Readers question Mothership’s repeated feature of ex-NMP Calvin Cheng

Mothership readers have expressed confusion over the online news outlet’s consistent choice to invite Mr Calvin Cheng, a former Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), to their podcast and interviews despite his controversial remarks, which many Singaporeans find out of touch.

Some readers have suggested that Mothership could provide more value by inviting other critics or interviewing everyday Singaporeans to better capture diverse perspectives on current issues.

This is not Mr Cheng’s first appearance on Mothership’s podcast; he was featured on the ‘Help Desk’ podcast for the second time, just two weeks after his initial interview.

In the latest podcast which published on Wednesday (21 August) on YouTube and Facebook, the host, referring Mr Cheng as a “former NMP now lifestyle sexy influencer”, sought his views on the series of announcements made by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong during his first National Day Rally (NDR) speech on 18 August.

Mr Cheng praised PM Wong for demonstrating effective communication skills, drawing comparisons to past leaders such as founding father Lee Kuan Yew.

He noted Wong’s emphasis on refreshing Singapore’s social compact, which he interpreted as a move towards more left-wing policies, including more compassionate and inclusive governance.

Cheng emphasized that the introduction of the Job Seekers Allowance is a significant shift in Singapore’s policy landscape, marking a break from past resistance to welfarism.

Interestingly, Mr Cheng, also shared the podcast on his personal Facebook page, calling his fans to “say nice things” about him on Mothership’s page.

Readers: Cheng’s frequent appearances are unnecessary

Comments on Mothership’s Facebook post and YouTube have seen some readers questioning the platform’s decision to repeatedly invite Mr Cheng for interviews.

They argue that his frequent appearances are unnecessary and that he is receiving undue publicity. Some argued that Mothership could feature more relevant commentators to address Singapore’s socio-economic issues.

A comment suggested that instead of interviewing Cheng, Mothership should focus on more relatable and potentially insightful perspectives, such as interviewing ordinary Singaporeans in HDB blocks, to better understand their pressing concerns about their livelihoods.

On Mr Cheng’s skepticism about retrenchment benefits, a reader echoed the same sentiment, citing concerns that this move goes against Singapore’s historical emphasis on self-reliance and warnings from the nation’s founding leaders about the dangers of a welfare state.

However, this comment was countered by others who acknowledged that Singapore is undergoing a significant economic transition and emphasized the importance of adapting to new economic realities.

“We are actually a little behind already. Have to start somewhere or else we are gonna fall behind big time, and this jobseeker welfare benefit serves only as a temporal relief because you will see jobs being axed in days to come. ”

The netizen suggested for broader strategy to prepare Singaporeans for the evolving job market rather than as a long-term solution.

A netizen expressed strong disagreement with Calvin Cheng’s anti-welfare stance, arguing that welfare benefits, such as jobseeker allowances, are crucial for supporting individuals who are jobless and struggling to adjust after being retrenched.

Cheng’s recent controversial remarks draw criticism from online community

Despite being a vocal critic of Singapore’s socio-political issues, Cheng’s comments often spark public outcry, as they are sometimes perceived as out of touch with ordinary Singaporeans.

In January 2024, commenting on the Land Transport Authority’s (LTA) decision to reinstate the old system for public transport payment cards, Cheng suggested that if the LTA proceeded with its initial plan of eliminating EZ-Link cards and Nets FlashPay cards, it could save S$40 million.

He proposed that those advocating for the old system should bear the cost of its continuation.

His remarks were met with criticism from netizens, who argued that the importance of transparency regarding the S$40 million expenditure on maintaining the existing system should be acknowledged.

They questioned the need for such spending when the current system is functioning well and advised Cheng against shifting the responsibility to the general public.

In July 2024, Cheng faced criticism for sarcastically suggesting that during a food crisis, the wealthy would eat meat while others would be left with insects, following the Singapore Food Agency’s (SFA) approval of 16 species of insects for consumption in Singapore.

Regarding the potential sale of NTUC Income to the German insurer Allianz, Cheng stated in a 26 July Mothership interview that nothing should be considered a “sacred cow” if it no longer serves its purpose effectively.

His view was challenged by the online community, with some arguing that his logic of selling NTUC Income because it does not offer the cheapest insurance ignores the real issue: why a cooperative originally funded by the public is not fulfilling its original mission.

In a 6 August Facebook post, Cheng criticized Professor Tommy Koh, Ambassador-At-Large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for opposing the NTUC Income sale, labeling Koh’s opinion as “misleading Singaporeans with his populist and incorrect postings.”

Cheng argued that NTUC Income cannot be considered the “people’s insurer” as suggested by Prof Koh, who is also the Chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

In an earlier ‘Help Desk’ podcast with Mothership, Mr Cheng faced criticism from netizens for downplaying the issue of gerrymandering in Singapore.

While Cheng argued that Singapore’s ethnic integration policy and the lack of racial or socioeconomic enclaves make gerrymandering challenging, some netizens questioned whether altering the boundaries of closely contested constituencies and incorporating them into stronghold GRCs could still effectively weaken opposition votes.