SudhirTV

I find profiles tough to write because of the relational dynamics. Connectedness facilitates understanding but also makes one prone to bias—why some writers consider proximity a liability. When we started Jom, we championed a collaborative, empathic approach to journalism, asserting that we shouldn’t shy away from people and issues close to our hearts, even as we strive for transparency and rigour. Harpreet was my sixth profile. Like KC Chew, he was a friend first. The others—Ang Swee Chai, Salty Ng, Suhaimi Zainul-Abidin, Prashant Somosundram—have become friends since. My relationship with each of them has become more complex, more beautiful, if not always easier. Each sacrificed their precious time—my longest interview a combined 17 hours—for the sake of my craft, for my inevitably imperfect attempt to capture their essence. There is a relationship with the reader too. We tested it this week, with our longest ever piece, almost 7.5K words. And not just with length, but approach, too. To what extent do I remain a messenger, an invisible transmitter of thoughts and feelings, and to what extent do I insert myself into the narrative? There is a three-way relationship in the balance. Among the criticisms people have shared (please send!) are that I could have taken a more critical look at why Harpreet wasn’t selected as a PAP candidate, and why the high court judge might have made observations that led to him appearing before a disciplinary tribunal (where he was ultimately vindicated). Some also didn’t like my description of “the encounter”. With my dear colleagues’ help, much thought was put into that decision—whether, where, and how long. Only thrice in my life have I met somebody where I felt the need to describe the encounter: Bourdain, Swee Chai, and Harpreet. I’ve not met any other politician like that (never met LKY; Tharman, maybe, but also kinda different). To omit it, we decided, would be to shortchange people who might never meet Harp. In any case, Jom will continue to adhere to our values, and publicly disagree with Harpreet and the Workers’ Party when we need to, for instance with the death penalty (abolish asap, please). We wanted to prioritise profiles when we started Jom, over two years ago now. We felt there was a need for them in Singapore, where the niceties of social life, the need to keep up appearances, often take precedence over our collective, never-ending quest for truth. Many are writing them for us: Jon Chan, Kristian-Marc, and soon Charmaine, my co-founder. Big thanks to Harp and all the others for revealing themselves; and to all of you who’ve taken the time to read, who’ve provided us the space to slowly hone our craft. https://www.jom.media/the-system-has-stopped-evolving-why-harpreet-singh-joined-the-opposition/

The morning after

Politics: Tripartite bros The National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) is an umbrella group that, instead of acting as a separate power centre as is common elsewhere, has long worked in lockstep with the pro-business agenda of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP). The PAP’s co-option of the labour movement—Lee Kuan Yew first harnessing its fire and then dousing it—has enabled the creation of a grossly unequal society that privileges capital owners and elite “talent” above all others. Yet in recent decades, as Singaporean workers have become more aware of socio-economic injustices, there has been growing scrutiny of this incestuous relationship. The parliamentary debate last week was one of the liveliest yet. Gerald Giam, member of Parliament (MP) with the Workers’ Party (WP), called for the independence of unions. Koh Poh Koon, senior minister of state for manpower, said that by attacking this “symbiotic” relationship, the WP is threatening Singapore’s unique model of tripartism. Recalling the WP’s own close relationships to unions during its founding (1957), Koh said Giam is “like a bit of a toxic ex-boyfriend”: approving of unions’ love with the WP but no other. Pritam Singh, WP chief, replied that today’s political situation is different from 1957. “I would be grateful if the senior minister of state can raise a single example where an NTUC secretary-general or a deputy secretary-general has spoken out against a 3G or 4G leader to defend the rights of workers.” Leong Mun Wai of the Progress Singapore Party echoed the WP’s call for greater independence. The debate hinged on two now familiar themes in Singaporean politics. First, the PAP insinuating that any shift from its sacred ground would put us on a slippery slope to democratic hell. Giam retorted that Koh has difficulty seeing between the “dichotomy of full symbiosis and full confrontation with unions. We are calling for a third way.” Second, the opposition championing ideals (independence), and the PAP countering with allusions to pragmatism and results. “So I hope that you do not judge NTUC or SNEF (Singapore National Employers Federation) by what you think the relationship between unions, employers and the government should be, but look at the record,” said Tan See Leng, manpower minister. “Look at the outcomes...that tripartism has delivered for Singapore through the decades.” He’s right. Singaporean workers should look at the outcomes. No minimum wage; some of the highest income and (likely) wealth inequalities in the developed world; and longer hours worked than in many developed countries. Majulah. —- Elsewhere in "Singapore This Week" at Jom Abhishek Mehrotra on the estimated S$335m bill for the Founders’ Memorial; Tsen-Waye Tay on “cancel culture” in Singapore; Faris Joraimi on the pope's visit, and the history of Catholicism in SEA; Corrie Tan on the winners of the Singapore Literature Prize; and more https://www.jom.media/singapore-this-week-130924/

