Fathership

Meet Annamalai Kokila Parvathi - the activist who wants to establish 'drug consumption areas' in Singapore

Despite Kokila’s extensive efforts—ranging from protests to leveraging the influence of prominent figures and international media outlets—none of the causes she champions have seen significant impact or tangible outcomes.

|5 min read
Meet Annamalai Kokila Parvathi - the activist who wants to establish 'drug consumption areas' in Singapore

Singapore's activism circle typically includes a familiar group of individuals. One notable figure making waves is Annamalai Kokila Parvathi.

Recently, the 35-year-old was charged in court on Thursday, June 27, for organising a procession without a permit around the Istana's perimeter, a prohibited area, on February 2.

Kokila, a civil activist, is said to have abetted the alleged offence by engaging Mossammad, Siti Amirah, Alysha Mohamed Rahmat Shah, Anystasha Mohamed Rahmat Shah, and other unknown persons in the commission of the act.

Who is Annamalai Kokila Parvathi?

According to her blog, Kokila is an "independent writer, researcher, facilitator, and community organiser based in Singapore."

She used to work as a Campaigns Manager with the feminist-rights group AWARE and later as one of the key operators for the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an anti-death penalty activist collective.

Her educational background includes tutelage at the National University of Singapore and Chinmaya International Residential School in Tamil Nadu, India.

Kokila Calls CNB x Mosques Drug Campaign 'Racist and Weaponising Shame'

Last Thursday, on the podcast "boldplaysg," Kokila called the "Dadah Itu Haram" (Drugs are non-halal) campaign—a collaboration between the Central Narcotics Bureau and 71 mosques in Singapore—'racist and weaponising religious shame,' where she criticised how the mosques has turned into places where people judge and police each other instead of promoting healing and acceptance.

Kokila advocates for 'Drug Consumption Areas' in Singapore

In the same podcast, she expressed her desire to legalise drugs in Singapore, proposing designated 'consumption areas' with harm-reduction services. She suggested that community and healthcare workers oversee these spaces.

Kokila cited Spain's 'effective' drug laws as a model for legalisation and regulation. However, her argument focused on prohibition instead of the ease of access to such drugs which is the main crux of the regulation.

According to a 2019/2020 report from Spain's Ministry of Health, an estimated 237,000 people aged 15-64 started using cannabis, with the highest uptake among males under 25. Additionally, 61,000 people used cocaine for the first time, with the highest initiation rates among males under 25.

In 2018, 222,200 students aged 14-18 in Spain started using cannabis.

Kokila also did not address how the problem affects not only the drug abusers but also those around them. She overlooked the point that drugs can ruin the lives of the users and those in their vicinity, potentially leading to broader social problems in Singapore.

Kokila's previous run-ins with the law

According to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Kokila had previously been issued a stern warning on December 5, 2017, and a 24-month conditional warning on November 30, 2021, for her involvement in other public assemblies without a permit.

In 2021, Kokila, along with a group of activists, held placards in front of the Ministry of Education (MOE) building. They staged a "peaceful demonstration" and requested Education Minister Lawrence Wong to end what they perceived as discrimination against LGBTQ+ students at MOE schools.

In 2017, she participated in a 'silent protest' on an MRT train to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Operation Spectrum, the code name for a security operation against a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the government through violent means in 1987.

Kokila's efforts to mobilise students to engage in civil disobedience

The abrupt decision to terminate the Yale-NUS partnership in 2021 presented an opportunity for Kokila to strengthen the student movement and protect their rights within educational institutions. She called for immediate student action to ensure they are never again "assaulted" by decisions that deprive them of important aspects of their student life.

Kokila also urged students to form strong, independent unions to fight for the democratisation and socialisation of education, resisting the injustices of authoritarian, capitalist bureaucrats. This approach mirrors Joshua Wong's actions in Hong Kong, where he similarly rallied students for democratic reforms and social justice.

Kokila wants to rally citizens to cause chaos and disruption

In her blog, Kokila Annamalai outlined strategies for civil disobedience against the death penalty.

She urged various segments of society in Singapore to unite in protest:

She emphasised resilience, urging protests to extend beyond Hong Lim Park and social media, advocating for collective action to achieve abolition.

Kokila encourages foreign influence in Singapore’s domestic affairs

Kokila Annamalai, along with other activists, actively encourages foreign pressure on Singapore's death penalty laws.

Richard Branson, a well-known businessman and human rights advocate, amplified Kokila’s story about Tangaraju Suppiah by sharing it on his Virgin Group website. Tangaraju was sentenced to death for abetting the trafficking of over 1kg of cannabis. Branson’s involvement brought significant international attention to the case, underscoring the severity of the punishment for drug-related offences in Singapore.

