It of course, begs the question should Temasek have come out to say something when banks and institutions were using its “good name” as a reference when they were selling Hyflux preference shares and bonds to retail investors in 2011 and 2016?

What do you think?

The post Temasek: We’re already out of Hyflux before they issued preference shares and perpetual bonds appeared first on The Online Citizen.

On 28 March (Thursday), Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat made a statement that most Singaporeans might not be ready for an ethnic minority PM. He said this in response to a questioned asked by Assistant Professor Walid Jumblatt Abdullah of Nanyang Technological University (NTU)’s School of Social Sciences’ public policy and global affairs programme at a forum at the university.

His statement had drawn criticism from a large group of netizens including author and freelance writer at The Economic Intelligence Unit Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh and former associate dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Donald Low.

In the forum, Mr Heng was asked if it is Singapore or the ruling PAP (People’s Action Party) that’s not ready for a non-Chinese Prime Minister.

Responding to this, Mr Heng asked the audience to raise their hands if they were happy to have an ethnic minority individual as their PM. It appears that many audience members out of the 700 students present raised their hands.

Mr Heng then said, “My own experience in walking the ground, in working with different people from all walks of life, is that the views – if you go by age and by life experience – would be very different”.

He added, “I do think that at the right time, when enough people think that way, we would have, we may have, a minority who becomes the leader of the country. But if you ask me, that whether across the voting population, would that be the outcome, I personally don’t think so,” he was quoted saying in an article by The Straits Times.

Following his statement, author and freelance writer Sudhir Thomas Vadaketh, took his Facebook account to share his viewpoints on Mr Heng’s statement and PAP generally.

Focusing on the bigger issue in Finance Minister’s statement, Vadaketh said that his main concern is “PAP’s repeated use of sophistry to hammer home its ideologies”.

For example, he said that the Government uses empirical evidence only to its advantage. This means that when the evidence supports them, they glorify it but, if it is against them, then PAP convinces its citizens to look at other things like anecdotes, observations and feelings, including race.

“All the available electoral and survey evidence points to the fact that Singaporeans are very comfortable with non-Chinese leaders. Incidentally, this goes all the way to JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ), who won a by-election in 1981 against the PAP’s Chinese candidate, and then held onto his seat in the 1984 general election,” he explained.

Vadaketh then questioned if Mr Heng has excluded all those who voted for JBJ 38 years ago when he mentioned that the older generation is not ready for a non-Chinese PM. “I’m pretty sure if they voted for JBJ then, they’d vote for Tharman today,” he added.

Besides that, he also expressed that PAP conveniently ignores available evidence for other policy areas when it doesn’t suit its objectives, including issues surrounding inequality and hosting the Youth Olympic Games or Formula 1.

“For the latter, I’ve heard all sorts of wishy washy justifications made. “Oh the benefits are intangible! It helps the Singapore brand!” Yes, that nebulous “brand” is the easiest get-out-of-jail card to defend any grandiose project,” he wrote.

He also highlighted that when society’s own biases and prejudices go hand-in-hand with PAP’s, then it appears that no issue seems to be a problem and “there is a sudden deference to the common person”.

Although Vadaketh understands that these are tactics placed by all political parties, but he said that he has the urge to point out to many Singaporeans who still have this rose-tinted view of the PAP and its motives.

“Alas, they’re all just politicians. It’s important for us to think clearly about all these issues so that we can keep improving debate – and well, life – here,” he said.

Upon reading Vadaketh post, Prof Donald Low, senior lecturer at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and former associate dean of Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, shared his post and said he fully agrees to what the author said.

Low, who is the co-author of the book “Hard Truth” with Vadeketh, added that he once asked Mr Heng what is his opinion on the obvious “paradox in Singapore between the fact that Singaporeans have high levels of trust in the government but also that a couple of surveys (such as the World Values Survey) show Singaporeans to have low trust in one another.”

Responding to Low’s question, the Finance Minister’s response was almost the same like what he gave recently – that based on the ground and interactions with residents, he disagreed with the survey finding that Singaporeans didn’t trust one another.

As such, Low who agrees with Vadaketh said that in the absence of evidence, the PAP is rationalising and justifying whatever they wish to believe.

He added, “This is also known as motivated reasoning; your reasoning is driven by your motivations, beliefs and biases, not by evidence.”

Low ended his post by mentioning that in philosophy, the PAP’s method of ignoring evidence when it doesn’t favour them is called “failing Popper’s falsification test, which states that your statement is a meaningless one if you cannot specify the conditions under which it is fake.”

The post In the absence of evidence, PAP repeats use of sophistry to justify its beliefs to Singaporeans appeared first on The Online Citizen.

by Kirsten Han

It’s late on a Friday night, close to closing time for most of the shops and restaurants in the area. Outside the Harbourfront Centre, a video is still playing on the big screen at the Singapore Heritage Festival, but the stalls have already begun winding down and packing up. Double-decker buses are roaring up the road to the bus stops, taking weary commuters home.

The sound of biscuits rattling in a plastic container rises briefly amid all this bustle. A woman is walking along the road, shaking a bottle and ducking down to peer among the leafy bushes along the pavement. “Leng Leng! Ah Leng!”

This is how 58-year-old Grace Tan has been spending her nights for the past two weeks. She travels from her home in Marine Terrace near Singapore’s east coast to Harbourfront in the south, walking up and down the pavements, checking in shrubs and bushes and among trees, calling over and over again for her cats.

The disappearance of Ben Ben and Leng Leng

On 8 March 2019, Tan returned to her rental flat in Marine Terrace after her part-time job to discover that two of her cats, Ben Ben and Leng Leng, were missing, along with a cage that she used for her cat rescue work and kept outside her flat. She says the Marine Parade Town Council had at first claimed that they’d only taken her cage but not the cats, and had not been responsive despite almost daily visits to the office.

It was only on 14 March—after Tan had attended a Meet-The-People’s Session and met Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, the night before—that the town council acknowledged that they’d taken Ben Ben and Leng Leng.

“They said they didn’t know which company the town council had asked to trap the cats,” Tan tells The Online Citizen. The town council officer promised that they would check for that information.

Tan says that when she returned to the town council office with a friend on 18 March (Monday), they were met by a man who told her that he had saved her cats by moving them to a safe place.

“I said, ‘If you want to, you give the cats to AVA, you have no right to take my cats.’ He said he was saving my cats; if he had handed the cats to AVA, they would have died in a few days,” Tan recounts in Mandarin.

“I said, ‘Don’t talk to me about dying or not dying… the place that you’ve brought them to could be very dangerous.’ He said it wasn’t. He kept insisting it wasn’t.” He didn’t tell her where he’d left Ben Ben and Leng Leng.

With the help of the Cat Welfare Society, Tan finally managed to wrangle the last known whereabouts of her cats out of the town council: the two four-year-old felines had been left in Harbourfront, near the Seah Im Food Centre.

“I didn’t ask anything more, I just got into a taxi and rushed over,” Tan says, adding that she broke down when she first set eyes upon the forested area where the cats had apparently been relocated. The dense foliage, the car park near Marang Road, and the bus shelter behind the food centre were so different from the world Ben Ben and Leng Leng—two cats who lived in and around a HDB flat, high above ground level—have known.