This week, Cherry Tan has reviewed the memoir of one of Singapore’s most well-known diplomats. I remember, as a young boy, seeing Mahbubani’s name on the wall in St. Andrew’s School; and then later, in university, reading Can Asians Think?, a work that I believe inspired many in the “Global South”. Mahbubani has been all over the local and global news this past month, as publications have offered mixed reviews of his memoir. In late July, Sumiko Tan wrote a (what else) glowing review of both him and it, wrapped in one of her typical lunch interviews in The Straits Times. In true Singaporean fashion, it featured an extended discussion about how much money Mahbubani makes from selling books. Then in mid-August, Tunku Varadarajan, a British writer, wrote one of the most scathing reviews I’ve read in recent times, in the Wall Street Journal. Several Singaporeans forwarded me the same last few lines, worth repeating here just because they offer a rare insight into the relationships between our Singaporean elites. “He [Mahbubani] writes that some years later, at a private dinner, Lee Kuan Yew ‘sharply put me down when I asked him a question,’ and he attributes this hostility from the former prime minister to the fact that Lee only made the Foreign Policy greatest-thinkers list in 2008, three years after Mr. Mahbubani. Was the most powerful man in Singapore’s history envious of the highflying upstart? Who can really know? But for Mr. Mahbubani to think so tells us as much about his excess of self-regard as it does about his lack of self-awareness.” Varadarajan’s critique may have been a bit too acerbic for some, so I’m glad that on the same day, Viswa Sadasivan, former nominated member of Parliament, published one of his Inconvenient Questions videos, where he’s interviewing Mahbubani. They seem like old friends who enjoy their banter. Sadasivan pushes Mahbubani in several ways, at one point asking him: “Are you being smug?” What’s been missing, of course, is a young person’s view of Mahbubani and his memoirs. Which is why we’re all thrilled that Cherry has written this piece for Jom. Cherry, who worked briefly in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is a prolific “bookstagrammer”, has chosen to focus on issues hitherto unexplored. What are some major Singaporean incidents that Mahbubani chose to leave out? Is it fair for readers to judge memoirists on their curatorial choices about their own lives? And, the interrogative thread of her review, how might the very meaning of the word “undiplomatic”—what Mahbubani aspires to be in his memoir—have changed over time and across generations? https://www.jom.media/kishore-mahbubani-tries-to-be-undiplomatic/