Additionally, Kokila reached out to Vice World News, criticising the harshness of sentencing drug traffickers to death. Vice subsequently published her statements, where she emphasised the minimal evidence required for a death sentence and the high risk of wrongful convictions.

Maximum effort, minimal impact

Kokila’s extensive efforts—range from protests to leveraging the influence of prominent figures and international media outlets— and it seems that her latest effort is focused on criticising the efforts of mosques and Muslims for supporting Singapore's strong anti-drug policy.

None of the causes she champions have seen significant impact or tangible outcomes other than giving activism and activist groups a bad name.

Read next article ⬇️

Fear-mongering over US tariffs necessary because S'poreans are complacent

Fear-mongering over U.S. tariffs is a PAP scare tactic, says PPP’s Goh Meng Seng. But it’s also necessary given Singaporeans’ complacency in thinking years of economic prosperity would not burst the island's utopian bubble.

|4 min read
Fear-mongering over US tariffs necessary because S'poreans are complacent

Singapore’s economy is heavily reliant on global trade, with exports accounting for a significant portion of its GDP (about 170%) — think electronics, shipping, manufacturing.

U.S. tariffs, even at 10% on Singapore’s exports, could disrupt supply chains. Growth forecasts? Down 1.5%.

If U.S.-China tariffs spike, China’s economy slows, and Singapore suffers. Fewer ships, quieter factories, jobs on the line. With living costs up 4%, families are already stretched.

PAP say "be worried"; PPP say "don't bluff"

Prime Minister Lawrence Wong has described the tariffs as marking a “seismic change” in the global order, signaling the end of rules-based globalization. Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong echoed this, noting that Singapore can no longer rely on a stable global trading system, raising the risk of a recession.

People's Power Party chief Goh Meng Seng calls PM Wong's statement "fear-mongering". They call the PAP’s warnings “scare tactics” to spook voters into sticking with the safe bet.

Crises usually send Singaporeans running to the PAP, but Goh’s betting on change. Voters are livid about housing costs and stagnant wages—why obsess over tariffs when you can’t afford a flat?

PAP has historically benefited from a “flight to safety” during crises, where voters favor stability. However, according to Goh, this strategy may be less effective now, as voters are more polarized and focused on local issues like housing affordability.

PPP: US tariffs on Singapore is "ikan bilis"

The PPP’s claim that the government is overreacting could stem from the fact that Singapore’s 10% tariff is relatively low compared to others (e.g., 26% for India). They might argue that Singapore’s diversified trade partnerships (e.g., with ASEAN, EU, and Japan) and free trade agreements could cushion the blow.

But they miss the forest for the trees. Tariffs aren’t just about U.S. trade—they disrupt global flows.

A slowdown anywhere hits our ports, factories, and wallets. Brushing it off as “ikan bilis” is reckless, like ignoring a leak in a ship.

The PPP’s skepticism taps voter frustration, but it underestimates a real economic storm.

Additionally, some opposition figures may believe the government’s messaging exaggerates immediate risks to rally voters, when the full economic impact might take time to materialize.

COVID-19 measures were also an overreaction but look at where it got Singapore

PM Wong referenced the COVID-19 response, where early government action was criticized as overreach but later proved necessary. This suggests a pattern: proactive warnings about external risks (like tariffs) aim to prepare Singaporeans for tough times, even if the full impact isn’t immediate.

According to Goh, he said to "let the big boys (US and China) hash it out" - reiterating that the tariffs are temporary and for Singapore to focus on domestic issues.

Goh rightly highlights domestic pain—housing and jobs are urgent—but dismissing tariffs ignores how global shocks amplify local struggles.

Some analysts argue that Singapore’s agile economy and government interventions (e.g., support for SMEs) could mitigate damage. The PPP might be banking on this resilience -- an irony seeing that PAP's policies created this resilience - to argue that panic is premature.

Election noise means opinions from political parties need to be taken with a grain of salt

With the General Election (GE2025) set for May 3, opposition parties are differentiating themselves by challenging the PAP’s narrative. Calling out “fear-mongering” appeals to voters frustrated with the PAP’s dominance. The PPP’s critique is partly electoral posturing.

Conversely, the PAP’s emphasis on unity and preparedness could be seen as leveraging the crisis to bolster its campaign.

However, dismissing the tariff threat as “fear-mongering” overlooks the broader economic stakes that affect the livelihood of all Singaporeans, and is nothing short of myopic.