“When I saw the hill, the forest, I broke down. I was really crying. I felt such heartache seeing that place… I felt then that it would be really hard for my two kids to come home.” The two cats had been missing for 10 days by this point.

With help from her friends, Tan searched the area until the early hours of the next morning, putting up posters with photos of the two felines. She says that, at about three or four in the morning, she met a Bangladeshi migrant worker who said he’d seen Ben Ben two days prior, standing near the dumpsters on the opposite side of the food centre from where the town council said the cats had been left.

Tan says the worker described Ben Ben as looking lost, standing next to the flight of stairs that brought pedestrians down the hill to street level. The next time he’d looked back, the cat was gone.

Tan’s heart sank. Back in Marine Terrace, Ben Ben lived in her flat with 11 other cats (including Leng Leng), but liked to wander out of the flat from time to time and go upstairs to visit a neighbour who played with him. Tan would stand in the stairwell and call for him; he would then run down the stairs and come home. Seeing the stairs by the food centre, Tan could guess what her precious pet had wanted to do.

“I knew it was bad, because Ben Ben was going to try to walk home. He was going to walk home. My Ah Ben really wanted to go home. But he couldn’t get home, he really couldn’t get home.” Tan begins to cry.

Ben Ben goes home

Seeing her anxiety and fear, Tan’s friends pitched in to help, volunteering their time and energy to help her comb the streets, put up posters and post appeals on social media. On 27 March—almost three weeks after the cats’ disappearance—a woman called Tan’s partner with bad news: she’d seen the carcass of a cat that looked like Ben Ben.

“My boyfriend had to go to the hospital that day for a check-up. He broke down too… his hand was shaking as he held the phone. He was really upset. He was afraid it was Ben Ben. When I saw him, I started to cry,” Tan recalls.

The woman had been on her way to work. By the time she spoke to Tan on the phone, half an hour had already passed. Tan rushed to get a taxi to Harbourfront right away. “I’m a Buddhist so I prayed to Guanyin, ‘You have to leave Ah Ben to me. You have to keep my child there and watch over him, let him wait for me. You can’t let people take him away.’”

When Tan arrived, she saw the carcass lying on the grass by the pavement and recognised it right away. Ben Ben—the cat she had jumped into a storm drain to rescue when he was just a few months old—was dead.

The search for Leng Leng

Nothing more can be done for Ben Ben, but the search for Leng Leng continues. Tan is doing her best to hold on to hope.

“You know, when I brought Ben Ben home on the 27th, I asked him to accompany me for a day before I sent him off. I spoke to him until 1am or 2am,” she says, her voice cracking as she speaks.

“I told him, ‘Ben Ben, Mummy’s heart really aches. But now you are back, Mummy is happy to see you again. Can you tell Mummy where Leng Leng is now? Can you tell me where to go and bring Leng Leng home? Can you let me dream of her?’ And I really dreamt of Leng Leng… I was dozing off and I saw Leng Leng. She was sitting somewhere high up. But it was so quick; I tried to call her and she was gone. I opened my eyes and I said, ‘Ben Ben, I saw Leng Leng, but I really don’t know where she is.’”

On that Friday night, six other people help Tan with the search. Someone had called to say that they’d seen a white cat in the area, but no one’s spotted anything so far. They’d put up 200 posters before, but they’ve all since been torn down.

“Whether she’s alive or dead, I have to bring her home,” Tan insists. “It hurts to think about it. With Ben Ben I brought his ashes home with me, so it feels like he’s always by my side.”

The media coverage

Unable to speak or read English, Tan hasn’t seen much of the coverage in outlets like Mothership.sg or The Straits Times, nor has she spoken at length to many reporters. But she disputes the Marine Parade Town Council’s statement that around 15 cats “were left roaming freely within the block, causing dis-amenities and hygiene-issues such as cats defecating/urinating, fur shedding, caterwauling, etc, at the common corridor, staircases and lift lobbies.”

“There are sometimes two or three who will go out. When I sit in the corridor outside, when I talk on the phone outside, they’ll keep me company,” she says. “It’s not possible for more than 10 of them to be outside. Some of them, even if the door is open, they refuse to go out. They’re afraid.”

Tan has been feeding and rescuing cats for over a decade. The cats she keeps at home are those who were injured or sick when she found them, and are no longer fit to live as free-roaming community cats. Apart from them, she feeds the strays in her neighbourhood twice a day, like clockwork.

This has sometimes sparked the ire of some of her neighbours, especially those who don’t like cats very much. Tan says she’s been shouted at or verbally abused by some people in the neighbourhood, and that any sign of cats behaving badly—be it yowling, pooping in public, or fighting—are blamed on her pets.

According to Tan, officers from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) had visited her home twice last year—they’d inspected her premises and looked at her cats, but had ultimately left without saying anything.

“They said, ‘Okay, your cats are all well taken care of. There’s no smell, it doesn’t stink.’ So they just left,” she says. “They said not to let them out, but I said that they only go out once in awhile, and they said okay and left.”

After the news about Ben Ben became public, AVA had visited her again, interviewing her extensively. She told them that all her cats are sterilised and microchipped, with all the necessary vaccinations.

The Online Citizen has reached out to AVA by email, but have not received a response at press time.

On its website, the Cat Welfare Society urges all pet owners to keep their cats strictly indoors, so as to be safe from abuse, fighting, and problems with neighbours.

Accountability and animal cruelty

“I’ve given so much [to care for animals] and they’ve come and taken away my cats,” Tan says. “I’ve protected the cats so much, up to this point, and [the town council] just came and did this. What is the point of everything I’ve done? What have I done so much for?”

She’s acutely aware of the possibility that Ben Ben might not have died if the town council had been open with her about their removal and relocation from the beginning. “We would have brought him home [then]. That’s why I feel so hurt.”

In their comment to the media, the Marine Parade Town Council apologised “on behalf of our staff who has made the misjudgement of relocating the two cats that were found roaming in the block. The cats should have been sent to AVA.”

Sending cats on to AVA carries its own risks; many animals who end up in AVA’s hands are put to sleep. In 2015, Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong said that nearly 2,500 animals (942 dogs, 888 cats and 623 monkeys) had been euthanised. While it is possible for animals to be bailed out of AVA—a process that many cat rescuers are now familiar with—one has to move fast, as the animals are often put to sleep within a week.

Against these odds, relocation might seem like a more attractive option. But dumping animals—especially those who have been largely domesticated—in unfamiliar environments, where they are left stressed, terrified and likely unable to find food and water, can also be a death sentence.

The Online Citizen has sent follow-up questions to MPTC. We asked about the delay in informing Tan about her cats’ whereabouts, whether other cats have been similarly relocated, whether the town council will be taking action against the pest control company or individual who had relocated the cats, and whether the town council will be changing its policies with regard to trapping cats. As of press time, there has been no response.

“I don’t ask for much now,” Tan says. “I just want Leng Leng home, and the town council must hand over this murderer. I can’t just let Ben Ben and Leng Leng end like this, just taken away for no rhyme or reason.”

