Opinion
It’s no secret that Singaporeans have been raised to respect authority and follow the rules without question. While this may seem to promote harmony, it has also created a growing fear of speaking out—especially in a climate shaped by laws like the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA). What was originally intended to combat misinformation is now viewed by many as a tool for silencing dissent, fostering an environment where challenging authority feels risky, and defiance is swiftly punished.
The Harm of Blind Obedience
Teaching citizens, especially children, to obey authority without question undermines the critical thinking that drives progress and innovation. A society that stifles inquiry raises followers, not thinkers. Authoritarianism thrives in such environments, and in Singapore, fear of reprisal or a POFMA order makes the price of challenging authority too steep for many to risk. This isn't just about governance; it’s about the long-term health of society, which depends on its members feeling empowered to ask hard questions
.
Indoctrination vs. Education
Encouraging the next generation to ask "why" is not about promoting rebellion; it's about preparing them for meaningful leadership. In Singapore’s tightly controlled environment, however, many may grow up believing their voice doesn't matter—or worse, that using it will lead to personal ruin. When questioning authority is seen as a futile or dangerous exercise, a culture of complacency takes hold.
POFMA and the Chilling Effect on Free Speech
While POFMA was meant to protect the public from misinformation, its broad application has had the consequence of stifling legitimate dissent. When silence becomes the safest option, open discussion falters. Singapore may boast social order, but at what cost? The fear of questioning authority—instilled through laws like POFMA—leads to a society where critical thought is seen as a threat rather than a necessity.
This climate of fear doesn’t come from respect; it stems from intimidation. When critical thinking is sacrificed for blind obedience, society becomes stagnant, incapable of evolving. In a system where questioning authority is discouraged, Singapore risks slipping into a deeper instability—not from disorder, but from the stagnation of a society trained to remain silent.
Those indoctrinated into accepting the ruling party's narrative may automatically believe that anyone hit with a POFMA order must be guilty of spreading falsehoods, leading to a mindset of "don't trust those served with a POFMA." However, a critical thinker would question why POFMA seems to disproportionately target those who challenge the ruling party. Meanwhile, the views of a Polish brand strategist gain credibility when shared by prominent figures like the former Prime Minister’s wife and seem to escape any scrutiny. A critical thinker would also question why this 'supposed' foreign brand strategist appears to imply that he’d be homeless without a PAP-led Singapore? Not only does he not live in Singapore, but if the country would face collapse without the PAP in charge, what does that say about the nation's stability?
Conflicts of Interest: The Core of Public Distrust
Thankfully, I was raised to challenge authority when necessary. While I don’t believe that every conflict of interest equals corruption, history shows that corruption almost always involves conflicts. That's why I didn't hesitate to write to Singapore’s Attorney General to ask why my complaint had been “under review” by the police for nearly 18 months without any sign of investigation, after being kicked to them by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau?
My complaint involves a client of the law firm the Attorney General had previously led—a client represented by the Second Minister of Law, who had been the Attorney General’s colleague at the law firm. Although the Attorney General recused himself due to this glaring conflict of interest, he passed the case to the Deputy Attorney General. This raised immediate ethical red flags. How can someone who recuses themselves from a case still choose who handles it? Doesn’t that perpetuate the same conflict of interest, especially when the Deputy Attorney General is a subordinate, and a former PAP MP/colleague of the Second Minister of Law? It doesn’t take much to see how public trust in the system’s impartiality would erode in such circumstances.
The Speed of Silence
After 18 months of apparent inaction from the Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police (CAD), it took just seven days after I emailed the Attorney General for the CAD to close the case, citing "insufficient evidence." The allegations were far from trivial—serious accusations, some echoed by other parties—yet the abrupt closure, coupled with the surrounding conflicts of interest, only heightened my suspicion that an institutional cover-up could have occurred. But even if that were true, who would have dared to speak up, knowing the potential consequences?
A System at Risk
In a nation where authority is held in such high regard, transparency isn’t just a virtue—it’s a lifeline. Singapore’s future doesn’t lie in silencing uncomfortable truths or sweeping conflicts under the rug. It lies in confronting these issues head-on, ensuring that no one—no matter how connected—is above scrutiny. Without accountability, trust disintegrates, and once that trust is gone, so too is the integrity of the system. What remains is a hollow shell, where power is preserved at the expense of justice.
The Cost of Silence
Singapore has built its reputation on efficiency, order, and economic success, but these achievements come at a price when critical voices are stifled. A system that prioritizes the preservation of power over transparency risks creating a nation where obedience trumps justice. When authority goes unchecked and conflicts of interest are ignored, the system itself becomes fragile—propped up by fear and deference, rather than integrity and fairness.
True strength lies in a society willing to question itself, to confront uncomfortable truths, and to hold even the most powerful accountable. If Singapore wishes to remain strong and resilient, it must recognize that silence is not harmony, and obedience is not progress. Only by fostering a culture of openness, where every citizen feels empowered to speak without fear of reprisal, can the nation truly safeguard its future.
I am not an enemy of the state. Like others, I simply spoke up when I saw conflicts that shouldn’t be ignored.
Comments