Read next article ⬇️

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China conflict

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement. It's not a test of neutrality — it’s power.

|3 min read
Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China conflict

Can Singapore stay neutral in an increasingly volatile geopolitical landscape?

Former Trade Minister and current Minister of Education Chan Chun Sing’s said in a CNA podcast that it's not about choosing sides—sometimes that’s decided for you—but about making Singapore so valuable that everyone wants a piece.

While Chan’s perspective highlights Singapore’s pragmatic diplomacy, it sidesteps a stark reality: neutrality, in the face of deep economic and strategic entanglements with both the US and China, is a mirage.

Neutrality promises impartiality but Singapore's reality mocks it

Singapore cannot be truly neutral in the US-China tariff war due to its deep economic, strategic, and geopolitical entanglements with both powers.

In 2023, China devoured 14% of Singapore’s exports ($83 billion) and supplied 13% of imports, while the US took 13% of exports ($76 billion) and 10% of imports.

US foreign direct investment ($234 billion) is a growth engine, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative exploits Singapore’s ports, processing 37 million TEUs in 2024.

Singapore backs US-led Indo-Pacific frameworks like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF). Launched in 2022, IPEF’s 14-nation coalition (excluding China) aims to boost trade and supply chains.

China, excluded from IPEF, views it as a US strategy to counter its regional influence, a sentiment echoed by Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who labeled it an attempt to “decouple” economically and “incite confrontation.”

In 2024, China’s state media jabbed at Singapore’s IPEF role, hinting at trade blowback but nothing came out of it as of today. However, the message was clear: neutrality is a fantasy when your biggest trading partner feels betrayed.

Walking a regional tightrope with ASEAN

Singapore’s security reliance on the US, especially for deterrence in a volatile region, tilts its strategic calculus.

Neutrality would require distancing itself from US defense cooperation, but this is unlikely given Singapore’s need for a counterbalance to regional threats, including China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea that affects ASEAN.

Singapore has no claims but supports a rules-based order, implicitly aligning with US freedom-of-navigation operations against China’s claims. This stance, articulated in Singapore’s 2024 Foreign Policy Report, draws China’s ire, undermining perceptions of neutrality.

As an ASEAN linchpin, Singapore pushes for regional unity but ASEAN’s fractures—Cambodia and Laos cozy up to China, while the Philippines and Vietnam lean US—make neutrality a diplomatic minefield.

Singapore's real play is not neutrality, but power

Choosing neutrality would mean avoiding economic and security alignment with either side, but Singapore’s reliance on both markets forces pragmatic engagement.

Favoring one risks alienating the other, yet remaining aloof could marginalize Singapore in global trade networks.

Instead, Singapore pursues strategic autonomy—hedging bets, diversifying partners, and maximizing flexibility. This approach, allows Singapore to navigate the conflict without being fully subsumed by either side.

In 2023, Singapore's S$600 billion economy grew 1.2% despite tariff headwinds, proving its adaptability.

Singapore’s edge lies not in avoiding sides but in making itself so valuable that sides compete to win its favor.

That’s not neutrality — it’s power.

Read next article ⬇️

WP do not have to worry about an opposition wipeout — they will win Aljunied & Hougang

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

|3 min read
WP do not have to worry about an opposition wipeout — they will win Aljunied & Hougang

Workers' Party (WP) new face, Harpreet Singh, recently let slip that he doesn’t want to be “parachuted” into a “safe seat", according an interview with The Straits Times.

Harpreet's comment reveals the party’s belief in “safe seats” like Hougang and Aljunied, suggesting internal confidence in their electoral strongholds.

By admitting there are “safe seats,” Harpreet confirmed what many suspect: Hougang (WP’s turf since 1991) and Aljunied (theirs since 2011) are as close to a sure bet as it gets in Singapore’s PAP-dominated landscape.

In GE2020, WP held Hougang with 61.2% of the vote and Aljunied with 59.9%. These margins, while not overwhelming, reflect consistent voter loyalty in a political landscape dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP), which won 83 of 93 seats in the last election.

Yet, WP leader Pritam Singh continues to warn of a potential “opposition wipeout,” as highlighted in a Channel News Asia report early this year.

Pritam's wipeout narrative

Pritam Singh’s emphasis on a potential wipeout, as articulated in his call for party unity, appears designed to galvanize supporters and prevent complacency.

By framing the election as an existential threat, Pritam aims to ensure WP supporters turn out in force, particularly in strongholds where voter turnout can make or break a result.

Yet, this narrative risks undermining the WP’s credibility.

Harpreet’s admission of safe seats suggests the party privately believes its core constituencies are secure. Publicly warning of a wipeout, then, could be perceived as disingenuous, especially by a discerning electorate.

