by Khan Osman Sulaiman
There are many who strongly disapprove of the conduct of the two women who confronted Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam—and rightly so.
I believe rudeness achieves nothing—in fact, it often provokes an adverse reaction. If the two women consider themselves activists, this incident should serve as their first lesson in political discourse: being confrontational is one thing, but antagonism can easily backfire.
However, Minister Shanmugam has retaliated in a manner he is well known for—with vindictiveness.
A vindictive person does not simply move on from a confrontation; they seek retribution. In this case, rather than letting the incident pass, he chose to publicly release a video of the exchange on social media—fully aware of the consequences it would have for the women involved.
If we are questioning the intent behind the women’s actions, then it is equally important to ask: what was Shanmugam’s objective in publishing the video? Was it to raise awareness? To educate the public on proper conduct? Or was it simply an exercise in public shaming?
This was not an impulsive act—it was a calculated move by the Minister to amplify the incident for maximum public scrutiny.
I can understand why the women reacted with frustration—most people would feel violated upon realising they were being filmed without their consent.
In the video, Shanmugam briefly mentioned that the women needed to inform him before recording. But when they themselves were being filmed, were they granted the same courtesy? Unlikely. This raises serious questions of fairness and double standards.
The escalation of events was not solely the fault of the women—both parties contributed to the intensity of the exchange.
For the activists, this should be a learning moment. Be confrontational, by all means, but without resorting to rudeness or vulgarity—even when faced with intimidation. A rowdy or disruptive approach weakens an argument rather than strengthening it.
They must also come better prepared when engaging with ministers. These are individuals who operate from a position of authority and entitlement—they expect deference, and refusing to acknowledge that reality can be politically costly. Play the game smartly before pulling the trigger.
Finally, setting aside the tone and tactics, I commend them for taking the issue head-on. POFMA is a political weapon—a tool wielded by the government to suppress dissent. The fact that a single minister has the sole discretion to issue correction orders should deeply concern anyone who values free speech and democratic principles.
This is not what democracy should look like.
This was first published on Khan Osman Sulaiman’s Facebook page
The post Shanmugam’s response to activists: A show of power or public shaming? appeared first on The Online Citizen.