Society: Blackface is funny, meh? Just a month ago, (what seems like) an ethnic Chinese student at Raffles Institution donned a delivery rider’s uniform along with the face mask of an African-American basketballer—to celebrate Racial Harmony Day. And last week, an ethnic Chinese car salesman at JDM Automobile Carros Centre made a blackface video on Facebook in which he seemingly mocks the accents and gestures of African people (images and clips of them were also stitched onto the video). After Wake Up Singapore criticised the video, The New Paper (TNP) also investigated and reported on it, and then the dealership deleted it. The dealer’s manager does not believe there’s any grounds for a report because the content is just to attract people. (Presumably commerce is a moral defence for racism in Singapore Inc.) “Our videos are more about the content,” she told TNP. “We’re not out to be racist, it’s not in the intention.” And with that, TNP, which also included in its report a video mocking an African person’s long name (which inspired the salesperson), gave the manager the last word. Ah, yes, “intention”. The Singapore school of racism is analogous to the Donald Trump “many black friends” one. In this world view, without any stated, verifiable intent by the alleged racist, hurt, harm, and impact are mere concoctions of a “woke” strawberry generation. In 2022, when Goh Chok Tong, then emeritus senior minister, wished Muslims “Selamat Hari Raya Puasa” by posting a photograph of his wife and himself alongside a brown-faced scarecrow, there was no racist intent. In 2021, when Seah Kian Peng, speaker of the house, celebrated Kamala Harris’s visit to Singapore by announcing that her name spelt backwards is Alamak, there was no racist intent. In 2019, when Mediacorp released a “brownface” advertisement, there was no racist intent. In 1992, when Choo Wee Khiang, PAP MP, told Parliament that when he drives through Little India, it feels like he’s in complete darkness “not because there was no light, but because there were too many Indians around there”, there was no racist intent. And in 1989, when Lee Kuan Yew said that Singapore’s economy would suffer if its Chinese majority was not maintained, there was also no racist intent. So, dear ethnic minorities, please get with the programme. Government immigration policies will ensure that this multi-racial paradise will always have a Chinese supermajority. And supposed racism without intent is usually either a joke or, in the case of the great Lee, the plain truth. —- Elsewhere in "Singapore This Week" at Jom Lawrence Wong wanting more female PAP candidates Abhishek Mehrotra on Narendra Modi's visit to SG Tsen-Waye Tay on the improved handling of sexual assault cases by our criminal justice system Faris Joraimi on the importance of Sim Chi Yin’s interdisciplinary performance, “One Day We’ll Understand” Corrie Tan on an art installation at Bukit Brown Cemetery; and horror stories from actors about life behind the sets; and more https://www.jom.media/singapore-this-week-060924/

This week's essay is by Kelvin Yap, a former sports journalist and editor. Many Singaporeans know about Hougang partly because of its politics. Low Thia Khiang of the Workers’ Party (WP) first won the seat in 1991, and it’s remained with the party since—the only constituency in Singapore to have spent more time under the opposition than the ruling People’s Action Party since independence. Who are these rebellious residents? Through Kelvin we learn that the close bonds between residents there trace their origins to the late 1800s-early 1900s kampungs of the north-east. It was a time when our island actually comprised two distinct worlds: a densely-populated urban centre surrounded by plantations and farmland, where many still lived off the land. “Yet, to understand these bonds we must consider not only the area’s socio-economic milieu, but its ethno-linguistic and religious moorings. The mushrooming of kampungs in the north-east was accompanied by the growth of the most distinct group that persists till today: the Teochew Catholics.” It’s a story that mixes Catholic missionaries with the mythology of a musician, Wak Sumang, who founded kampung Punggol; that stretches from Parliament to the pig farmers of the north-east; that contrasts the inadequacy of British colonial urban policies with the clinical efficiency of Lee Kuan Yew’s government; and exposes a tension between a rural and an urban Singapore that seems quaint. “HDB moved quickly. By 1964, just four years after the public housing program was launched, nearly one in five Singapore residents was living in a flat. By 1980, two in three were. Resettlement was a much-needed policy—conceived and executed brilliantly…However, the policy’s broad, nationwide thrust meant that the kampung folk—those living in far-flung areas away from the port and its economy—were forced into giving up the freedom of living off the land and being in nature. A nation-wide policy that was a godsend for the urban world was disastrous for many in the rural.” The dispossession of Singapore’s rural residents, including those who’d been living a more sea-based life, has been a motif of much recent academic and artistic inquiry, and Kelvin’s piece finds its place amongst them. It’s a bittersweet story, especially that last section, where I found myself questioning our urban life but also rejoicing in the persistence of communal bonds and the human spirit. It’s also a deeply personal story: Kelvin’s Teochew family hailed from kampung Punggol and operated the eponymous Yap Boatel until they were also resettled in 1994. I know, given his proximity to the place and its people, he struggled for two years over whether or not to even write it. We’re grateful that he’s shared it with all of us, and in finding the resolve, perhaps himself exhibited some of that Hougang Spirit. I hope you set aside some time to read it. https://www.jom.media/from-punggol-with-love-tracing-the-origins-of-the-hougang-spirit/

