On 23 March 2025, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong publicly addressed the circulation of a video from his recent Marine Parade walkabout, claiming it had been taken “out of context” and used to “push an agenda” with a “political objective”.
The video, initially posted to Facebook, showed Tong greeting patrons at a coffee shop in Marine Terrace. At one point, an elderly man at a table made a hand gesture, which some online interpreted negatively.
The clip was subsequently shared on socio-political platforms such as Wake Up Singapore and The Online Citizen.
Tong criticised these shares as misrepresenting the situation. He maintained that the residents had been generally warm and welcoming.
People’s Action Party (PAP) volunteer Delane Lim echoed this, stating Tong was aware that a particular table had seemed “unfriendly” but chose to engage them regardless.
Lim also clarified that he was merely prompting Tong to greet another table, and that his serious expression may have been misread.
The original video poster later clarified that the atmosphere had been cordial and that the hand gesture was misunderstood, not obscene.
Despite this, Tong’s framing of the incident as a targeted political act was unambiguous.
This prompted reflection from us — not as journalists, but as citizens observing how public narratives are shaped.
“Tong’s remarks raise an important question: if sharing a clip with insufficient context can be labelled as ‘pushing a political agenda,’ then what about the PAP’s own use of heavily edited footage?”
Specifically, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam’s Facebook post from earlier this month comes to mind.
On 12 March 2025, Shanmugam released a seven-minute video of a heated encounter with two activists at a Meet-the-People Session (MPS).
The full interaction reportedly lasted over 90 minutes, and the activists have since described the engagement as intimidating, framed to undermine rather than understand.
According to the activists, they clearly communicated their purpose—discussing the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA)—and agreed to wait until all residents were served.
They reported being surrounded by PAP volunteers and security, filmed without consent, and met with what they described as a one-sided interrogation.
The activists accused the minister of dominating the conversation, dismissing their concerns, and omitting major parts of the discussion in the published clip.
They have publicly challenged the PAP and Shanmugam to release the full footage, asserting that the seven-minute highlight reel misrepresents the event and serves to discredit them.
This brings us to the critical point. Tong condemned the use of a 30-second video clip as a political act, because it allegedly took him “out of context”.
Yet the PAP appears to see no issue with using a highly selective video to shape public opinion against citizens who engage critically with government policy.
Why is Tong’s case framed as manipulation, even though the video was shared as it was shot, without additional commentary — while Shanmugam’s selectively edited clip, crafted for maximum impact, is framed as accountability and graciousness rather than a post meant to ‘push an agenda’ with a ‘political objective’?
The answer to that question matters, not because of political allegiance, but because consistency is the foundation of trust.
If edited footage can be political when wielded by critics, it must also be political when deployed by those in power—especially when they control the platform, the narrative, and the framing.
This inconsistency risks eroding public confidence. It suggests a rulebook that shifts depending on who is holding the camera, who is speaking, and whether their views align with official positions.
Public engagement should not be transactional. Whether it is a minister visiting a coffee shop or two citizens raising legal concerns at an MPS, the same standards of fairness and context must apply.
The use of selective framing—especially by those with influence—deserves the same scrutiny ministers apply to their critics. Otherwise, claims of transparency and accountability become hollow.
In this light, Edwin Tong’s comments seem to overlook an uncomfortable parallel.
In accusing others of using video to pursue political ends, he may have inadvertently highlighted what others are already questioning: that the PAP itself strategically uses video and messaging to shape public sentiment, especially when under challenge.
Tong should be reminded: when you point a finger, four fingers are pointing back.
The post Edwin Tong decries political agendas, but what about Shanmugam’s edited video? appeared first on The Online Citizen.