The post A distraught caregiver and her lost cats appeared first on The Online Citizen.

In a 66-page judgement released on Monday (1 April), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal by Mr Li Shengwu to contest the court order which enabled the Attorney General Chambers (AGC) to serve papers on him in the United States for the alleged offence of contempt of court.

The judges ruled that the service out of the jurisdiction was properly effected on Mr Li because the Attorney General (AG)’s claim for the court to exercise its power to punish for contempt was perky a claim made under S7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.

Following the judgement, Mr Li, posted a status update on Facebook.

Mr Li, who is nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, noted that while the case will now proceed due to a ruling from the court that process service on Mr Li was effective, the AGC did not get new rules to be retroactively applied on his contempt of court case.

Although he was disappointed with the judgement, but he wrote that the “AG will still need to prove beyond reasonable doubt” that his Facebook post scandalised the Republic’s judiciary.

His response may be due to the rejected submission by AGC made to the court, for retroactive application of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act (2016) in his case.

Mr Li lawyers had argued that the procedural rule which gives the court power to serve papers on someone outside of Singapore, under the act, cannot be applied retroactively in this case, because the “legislature manifestly did not intend for the provision to apply retroactively”.

The judges had stated in the judgement that Mr Li’s case is Sui Generis, unique by its own.

If retroactive application of the act is allowed, then AGC may refer to the new law and only needs to prove that there is a “risk” that such public confidence will be undermined instead of “real risk”. As set out in the 2015 case of Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General, the AG has to prove a real risk that the impugned statement has undermined or might undermine public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore before one can be found guilty for contempt.

However, the issue that concerns him the most is the amount of state funds that have been spent on the case against him and his mother, Lee Suet Fern.

“Surreal mess” since July 2017

Mr Li, an Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard University, recounts that it has been one year and eight months since this surreal mess started.

In 15 July 2017, Mr Li wrote in a private Facebook post that is only accessible to his connections and said that “the Singapore government is very litigious and has a pliant court system”, which he noted referred to the constraints surrounding what the media is allowed to or able to report regarding the high-profile dispute of his paternal family.

He was referring to the family dispute surrounding the 38 Oxley Road home of Li’s late grandfather and Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, in which his father Mr Lee Hsien Yang, his aunt Dr Lee Wei Ling, and Mr Lee Hsien Loong were involved.

After his post, a relatively unknown blog posted a screenshot of his private Facebook post and was spread through Facebook page, Smrt feedback by the Vigilanteh.

Following the shares, AGC issued a public statement to local media that saying that it is looking into a Facebook post by Mr Li, in which he questioned the independence of Singapore’s courts.

On 21 July that year, AGC sent a warning letter to Mr Li claiming that he made “false and baseless allegations” about the lack of independence of the Singapore Judiciary. The warning letter also requested him to “purge the contempt” by deleting the post from his Facebook page and other platforms, and was asked to “issue and post prominently” on his Facebook page a written apology and undertaking drafted by the AGC.

By 4 August 2018, the AGC filed an application in the High Court to start committal proceeding against him for contempt of court, which was permitted by Justice Kannan Ramesh. In October, AGC then “ambushed” Mr Li with “court papers in public” whilst he was delivering a lecture in “Scott Kominers’ brilliant market design class” at Harvard University.

In Dec 2018, the law firm representing Mr Li noted that the court papers filed by the AGC exceeded 1,300 pages.

Following this, Mr Li decided to dispute against it and challenged the court order which enable the AGC to serve papers on him in the United States.

The case against Li’s mother, Lee Suet Fern

As for Mr Li’s mother, she was also slapped with a case in January this year over a “possible professional misconduct” in the preparation of her father-in-law Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s final Will.  AGC had lodged a complaint of 500 pages to Law Society about Ms Lee.

AGC claims that it became aware of a possible case of professional misconduct by Ms Lee when she prepared the last Will of the former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and arranged for him to execute it, despite the fact that her husband, Lee Hsien Yang, is one of the beneficiaries under the last Will.

Under the legal profession’s rule of conduct, lawyers are not allowed to place themselves in a position of conflict, AGC expressed.

“Where a person intends to make a significant gift by will to any member of the lawyer’s family, the lawyer must not act for the person and must advise him to obtain independent advice in respect of the gift. This rule applies even if the lawyer is related to the person making the gift,” AGC said in its statement.

However, this publication has noted earlier that AGC’s allegations resembles the wordings said by PM Lee in his statutory declarations and the current AG is Mr Lucien Wong who had previously act as PM Lee’s lawyer on the matter of 38 Oxley Road. AGC defended any allegations of impropriety by saying that Mr Wong has recused himself from the complaint to Law Society.

The post Li Shengwu wonders the amount of public funds spent on the cases against him and his mother, after Court of Appeal says ok for papers to be served to him in United States appeared first on The Online Citizen.

The Asian Internet Coalition has issued a statement in response to the introduction of the “Protection against Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill” in parliament, expressing their concerns that the proposed legislation is giving the Singapore government full discretion over what is considered true or false.

The statement reads as follow:

The Asia Internet Coalition (“AIC”) supports the Singapore Government’s goals of protecting social cohesion, harmony, and the integrity of institutions and political processes.

However, we are deeply disappointed by the lack of meaningful opportunities for public consultation during the drafting process of this bill, given the significant implications it could have for diverse stakeholders, including industry, media and civil society, in Singapore, the region and internationally.

We reiterate our position, which echoes that of many experts around the world, that prescriptive legislation should not be the first solution in addressing what is a highly nuanced and complex issue.

We are also concerned that the proposed legislation gives the Singapore government full discretion over what is considered true or false. As the most far-reaching legislation of its kind to date, this level of overreach poses significant risks to freedom of expression and speech, and could have severe ramifications both in Singapore and around the world.

AIC will be studying the bill in the coming days. We remain committed to working closely with the Government and other stakeholders to tackle misinformation, and hope that the enforcement of this legislation will not be at the expense of the benefits that public debate and exchange of ideas can bring.

AIC is an industry association comprising leading internet and technology companies. Its members are namely: Apple, Facebook, Google, Expedia group, Amazon, LINE, Linkedin, Rakuten, airbmb, Twitter, Yahoo! and Booking.com.

Read AIC’s earlier submission to the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods

MinLaw: Bill is meant to protect society against damage from online falsehoods

Just yesterday, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) tabled the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill in Parliament for its 1st reading. The ministry claims that the bill is seeking to protect society against damage from online falsehoods created by malicious actors and it targets falsehoods, not opinions and criticisms.

MinLaw says that the bill is largely about correction and will require the facts to be put up alongside the falsehood, so that the facts can travel together with the falsehood. Online platforms may also be required to ensure that those who previously saw the falsehood also see the correction.

According to MinLaw, the bill also enables the following measures that the government could take:

a. Take down of falsehoods in serious cases, to stop harm to society.
b. Disabling of inauthentic online accounts or bots that are spreading falsehoods against the public interest. This targets the use of inauthentic accounts or bots to manipulate and distort discourse amongst people.
c. Declaration of an online site that repeatedly spreads falsehoods, to cut off its ability to profit, without shutting it down. The online site must have, in the preceding 6 months, published three different falsehoods that are the subject of active Directions, meaning that each falsehood was against the public interest.