Politics: The WP loses its POFMA virginity The town council brouhaha that had ensnared the Workers’ Party (WP) for over a decade concluded in July, when the Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and the Sengkang Town Council dropped the lawsuits against WP leaders that they first brought seven years ago. (Prior to that, a number of court decisions had gone in the WP’s favour.) Following that, the WP’s Yee Jenn Jong, a former non-constituency member of Parliament in office (2011-15) when the saga first erupted, shared his observations on the case (here and here) “as a ringside observer”. This week, a whole month later, the government issued him correction directions under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). As has become common with POFMA, the direction order was focused on possible false interpretations, rather than literal falsehoods: nowhere, for instance, did Yee actually say that the Ministry of National Development’s actions in the saga were “politically motivated”. First, the Progress Singapore Party, then the Singapore Democratic Party, and finally, the Workers’ Party. The Singapore government has now issued POFMAs to politicians from every major opposition party. Not one from the ruling People’s Action Party has ever received one, despite what appeared, in Jom’s view, to be a blatant mischaracterisation of the WP’s housing proposals last year. The procedural problem is that the minister who first made the alleged misrepresentation in Parliament, Desmond Lee, is the same one who’d have to instruct the POFMA office to correct it once it had spread across the internet—a classic ownself-check-ownself problem inherent in POFMA’s design. While the risk of online falsehoods globally is real, POFMA is flawed. At the very least, judges, not politicians, should be the arbiters. Worse, if the only politicians who receive them are from the opposition, there is a risk that more and more Singaporeans will start to dismiss it as a politicised tool. This threatens the perception of independence of our government institutions. Moreover, when faced with falsehoods, such as health or vaccine-related ones, which are far more damaging to society, will Singaporeans have full confidence in the POFMA office? —- Elsewhere in "Singapore This Week" at Jom Abhishek Mehrotra on the parallels between the Singapore model and the Rwanda model Tsen-Waye Tay on the worries SMEs have about extended maternity and paternity leave Faris Joraimi on Benjamin Seet, collector of paper-based military artefacts Corrie Tan on two plays that look at the intersection of class, race, and politics and more Amendment: an earlier version said the Singapore Democratic Party received a POFMA notice before the Progress Singapore Party. It’s the other way round. https://www.jom.media/singapore-this-week-300824/

How is your brain conditioned by the socio-political environment in which you’re raised? Do its neural networks adapt and reprogramme themselves when you move, say, from an authoritarian state like China to a democracy like Ireland? These are some of the fascinating questions that Linette Lim, a PhD candidate at University College Dublin and first-time Jom author, explores in “My authoritarian brain”. Linette, a former CNA journalist, was born and raised in Singapore. After 31 years of living here, she moved with the firm to China in 2018, where she later experienced the harshness of its “zero-Covid” policies. In 2022, she moved to Dublin, where her research involves using “mixed methods, including experiments and computational text analysis, to study information manipulation in authoritarian regimes.” This work takes her also to Taiwan, which is where she picked up a book, 台語解放記事 (Chronicle of the Emancipation of the Taiwanese Language). Its subtitle: “A guide for Taiwanese people with ‘Chinese-language brains’”. The book prompted her to e-mail Jom in January with a pitch. Building off this rich tapestry of experiences, Linette invites each of us to question our instinctive modes of thinking and acting. “When we were about to leave, I spotted a police van parked at the end of the street. ‘Do you think the police is here because of a noise complaint?’ I asked someone. They looked incredulous. ‘No, dear. The Garda is here to help block the road, and it’s good fun for the kids. Go see.’...Later, I kept asking myself why I instinctively linked police presence in the neighbourhood with wrongdoing.” Linette takes us through her own journey, as she becomes more aware of her own social conditioning, and attempts to rewire her “authoritarian brain”, opening herself up to more of life’s possibilities in the process. Hers is an urgent message for each of us, delivered calmly, intelligently, and humbly. Read it, marvel at your own brain’s neuroplasticity, and think about your own path to freedom. https://www.jom.media/my-authoritarian-brain/

