by Ganga Sudhan
Public figures wield immense power—not only through their institutional authority but also through their ability to shape public perception, control narratives, and influence discourse. This power carries a significant burden—the responsibility to act with fairness, restraint, and objectivity, even in the face of hostility.
The recent incident at Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam’s Meet-the-People Session (MPS), involving two women who sought to discuss the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), illustrates how power can be exercised not only through actions but also through framing and assumptions.
Even if we accept that these two women behaved poorly—interrupting, shouting “coward”, and making offensive gestures—the Minister’s response raises critical concerns.
His immediate assumption of bad faith and the way he framed their intent in his public statement suggest an unwarranted attribution of malice, rather than a neutral evaluation of their conduct.
Power Demands Objectivity, Not Assumption
Ministers are not ordinary citizens. Their words carry disproportionate weight, shaping public narratives in ways that those without institutional power cannot match.
While citizens are responsible for their actions, a government minister holds a duty to act with greater restraint, fairness, and neutrality, precisely because his position grants him the ability to frame the interaction to his advantage.
From the outset, Minister Shanmugam framed the encounter as an orchestrated disruption, linking the women to a wider group of activists allegedly targeting MPS sessions for political confrontation.
This assumption of motive—rather than addressing specific behaviours – set the tone for how the incident would be perceived publicly. Yet motive is not observable; only actions are.
It would have been entirely reasonable for the Minister to condemn the disruptive behaviour of shouting, inappropriate gestures, or disrespectful conduct.
However, rather than addressing their actions alone, he cast the two women as part of a coordinated effort to provoke MPs and manipulate narratives, a claim for which he provided no clear evidence.
In doing so, he shifted the focus from their behaviour to their supposed intent, making it impossible for them to defend themselves fairly.
Disruption vs. Engagement – Who Defines the Line?
Public discourse in Singapore has long grappled with where the line between civic engagement and disruption lies.
If these two women had calmly raised their concerns about POFMA without raising their voices, would they still have been framed as disruptors?
The assumption that their presence was meant to create a scene suggests that certain voices are already pre-judged as illegitimate before they even speak.
Would the Minister have assumed malicious intent if two polite businessmen had raised concerns about corporate regulations? Or if two elderly citizens had asked about CPF policies?
The reaction suggests that who asks the question is as important as the question itself, reinforcing a troubling dynamic in which certain citizens are more likely to be dismissed, labelled, or undermined in their engagement with political leaders.
Controlling the Frame – The Power of Narrative
Another key imbalance in this situation is who gets to tell the story first. The Minister’s Facebook post went out immediately, defining the terms of public discussion before the women could publicly respond.
His volunteers filmed the interaction, but the women were not allowed to record the discussion themselves—perhaps yet another example of how information control serves institutional power.
Had the Minister simply addressed the behaviour itself—without assuming intention, without linking them to a broader activist movement, and without editorialising the interaction—the outcome could have been markedly different.
Instead, by attributing their conduct to a deliberate attempt to provoke and spread misinformation, he cast them in a political light that ensured their voices would be viewed with scepticism, even before they had a chance to respond.
This is not about defending rude behaviour, nor excusing inappropriate conduct. It is about ensuring that political leaders apply the same standards of fairness and neutrality to all citizens, regardless of their perceived political alignment.
The Double Standard of Public Conduct
Ministers, as public servants, are expected to engage with all Singaporeans, not just those who are deferential. The burden of maintaining civility and constructive discourse must always rest more on those with institutional power, because they set the tone for engagement.
A citizen who lashes out emotionally does not carry the same responsibility as a minister who controls the state apparatus and media reach.
It is expected that ordinary citizens might sometimes react emotionally, given the stakes involved in their concerns.
A Minister, however, must demonstrate the discipline of leadership—choosing to focus on facts, behaviours, and resolutions, rather than assigning motives and escalating tensions.
In this incident, the decision to label them, assume their intent, and define them as part of a broader “problem group” of disruptors ensured that the core issue they came to discuss—POFMA—was sidelined.
Missed Opportunity for True Leadership
Leadership is not about engaging only with those who are polite, respectful, or compliant. It is about engaging with all citizens, even those who may be frustrated, passionate, or confrontational.
The question is not whether these women could have conducted themselves better—they certainly could have, of course.
The real question is, “Should the Minister have conducted himself better?”—and the answer is yes.
Power requires fairness. Leadership requires restraint. And democracy requires that we judge people by their actions—not the intentions we assume they have.
The post The burden of power: Why ministers must respond with restraint, not assumptions appeared first on The Online Citizen.