What is so troubling in the bill?

Based on the reading of the bill, the Minister can call upon the powers vested in him/her when there is a false statement of fact which has been or being communicated in Singapore or if the Minister think it is in the public interest to exercise the powers.

Despite being a bill to address online falsehoods, there is no definition in the bill to state what determines if a statement is false or who or what entity(ies) will determine the authenticity of the statement. This would mean the Minister can simply point at a statement of fact or any report, and say that it is fake.

The only way to contest the decision is an appeal through the High Court. However, the appeal does not absolve one’s duty to correct or remove the alleged false statement of fact.

The post Asian Internet Coalition expresses concern that proposed legislation on online falsehoods gives Singapore government full discretion over what is considered true or false appeared first on The Online Citizen.

On Sunday (31 Mar), the Straits Times published an article reporting on what some of the angry Hyflux investors told its reporters during the protest at Hong Lim Park, where at least 500 protesters had gathered on Sat (30 Mar). Many are looking at losing 80-97% of their life savings and retirement funds which they have invested heavily in Hyflux preference shares and perpetual securities (i.e, high-risk bonds).

One of the investors, Mdm B. Chua, 62, lost $6,000 while her husband $100,000 investing in Hyflux preference shares and perpetual securities. Mdm Chua said, “We invested in Hyflux because government support for the company was very strong. We invested because Temasek had invested. And Temasek must have done its due diligence.”

“When banks sold the securities to us, they told us ‘Temasek invested, so don’t worry. And if you don’t buy, somebody else will’,” Mdm Chua added. “Investors went in because it was a national asset.”

“Many of us had kept quiet initially. But I felt I had to come to the protest. We must voice that we do care,” she said. Indeed, many hold the same view as Mdm Chua.

Temasek: We exited Hyflux well before issuance of Hyflux preference shares and perpetual bonds

After the news was reported, Temasek immediately wrote a letter to ST Forum to clarify. The letter was published yesterday (‘Temasek and its unit have not had investments in Hyflux since 2006‘, 1 Apr).

Mr Stephen Forshaw, Head of Public Affairs from Temasek International, wrote to say that Temasek’s investment in Hyflux was “part of an initiative during the early 2000s to invest in Singapore small and medium-sized enterprises”. It was to “support their growth in promising sectors”, such as water technology, he said.

“Upon completion of its investment objectives, Temasek exited its Hyflux investment,” he clarified. “This was before 2006, as noted in the news article – well before the issuance of Hyflux preference shares in 2011 and their perpetual bonds in 2016.”

In other words, Temasek is saying that it had already got out of Hyflux before the issuance of Hyflux preference shares in 2011 and their perpetual bonds in 2016.

Mr Forshaw went on to explain that Temasek continues to invest in Singapore SMEs via an independently managed fund, Heliconia Capital Management.

“Guided by its own board and management, Heliconia seeks to invest growth capital in Singapore-based SMEs. In addition to risk capital, Heliconia management also works with its investee companies on strategies and opportunities for regional or international growth,” he said.

“Neither Temasek nor Heliconia has had any investments in Hyflux since 2006.”

Heliconia board director continues to sit on Hyflux board

According to the information on its website, Heliconia Capital Management is a “wholly owned subsidiary of Temasek Holdings”.

One of its board director is Gay Chee Cheong who still sits on the Board of Hyflux:

And indeed, on Hyflux website, it also confirmed that Gay Chee Cheong is indeed a board director of Hyflux. Not only that, he also heads the Board’s Remuneration Committee in Hyflux, which meant that he has an influence over Hyflux CEO Olivia Lum’s salary package. In addition, he is also a member of the Nominating, Audit and Investment Committees in Hyflux:

Gay Chee Cheong was awarded the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) Overseas Training Award. He attended the Royal Military Academy (RMA) Sandhurst and the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham (UK). He was also previously with Singapore Technologies Pte Ltd as the General Manager/Director of a joint venture company. He appears to have risen to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel while he was with the SAF.

So, while “neither Temasek nor Heliconia has had any investments in Hyflux since 2006”, Heliconia’s board director Gay Chee Cheong continues to sit on Hyflux’s board.

The post Board director of Temasek’s subsidiary continues to sit on Hyflux board appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Recently a viral video that showed a boy winning 20kg gold bar at Dubai International Airport took the internet by storm. It was shared by many netizens and news sites, including Mothership.

This boy won the 20kg gold bar kept in Dubai International Airport pic.twitter.com/N1JYxS8Zb0

— Mothership.sg (@MothershipSG) March 30, 2019

It appeared that he was taking part in the “Gold Bar” challenge where he had to remove a 20kg gold bar from a small hole in a glass box. The winner of the challenge gets to be the owner of the gold bar without paying a single cent.

Although it may sound like an easy task, but in reality it isn’t. For a start, lifting 20kg gold bar is tough on its own, especially if you have to do it with one hand. In order to complete the challenge, one has to have immense concentration and perseverance to carefully maneuverer their hand to remove the gold bar from a small hole that is just enough for a hand to slide in.

A few other news sites also posted a video of some individuals in a different setting, trying to pull out the gold bar from the hole but to no avail.

Dubai airport. Take it if you can. pic.twitter.com/3dJhIO6E31

— Aviator Anil Chopra (@Chopsyturvey) March 26, 2019

After looking closely at the video posted by Aviator Anil Chopra and a search on Google, it appeared that this challenge was not held at Dubai International Airport. It was in fact conducted by Istanbul Gold Refinery using their trademark gold bar called GRAMGOLD. Based on the Turkish company’s website, this product was created as a new concept of “small investment bars” in the Turkish market.

A spokesperson from Dubai Airports has also confirmed with TOC that this gold bar challenge was never held at its premise. “Dubai Airports can confirm that this installation is not currently, nor has been in the past, positioned at either of our airports,” said the spokesperson.

Therefore, the question now boils down to where exactly did the young boy take part in the gold bar challenge. If you look closely at the video, you can tell that the background doesn’t look like an airport at all. A simple search online will tell you that this is actually a scene at the Sado Gold Mine Museum in Niigata Prefecture, Japan, which holds a similar challenge.

According to an article Nipponia, visitors who succeed in retrieving the 12.5 kg gold bar will have to give it back to the museum, but they will be given a prize for their efforts.

The diameter of the hole in the transparent box is just about 8.5cm, just 1 cm wider than the gold bar. In the seven years that the museum has opened, only 600 people have been able to do it. The museum, which was once Japan’s most productive gold mine, receives 260,000 visits each year, which clearly shows how difficult the museum’s challenge is.

Here’s a recording of individuals trying their luck in removing the bar from the box. If they’re able to do so, they will receive a gold card worth 4,500 yen (S$55).

The post Video of Japanese museum attraction turns into fake viral story of boy winning 20kg gold bar at Dubai International Airport appeared first on The Online Citizen.