Politics: All things to all people In his inaugural National Day Rally (NDR), Lawrence Wong, prime minister, channelled the spirit of Lee Kuan Yew, by promising a government that will be prudent and bold. An oxymoron? Since assuming power in May, his messaging has combined conservative and progressive elements, seeking to uphold traditions and policies of the past while also, seemingly, being open to slaying sacred cows. Perhaps this has always been the way of the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP): from the elder Lee’s early mixing of free-market principles with the more socialistic provision of education, healthcare, and housing, to Lee Hsien Loong’s reversal of the decades-old antipathy to public gambling in the early 2000s. Fans might characterise this ideological approach as middle-of-the-road pragmatism. The challenge for Wong is that he assumes power in an environment wholly different from his predecessors: more complex policy challenges locally and internationally; a (relatively) fractured ruling party facing an opposition more cohesive than it’s been since the 1960s; and a more demanding electorate seemingly receptive to political plurality. What was once “pragmatic” could today appear more confused and contradictory. Consider the response to the recent NDR initiatives. The Straits Times (ST) parroted Wong, calling it a “major reset of policies”. CNA interviewed one set of analysts who called them “radical”. The South China Morning Post interviewed another who said they are more “incremental”. Perhaps this simply reflects the different vantage points of an increasingly diverse electorate. (And the relative access, and biases, of the media outlets.) Said Chris Kuan, a former banker and regular social media commentator: “Yet [the fact that] the usual political commentators and analysts said that Larry the Man’s policy shifts are ‘radical’ goes to show how much these highly educated people had [sic] been gaslighted by years of government party political narratives that they can’t even tell what is really radical and what is just moving with the times in mincing steps.” Wong will hope that his “radicalism” attracts potential opposition voters while his “incrementalism” pleases the PAP’s traditional base. But there is a risk that he comes across as a wishy-washy politician who’s trying to please everybody. Recall that Wong loves to emphasise his “ordinary family” roots and the fact that he understands the struggles of Singaporeans. “I may be prime minister,” he said at the NDR. “But I’m also a fellow citizen and friend, sharing the same experiences and concerns as all of you.” Well, at least those of you, like him, earning over S$180,000 a month. —- Elsewhere in "Singapore This Week" at Jom Is the WP PAP-lite or is the PAP WP-lite? Abhishek Mehrotra on a concerted effort on TikTok against overconsumption Tsen-Waye Tay on how schools are limiting students’ phone usage Faris Joraimi on Singapore’s new Islamic Studies college Corrie Tan on an uptick in arts patronage, and the late Christy Smith, local jazz master and more https://www.jom.media/singapore-this-week-230824/

Help us sell Jom!!! 🙂 We're looking for a new head of product and revenue. It's a part-time, 5-7 hour/week role, and compensation will include cash, equity, commissions, and performance-linked incentives. You'll be reporting directly to me. You will be joining a media firm with a clearly defined brand and value proposition and, we believe, lots of room for growth. Though our primary revenue stream is subscriptions, we want to develop alternative ones, including in Advertising, Education, and Events. We have recently signed ad and coaching contracts with major organisations in Singapore. Must be based in SG and have work authorisation here; though the work itself is mostly remote. Do share with anybody you think may be interested. Thanks! https://www.jom.media/join-us-as-head-of-product-and-revenue/