CORRECTION NOTICE: This article contains false statements of fact. For the correct facts, click here: https://www.gov.sg/article/factually200723-a.
Called the ‘Friday news dump’, it is well known amongst PR professionals that the best time to release damaging information is late on a Friday evening. Fewer journalists are available over the weekend, and ordinary people are preoccupied with their weekend plans, resulting in muted coverage and lesser scrutiny.
It is a happy coincidence then, that embarrassing information concerning recent political controversies have come out on Friday evenings. First was the Singapore Land Authority’s (SLA) press release confirming that two state owned colonial bungalows were indeed rented to cabinet ministers which came out on 12 May, a Friday evening. And then last Friday evening (14 Jul), news broke that Transport Minister S Iswaran and Malaysian businessman Ong Beng Seng had been arrested by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) in connection with an active investigation.
What is curious about news of these arrests is that while they were revealed on Friday, the two men were actually arrested some 3 days earlier on Tuesday (11 Jul). In the intervening period several statements were made by various parties that are noteworthy as much for what they said as what they left out.
With investigations still ongoing, it would be unwise to speculate as to the nature of the investigation or the guilt or innocence of the parties involved. However, what can be discussed is how the affair has been handled from a communications perspective, particularly if it has lived up to the commitment made by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (widely tipped to be the next Prime Minister) to be ‘upfront and transparent’ about this whole affair.
TIMELINE
OUR OWN CHECK AND BALANCE
It does not reflect well on the political leadership that a matter as serious as the arrest of a cabinet minister was only revealed several days after the fact, and even then only in response to media queries. Equally damning is the fact that the information was relayed by civil servants rather than the political leadership itself. We can safely assume that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister knew about the arrest. Why did they not mention it in their statements? Why did they leave it to CPIB?
For politicians who have made so much hay of their ability to ‘check themselves’, it is a stark abdication of responsibility to now outsource this important matter to civil servants. As the individual ultimately responsible for cabinet it should have fallen to the Prime Minister or at the very least the Deputy Prime Minister to let the public know about such a major development, rather than some faceless civil servant.
It does not seem to be the case that the political leadership had to defer to CPIB. After all, PMO had gone beyond their initial statement and provided further details on 13 July, including that Mr Iswaran would remain in Singapore and not have access to government buildings. We now know that the former is a condition of his bail. It would be very strange if the PMO could mention the travel restrictions imposed on him but not the reason for them.
Doing what is right and not what is popular is not just a convenient slogan to be trotted out at election time. It means actually doing what needs to be done even if it may be politically embarrassing. Not hiding behind officials and subordinates, or simply hoping that no one will ask any questions.
MEDIA QUERIES
Indeed, the arrest was only revealed by CPIB in response to media queries following HPL’s filing which mentioned Mr Ong’s arrest. Why was this information left out of initial statements, which referred to Mr Iswaran as merely assisting with investigations? Perhaps more importantly, if HPL had not released the information, and there had not been any media queries, would they have just kept silent about it?
No reasonable person would describe this approach as ‘upfront and transparent’. There needs to be a compelling explanation for why the information was omitted, and the media must do its part in getting the public that answer.
In fact, although it is a low bar, some credit should be given to local media outlets for the fact that they were willing to ask questions of PMO and CPIB, instead of merely regurgitating press statements as usual. This incident only emphasizes the need for an independent mainstream press that is not only able to push the government for more information, but criticise them from time to time as well.
TRANSPARENCY
The word transparency has been bandied around a lot by politicians lately. Not least by DPM Wong, who pledged that the government would be ‘upfront and transparent’ concerning this investigation. Of course, it is incredibly ironic that he did so while at the same time omitting important information, specifically that two arrests had already been made in connection with the case.
But what does transparency actually mean? It is not cherry picking what information is to be released and when, according to what is politically expedient. Nor is it only releasing relevant information when forced to do so by outside forces.
For example, per the Ministerial Code of Conduct, Ministers must disclose their financial interests, but this is done in private to the President through the Prime Minister. It was only after allegations were made by fringe opposition figures that the rental of state properties by cabinet ministers was finally revealed to the public in the recent Ridout Road controversy. Or consider the uphill battle to livestream Parliament, which the government had argued for years was unnecessary and even harmful, but has now been essential in revealing the problematic attitudes of lawmakers. And who can forget the struggle President Ong Teng Cheong faced in getting the government to reveal the full extent of the reserves that he was constitutionally responsible for protecting. When politicians talk about ‘transparency’, this is what they are really referring to.
This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. To borrow a phrase from Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong, we must not be taken in by the ‘seductive lie’ of selective transparency. Legal mechanisms, such as a freedom of information act, which enshrines the public’s right to know and the government’s duty to tell, are the means by which real transparency is achieved. Not relying on the goodwill of politicians to decide what we should know and when.
In absence of such mechanisms, we can only wait and see what will be released next Friday evening.
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE
Political Sophistry 
Leave a comment