MP Chen Show Mao of the Worker’s Party shared a photo of a hand out that was distributed in Parliament on 1 April to accompany Minister K Shanmugam’s ministerial statement on restricting hate speech to maintain racial and religious harmony in Singapore.

The hand out was a list of so-called ‘offensive’ lyrics that Mr Shanmugam used to illustrate what offensive lyrics look and sound like.

Examples include:

Nine Inch Nails – Heresy: He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see/ He tries to tell me what to put inside of me/ He got the answers to ease my curiosity/ He dreamed up a god and called it Christianity/ God is dead and no one cares/ If there is a hell, I’ll see you there.

Ariana Grande – God is a Woman: You, you love it when I move you/ You love it how I touch you/ My own, when all is said and done/ You’ll believe God is a woman.

Hozier – Take me to Church: Take me to church/ I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies/ I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife

Lady Gaga – Judas: When he calles to me, I’m ready/ I’ll wash his feet with my hair if he needs/ Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain/ Even after three times he betrays me/ I’ll bring him down/ Bring him down, down/ A kind with no crown/ King with no crown…I’m just a Holy Fool, oh baby/ It’s so cruel, but I’m still in love with Judas, baby…I wanna love you/ But something’s pulling me away from you/ Jesus is my virtue and/ Judas is the demon I cling to/ I cling to

Now, these artists are all mainstream musical performers, with the exception of perhaps Nine Inch Nails which were really popular in the mainstream music scene in the late 90s and early 2000s. These songs have been repeated on the radio countless of times – clearly indicating that people enjoy them and have no problems with these lyrics being blasted on mainstream radio for entertainment purposes.

In his ministerial statement, Mr Shanmugam was making a point that hate speech and offensive speech should be an issue of concern to Singapore. He said, “I hope that we can reach some level of clarity and agreement on how we should frame and apply our rules on speech so as to maintain racial and religious harmony.”

Among other things, he talked about examples of hate speech made by political leaders within and outside of Singapore that were directed at specific racial and religious groups, how other countries have dealt with the issue, and the fine line between offensive speech and hate speech.

On the issue of lyrics specifically, Mr Shanmugam said that ‘Song have been a very powerful medium for spreading hate speech’, adding that hate music has been used to label, devalue, persecute, and scapegoat particular groups of people, often minorities.”

He pointed out that these lyrics mentioned above are considered offensive because they are derogatory and insulting to a particular race or religion.

What’s confusing is how lyrics like Hozier’s ‘Take me to Church’ constitute as offensive at all. The lyrics merely employ religious symbolism to convey a story or feeling. It’s not an attack on any religion or race.

Mr Shanmugam went on to say that the impact of such offensive speech depends on who delivers it and where it happens. A religious leader criticising another religion might have a different reach compared to an ‘offensive’ song played on the radio.

Still, he insisted that the government remains neutral when assessing such matters. “We proactively accommodate different groups, we recognise their different histories and traditions, and we make practical adjustments. And on that basis, we take a practical approach to assess the impact on, and the reaction of, the different communities. It often involves an assessment of the potential reaction of the targeted community when we have to decide to allow or ban something.”

He continued to say that the governments pragmatic approach in considering what is offensive and what isn’t on a case by case basis is the ‘only tenable one for our society’. He added, “It can be a bit messy, but it has worked so far, with relative success, and with a bit of give and take.”

At the end of this statement, Mr Shanmugam said “We are in the positive part of the spectrum of racial and religious relations because of the way we have structured our legal and social frameworks and all the things we have done to maintain racial and religious harmony.”

The post Parliament handout on religious and racial harmony lists Ariana Grande, Lady Gaga lyrics as ‘offensive’ appeared first on The Online Citizen.

by Brad Bowyer

In George Orwell’s Dystopian Nightmare “1984”, one of the four ministries that is used to manage the people is “The Ministry of Truth” which is concerned with news, entertainment, education and the fine arts. In the novel, a selected group get to determine what is Truth and what is Fake and take to task those who do not agree or comply.

Now in 2019, the Singapore government is looking to give a selected few ministers the power to determine what is true and what is fake and have laws to take the people to task if they don’t agree or comply.

The post Is the proposed law on Online Falsehoods, a step forward or backwards of Singapore’s development? appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Despite Law Minister K. Shanmugam’s assurance that the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill does not “deal with opinions” or “viewpoints”, and that Singaporeans “can have whatever viewpoints however reasonable or unreasonable”, media practitioners and civil rights organisations have expressed concern over the introduction of the Bill in Parliament on Mon (1 Apr).

Kirsten Han, editor-in-chief of Southeast Asian journalism platform New Naratif told New York Times in an email: “The bill gives ministers so much power and discretion — any minister can direct individuals or websites to post corrections or take down content, or order access to content to be blocked, and these orders have to be complied with first, even if one is going to appeal the direction in the courts”.

Deputy Asia Director of human rights organisation Human Rights Watch Phil Robertson wrote in an email: “This draft law will be a disaster for human rights, particularly freedom of expression and media press.

“The definitions in the law are broad and poorly defined, leaving maximum regulatory discretion to the government officers skewed to view as “misleading” or “false” any news that challenges Singapore’s preferred political narratives.

“Heavy fines to compel compliance combined with wide-ranging extraterritoriality makes this bill a danger to rights in Singapore as well as internet freedom and expression in Asia and the world.

“Governments and companies around the world should tell Singapore to send this law back to the drafting board,” said Mr Robertson.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced at a gala dinner celebrating the 20th anniversary of CNA on Fri (29 Mar) that under the new Bill, the Government will have the authority to instruct online news platforms to “show corrections or display warnings about online falsehoods so that readers or viewers can see all sides and make up their own minds about the matter”.

“In extreme and urgent cases”, added Mr Lee, “the legislation will also require online news sources to take down fake news before irreparable damage is done”.

Hefty, exorbitant fines up to S$1mil may be imposed as punishment against entities spreading “false statements of fact” under proposed Act

The Bill intends “to prevent the electronic communication of” what the Government views as “false statements of fact in Singapore” and “to enable measures to be taken to counteract the effects of such communication”.

Such “false statements of fact” may range from statements that are deemed “prejudicial” to Singapore’s security and multi-racial and/or multi-religious harmony to those with the capacity to “influence the outcome of an election” of a member of public office and “diminish public confidence” in the Government and public service.

The new legislation also aims at stopping “the financing, promotion and other support of online locations” that the Government deems to “repeatedly communicate false statements of fact” in the Republic, in addition to putting in place means to “enhance disclosure of information concerning paid content directed towards a political end”, which will possibly include the power to cut off advertisement revenue should a content provider be found guilty of making “false statements of fact” for the third time in six months.

Section 7 of the proposed Act states that “communication of false statements of fact in Singapore” should not be done whether “in” or “outside” the Republic, which infers that even foreign-based publications and tech companies making and publishing statements about Singapore that are deemed to be untrue by the Government may not be exempt from the scope of the legislation.

Any misuse of “online accounts and bots” will also be considered an offence should the Bill be passed and enacted in order to “detect, control and safeguard against coordinated inauthentic behaviour”.

Individuals found guilty of using “inauthentic online accounts” or “bots” to propagate such statements shall be subject to a fine not exceeding S$50,000 or be jailed for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both under Section 7(2) should the Bill be passed and enacted, and to a fine not exceeding $500,000 “in any other case”.

For individuals who are found guilty of making “false statements of fact”, a fine not exceeding S$100,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to both, may be imposed under the proposed Act.

More shockingly, a fine up to S$1mil may be imposed “in any other case”.

The excessively broad authority granted upon the Minister who has the power to issue directions – whether to correct or stop the communication of statements deemed “false” – under Part 3 of the proposed legislation is also evident in Section 17.

Section 17 of the proposed Act states that while appeals to the High Court are allowed, “no appeal may be made to the High Court by any person unless the person has first applied to the Minister” concerned “to vary or cancel” the Direction issued.

The Minister must have also “refused the application whether in whole or in part” for a party to make an appeal in the High Court against the Part 3 Directions.

TODAY quoted Ms Han as saying: “In my view, there aren’t enough checks and balances — there is the avenue to appeal to the High Court, but how many Singaporeans would afford the time and money to apply to the High Court to get a minister’s direction overturned?

“From what I understand, France’s anti-fake-news law allows election candidates to sue for the removal of contested content. This means that it still goes to a court first, and a judge will rule on whether the content will be removed.

“But Singapore’s law gives ministers the power to order removal, and only after you fail in your appeal to the minister can you go to court, and even then, the court can only overturn the decision in limited circumstances,” she added.

Tech giants reviewing Bill, express concern over possible encroachment of authority

Under Section 48 of the proposed legislation, which concerns the code of practice, a Competent Authority – a statutory board such as the Info-communications Media Development Authority or another government body – based on the instructions of a Minister may “require a digital advertising intermediary or an internet intermediary to” do the following:

• Put in place measures to detect non-compliance with any specified due diligence measures,
• Keep specified records; and
• Provide specified reports within a specified time following the non-compliance.

The measures may be taken “in” or “outside” Singapore, or even both, according to Section 48.

Additionally, Section 48(4) will grant the relevant “Competent Authority” the power to “vary a code of practice”, including adding anything to it, or to revoke said code of practice.

Managing Director of Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) Jeff Paine said on Mon that it is gravely disappointed “by the lack of meaningful opportunities for public consultation during the drafting process” of the Bill, “given the significant implications it could have for diverse stakeholders, including industry, media and civil society, in Singapore, the region and internationally”.

Stressing that “prescriptive legislation should not be the first solution in addressing what is a highly nuanced and complex issue”, he warned that the Bill’s overreaching scope will grant the Singapore government “full discretion over what is considered true or false”.

“As the most far-reaching legislation of its kind to date, this level of overreach poses significant risks to freedom of expression and speech, and could have severe ramifications both in Singapore and around the world,” added Mr Paine.

Noting that it “will be studying the bill in the coming days”, AIC – which includes Facebook, Twitter and Google – said that it will continue to work “closely with the Government and other stakeholders to tackle misinformation”, while also expressing its hope “that the enforcement of this legislation will not be at the expense of the benefits that public debate and exchange of ideas can bring”.

Facebook’s vice-president of public policy for Asia-Pacific Simon Milner said that the social media giant was “concerned with aspects of the law that grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false and proactively push a government notification to users”.

The company added that while the Bill “already reflects a number of investments” it has made in the process of fighting the spread of “false news and disrupt attempts to manipulate civic discourse”, it is “concerned with aspects of the law that grant broad powers to the Singapore executive branch to compel us to remove content they deem to be false and proactively push a government notification to users”.

A Twitter spokesperson told CNA that the company is “still reviewing” the Bill “to assess its implications”, while a Google spokesperson said in response to the tabling of the Bill: “(We) urge the government to allow for a full and transparent consultation on the proposed legislation”.

The post “Poorly defined” anti-“fake news” Bill “a disaster” for press freedom in Singapore, warn civil rights activists and media practitioners appeared first on The Online Citizen.

On Monday (1 April), Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam delivered his ministerial statement on hate speech in Parliament where he talked about a variety of issues including the last minute cancellation of the Swedish metal band Watain’s concert.

In his statement, he quoted a number of individuals while presenting his arguments, including former Straits Times editor and author Bertha Henson.

However, Ms Henson said that she was wrongly attributed by Mr Shanmugam in his statement on two different instances.

Mentioning this error in her blog Bertha Harian, the former editor said that as an individual who reads everything carefully – including the footnotes – she made sure she went through the Minister’s statement “with a fine tooth comb” before spotting his wrong attributions.

It seemed that in Mr Shanmugam’s statement, he quoted the former editor based on an article that she published in her blog on 13 March titled “Watain: Do Unto Others?”, which was also re-produced in Yahoo News.

She spotted the first error when her article was made as a reference when Mr Shanmugam highlighted that he recognises that some Singaporeans disagree with the Government’s decision to stop Watain from performing in Singapore.

The Minister said,

For example, Ms Chew Wei Shan, a former teacher, has set out her views articulately in a post. There were also others. They say the Government is “self-righteously” trying to govern other people’s lives and decisions. They say the audience can listen to metal music without being influenced by a band’s beliefs. NCCS and churches can advise their members not to go to the concert, so no need for a ban.

Ms Henson said that the footnote for this paragraph was her article, and although her blog name was wrongly mentioned, she said she couldn’t find anywhere in her article that said that the Government was being “self-righteous” about the band.

However, the reference that got her really annoyed was this particular paragraph that Mr Shanmugam said:

Now, some commentators online have also made dark suggestions of a Christian conspiracy. “They have a hold on the Government, the Government bows to their power, and there is an over-representation of Christians in institutions of power”. They tried to turn it into a “Christians versus Others” debate. These people are nasty, opportunistic, and dangerous. 

As someone who dislikes being called nasty things, she said she scrutinised her blog post to see if she had at all made any “dark suggestions of a Christian conspiracy”. However, the closest that she could find is only this particular paragraph:

Online, the reaction is mainly negative. The prevailing view is that the G had succumbed to hysterical moral panic from conservative Christians. The band, after all, would be playing to a small crowd of 150 people, aged 18 and above, and it had agreed to strictures set by the IMDA. You can be sure the lyrics would have been sanitised to be inoffensive and the performance would be sans carcasses and blood.

Although she said she might be wrong to report the prevailing view, but she don’t think she should be described as “nasty, opportunistic and dangerous”.

“I am not someone who takes such comments lying down, even if they are opinions. Opinions must be based on the facts or an ordinary man’s reading of the article in question,” she wrote.

As such, she questioned Mr Shanmugam on why was there a reference of her in his statement.

After looking through at his speech, the Minister admitted his mistake and apologised to her, and said that none of his comments were intended to refer to her.

He explained to her and said, “It was an error to have referred to me. He had originally, in his speech had referred to something I had said in my blog, and responded to it. But then in the final speech, he decided that it was not necessary to do so. He thus took out his response to me from the text of the speech. But the footnote referring to me was (erroneously) not taken out. So I was unfortunately lumped with others whom he specifically responded to.”

After hearing Mr Shanmugam’s apology, the author and former editor said she wants this post “to be shared liberally to clarify the matter”.

The post Law Minister apologises to Bertha Henson for wrong attribution appeared first on The Online Citizen.

by Robin Chee Ming Feng (Dr)

I am writing in to highlight certain comments made by Minister Heng Swee Keat last week at NTU. I am not surprised that my comments were not published by the mainstream media but it’s pertinent that I write in to address certain serious concerns from the Minister’s speech as these are concerns shared by several members of the academic community I have spoken with.

The letter I wrote is reproduced below:

I refer to the comments made by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat at the ministerial dialogue at the Nanyang Technological University on Thursday (28/3/2019).

While it is heartening to note that the Minister encouraged Singaporeans to embrace diversity and to continue to upgrade themselves in an era of disruption, some of his comments may cause significant concerns among Singaporeans.

For instance, Minister Heng noted that Singapore’s population density is not excessive and that many other cities are a lot more crowded in terms of liveable space. This reasoning, unfortunately, would not convince many Singaporeans as it seems to suggest that the authorities are attempting to retain legitimacy in their policies through the process of comparative analysis. Thus as long as there are a few countries “worse” than Singapore in any arena, we should console ourselves that the situation isn’t that bad.

This reference could be enough to placate citizens of a young developing nation but would not hold water in a fully developed, economically prosperous nation where citizens expect more from their leaders. Besides, we have been told to expect a “Swiss standard of living” for many years so to now be told to be contented with being “better off” than a few nations is certainly not plausible.

More importantly, while Minister Heng conveniently highlighted Dr Liu’s comment that having a population of less than 10 million is simply not sustainable for Singapore, he has neglected to espouse how socially unsustainable it is to have a population of 10 million eg. the issue of comfort, integration and potential consequences to the environment. It seems that economic pragmatism will once again be prioritised ahead of more intangible concerns.

It is also worrying when Minister Heng appeared to base his conclusions that older Singaporeans may not be as receptive to a Prime Minister from a minority race from his “interactions with groups of people during the elections”. Many observers would note that personal experiences are hardly representative of the overall ground sentiments and it would have been better if Mr Heng could embellish his claims through statistically significant large scale studies on this issue.

Even if such large scale studies are not possible at this point in time, he could have supported his claims that the observations were made upon tabulating the experiences of several other ministers. To make a claim based solely on the unscientific observations by one individual is simply not acceptable for an individual selected to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore.

This is a letter written by a member of public and it does not represent the publication’s view on the matter.

The post To make a claim based solely on unscientific observations is not acceptable for an individual selected to be the next Prime Minister appeared first on The Online Citizen.

The Ministry of Finance says that almost 500,000 Merdeka Generation seniors will receive their Welcome Folder and Card starting from late June 2019 and

Singaporeans seniors who are eligible for the Merdeka Generation Package, will receive letters by end April 2019, informing them of their eligibility.

Citizens can also check their eligibility for the Package online at www.merdekageneration.sg.

The ministry stated that the Merdeka Generation Package aims to encourage our seniors to stay active and healthy, as well as providing greater assurance with healthcare costs in their silver years as announced at Budget 2019.

The criteria to be eligible to receive the package are those who were born from 1 January 1950 to 31 December 1959 and became Singapore citizens by 31 December 1996.

The ministry noted that the Merdeka Generation Package will also be extended to those who were born on 31 December 1949 or earlier, became Singapore citizens by 31 December 1996, and do not receive the Pioneer Generation Package.

The ministry noted that no action is needed at this time for eligible seniors to receive their benefits.

The ministry stated that the mandate of the existing Pioneer Generation Appeals Panel will be expanded to consider appeals for the Merdeka Generation Package, which will be renamed the Pioneer Generation and Merdeka Generation Appeals Panel.

The Appeals Panel will be chaired by Mr Timothy James de Souza, with Mr James Koh Cher Siang and Ms Lim Soo Hoon as Deputy Chairpersons.

Mr Timothy is a member of the Presidential Council of Minority Rights and People’s Association (PA) Board, and Trustee of the Eurasian Association (EA).

Mr James is an Independent Director of United Overseas Bank (UOB), former Chairman of the Housing Development Board (HDB), and former Permanent Secretary of Education, Community Development and National Development.

Ms Lim is a Senior Advisor at the MOF, and former Permanent Secretary of Finance, Public Service Division and Community, Youth and Sports.

The ministry also said that Singapore citizens born on or earlier than 1959, who missed the citizenship criterion (i.e. became Singapore citizens after 31 December 1996) and have good claims to be counted among the Merdeka Generation, can submit an appeal for the Package.

Appeals will be considered on a case-by-case basis, the ministry noted.

However, the Appeals Panel stressed that it will not consider appeals from those who miss out on the age criterion (i.e. born after 31 December 1959).

Appeals may be sent to contactus@merdeka.gov.sg.

Members of the public can find more details on the Merdeka Generation Package at www.merdekageneration.sg.

Those with further queries on the Merdeka Generation Package can contact the authority at 1800 2222 888 (general enquiries), 1800 650 6060 (healthcare enquiries) or contactus@merdeka.gov.sg.

The post Singaporeans seniors will receive letters by end April 2019 informing their eligibility for the Merdeka Generation Package appeared first on The Online Citizen.

Senior Minister of State for Environment and Water Resources Dr Amy Khor said that there is no correlation between burning or chemical smells and the ambient air quality readings.

She was responding to a question raised by Member of Parliament (MP) for Nee Soon GRC Lee Bee Wah on whether Yishun residents should be worried of the burning and pungent smells lingering in the area.

In the last two months, there have been several fire cases reported in Johor, namely the fires at two landfills in Bandar Tenggara and Tanjong Langsat and a fire in an oil palm plantation in Punggai.

“Between early-February and mid-March when the hotspots were detected in Johor, the 24-hour PSI reading remained within the good to moderate range, and the 1-hour PM2.5 levels remained in the normal range,” said Dr Khor in Parliament on Monday (1 April).

She added, “If there are significant variations above normal levels, unhealthy levels, we would notify the public with this information.”

Dr Khor also highlighted that the National Environment Agency (NEA) uses specific measures to monitor and keep locals updated on pollution levels in the Republic’s air quality and water supply.

NEA uses both satellite remoting sensing and a network of real-time ambient air monitoring sensors in Singapore to keep track of air pollution levels.

Following the fire that occurred in Southern Johor in February, it appeared that north-easterly winds blew the smoke plumes towards Singapore, resulting in “intermittent burning smells over the past few weeks,” said Dr Khor.

As for concerns over water quality in Singapore after illegal dumping of chemical waste occurred in Pasir Gudang, Dr Khor mentioned that the no chemical was detected in NEA’s water samples. The agency has also not reported any anomalies in the water quality at the country’s recreational coastal beaches.

Upon reading her clarification over chemical smell and air quality, many netizens dismissed her statement and said it was false. They added that it’s wrong for her to “blatantly lie” and she is talking “nonsense”. Adrian Adrian mentioned that it is “irresponsible and selfish” of her to avoid the actual issue that she was paid to resolve.

They wrote their comments on Channel NewsAsia’s Facebook page where over 100 comments were received.

A bunch of netizens also shared their personal experience at their areaa where the air quality is causing them difficulties to breathe and sleep. Others said that they don’t trust the reading and would rather trust their own senses. Some even suggested Dr Khor to visit the affected area and smell the air for herself.

The post Netizens reject Amy Khor’s statement that there is no correlation between chemical smells and air quality readings appeared first on The Online Citizen.

In his 2016 National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced the launch of a new mobile app that would change how people would pay for parking in Singapore. The app, called Parking.sg, introduced a novel way for motorists to make cashless payments for their parking sessions via a mobile app on their smartphone, a convenient alternative to traditional parking coupons.

The Parking.sg app was developed by a team at GovTech led by PM Lee’s son, Li Hongyi. They created the app with the support of the Ministry of National Development (MND), the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB).

According to presentations delivered by Li Hongyi himself at various conferences and events, the app took 4 years to complete, from rough ideas to the actual end product that is in use today. The app, once launched, has received high praise for how it has improved the day to day lives of motorists in Singapore.

One point we’d like to note here is that around the 4:48 mark in the video, Li Hongyi mentioned that they started brainstorming for this app way back in 2013. Now, GovTech – where Li Honyi is a deputy Director (Data Science & Artificial Intelligence Division) – was only established in 2016. So who did Parking.sg belong to when it was first conceptualized in 2013?

Moving back to the reception of the app, MP Ang Hin Kee asked Parliament in February 2018 for an update on how well the app is being received and what the rate of utilisation was compared to the standard coupons.

The Minister for National Development Lawrence Wong said in a written reply that over half a million unique vehicles have used the app since it was launched in October 2017. He also highlighted that over 60% of cars in Singapore have used the app.

Overall, Mr Wong said that 15 million parking sessions have been initiated using the app since it went live and that it appears to be gaining popularity. When it was launched, the number of parking sessions were clocked at 300,000. In February 2018, that number has more than tripled to around 1.1 million parking session per month.

In contrast and probably as a result of the success of the app, the use of coupons has significantly decreased. Mr Wong said that in October 2017, 180,000 booklets of parking coupons were sold per month. But now with the app, that number has dropped to only 50,000 booklets. Mr Wong described it as ‘not bad at all’.

Earlier this month (6 March), Minister Grace Fu also highlighted in Parliament the Parking.sg app, noting how it has eliminated the need for motorist to pay for parking using physical coupons. The app made it more convenient for people to pay for parking, said Ms Fu, and even helped motorists save some money.

“Nearly half of parking sessions are ended early, with more than $3.3 million refunded to drivers for unused time so far,” she said.

So based on those numbers and feedback both in Parliament and the media, it’s clear that Mr Li’s brainchild is working as intended and that motorists in Singapore have really taken to it.

Successful though this app may be, we do wonder how much it cost to develop.

On 16 March, former CEO of NTUC Mr Tan Kin Lian shared on Facebook an encounter he had with a woman at Hong Lim Park who told him that the Parking.sg app cost S$30 million to develop. Mr Tan said he did a search online to verify the woman’s claim but couldn’t find any.

In response, Parking.sg posted a statement on their Facebook page clarifying that the project received 4-year funding of S$1.96 million in February 2017. One way they managed to keep costs low was via the use of modern cloud services and by having the app built in-hour by the project team themselves, said the statement. They even presented a list of the roughly monthly costs of services that were used in the development process.

Now, whether it was $30 million or S$1.96 million, that’s still a lot of money. In fact, it is significantly more than what a group of five Temasek Polytechnic (TP) students used when they developed their own parking app back in 2016 as part of their final year project.

This group of students from TP’s Business Information Technology course developed a simple Android application called eParking which allows drivers to select the location, period of time and load funds to fulfil a parking session. According to the press release, the app also provides push notification updates “as to when time is running out and with a quick reload, the user can extend the coupon time from wherever he may be”.

The statement continued, “In addition to being environmentally-friendly, the service will also allow convenient summons management, be it issuance or payment. It aims to also ease the workload of Parking Enforcement Officers with the use of QR-code scanning.”

Back then, Straits Times featured this new student-made app which, while it was innovative and creative, seemed like just another school project.

However, when compared to the Parking.sg app, it’s clear that these TP students back in 2016 had already developed a fully functioning application in eParking. The functions they provided were rather comprehensive and comparable to that in the app launched by Li Hongyi.

According to a sample of the eParking app developed by the TP students in 2016 that TOC got to see, the features are largely similar with that of the Parking.sg app by GovTech led by Li Hongyi which launched in 2017:

The similarities are obvious.

Here’s another startling fact. In terms of cost, one of the students involved in the eParking project told us that they didn’t spend a single cent on in developing the app as they used software which was open source. Also, the server was provided for by the school. Which means these students made a complete application with absolutely zero funding that works pretty much the same as the S$1.96 million-dollar app by GovTech.

With all the praise the Li Hongyi has received for Parking.sg, should we not be also looking at these talented, aspiring technopreneurs?

To find out what happened to the eParking app, TOC reached out to the URA to enquire if they were still working on the project with these TP students. We were informed that while URA helped these students back in 2015 by providing information about car parks, it was not directly involved in the project.

So we then reached out to Temasek Polytechnic to find out if the project is still alive and if the school had applied for a copyright for the project in question, but they have yet to respond.

The question remains, what happened to the eParking app developed by these students? If the URA responded positively to the outcome, why did the project come to a halt?

One of the students told us that they wanted to continue with the app, taking it beyond their final year project. Unfortunately, the student told us that TP had them waive ownership of the project right from the start.

“At the start of the final year project, the school asked us to sign a document saying that whatever we did, it belongs to the school.”

Beyond the copyright issue, there was also the news of the new electronic road pricing system which effectively put a stop to their dreams of expanding or following up on the project.

Around the same time the students introduced their eParking app, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) announced that it was developing the next generation of the ERP system which would employ the use of satellites to not only manage traffic congestion but also provide added services such as electronic payment for roadside parking.

In fact, in 2016 right about the same time ST published its article about the eParking app by TP students, LTA themselves announced that they had awarded a tender to NCS Pte Ltd and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Engine System Asia Pte Ltd to develop this new Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS)-based ERP system. According to the LTA website, they hope to have it operational by the year 2020.

Now, given LTA’s commitment to this new generation of ERP, it’s puzzling the amount of resources and time that invested in the development of GovTech’s Parking.sg app, especially considering it works pretty much the same way as the eParking app developed in 2016 which was shut down because it was thought that the new ERP would make the app redundant.

It’s disappointing because these students did came up with an innovative and well-thought out alternative to parking coupons which is in line with Singapore’s push for a tech-driven society. These are the talents we should be grooming and encouraging. After all, their app is really not any less effective than the one developed by Li Hongyi’s team. The only difference in why one took off where the other flopped is down to the fact that the students were not fortunate enough to have their fully-functioning app adopted and used.

The post While Li Hongyi is praised for Parking.sg app, five TP students were actually the first to introduce such an app as their final year project, eParking appeared first on The Online Citizen.