If voters sense the WP is exaggerating risks to manipulate sentiment, trust in the party could erode—a dangerous prospect when authenticity is a currency in short supply.

It is also not helpful that Pritam himself was convicted for dishonesty.

Earlier this year, Pritam was convicted on two counts of lying under oath to a parliamentary committee. The case stemmed from his handling of former WP MP Raeesah Khan’s false statements in Parliament in 2021, where she fabricated a story about accompanying a sexual assault victim to a police station.

Playing the 'underdog' card

Pritam Singh isn’t daft. He’s a lawyer, an MP, and a guy who’s navigated Singapore’s political minefield for years. His wipeout narrative isn’t about doubting WP’s grip on Hougang or Aljunied—it’s about firing up the base.

In Singapore, where voter apathy can creep in, scaring supporters into showing up is Politics 101.

But there’s a flip side. Overplaying the underdog card risks crying wolf.

If WP’s seats are as safe as Harpreet implies, Pritam’s gloom-and-doom could erode trust.

Voters aren’t stupid—they see through spin.

And in a city where trust in institutions is high (78% of Singaporeans trust the government, per a 2023 Edelman survey), coming off as manipulative isn’t a great look.

Pritam’s banking on fear to mobilize, but he might be underestimating how savvy Singaporeans are.

With GE2025 around the corner, WP should ditch the drama and double down on policy.

Safe seats or not, elections are won by showing up for the heartlands, not by shouting “wipeout” from the rooftops.

In a nation of pragmatists, substance trumps spin every time.

Read next article ⬇️

Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook blooper also bloop-bloop in 2015

Is the Facebook glitch in the System or the Man?

|2 min read
Vivian Balakrishnan's Facebook blooper also bloop-bloop in 2015

Back in 2015, during the General Election’s Cooling-Off Day — a sacred 24-hour no-campaigning zone— Vivian Balakrishnan’s Facebook page was caught posting.

The Elections Department (ELD) issued a stern reminder about the rules, and Vivian’s team chalked it up to a “technical bug” causing “recurrent auto-posting,” later confirmed by Facebook (Straits Times, 2015).

Most gave Vivian the benefit of the doubt but fast-forward a decade, and that “one-off” glitch is starting to look like a feature, not a bug.

Another "bug" bites

On March 13, 2025, Vivian’s official Facebook page “liked” a post by Calvin Cheng suggesting pro-Palestinian activists be shipped to Gaza with no return ticket — a diplomatic disaster in a single click.

The backlash was instant, with netizens and activist groups like Monday of Palestine Solidarity slamming it as tone-deaf, especially given Vivian’s parliamentary nods to Palestinian causes.

By April 2, Vivian denied liking the post, claiming “unauthorized activity” and reporting it to Meta for investigation.

One too many glitches

Vivian’s social media has gone off-script, and the “bug” excuse is wearing thin.

In 2015, we could shrug it off—social media was still a wild frontier, and bugs weren’t uncommon.

But in 2025, when Singaporeans are dodging phishing scams and securing their Singpass with 2FA, a minister’s verified account getting “hacked” or “bugged” raises red flags.

When a minister’s account keeps glitching, it erodes confidence.

If Vivian’s team can’t secure a Facebook page, how do we trust them with cybersecurity or foreign policy?

With GE2025 looming, Singaporeans want leaders who can keep up — on policy and on Facebook.

Anything less, and Vivian risks being debugged by the ballot box.

Read next article ⬇️

PPP's Goh Meng Seng - Trump's tariffs will not last so why worry?

Even a “short” tariff is cause for worry. It’s like saying a heart attack won’t kill you because it only lasts a minute.

|3 min read
PPP's Goh Meng Seng - Trump's tariffs will not last so why worry?

Goh Meng Seng’s claim—“Trump’s tariff will not last”—seems to gloss over the issues of uncertainty.

In a Facebook post published by Goh, he said: "Trump's Tariff will not last. At most, it's between China and US but even for that, it will be much moderated."

His Facebook post, while likely aimed at calming nerves and challenging the PAP’s narrative, underestimates how even a fleeting tariff can ripple through a trade-dependent economy like Singapore’s.

The problem with "It won't last"

Goh’s assertion that Trump’s tariffs are a short-term blip sounds reassuring, but it misses the forest for the trees. Uncertainty is the real poison in global trade, and Singapore, with its open economy, is particularly allergic.

Even a temporary 10% tariff on Singapore’s exports to the U.S. spooks investors and businesses. A “short” tariff could still scare off a chip fab or logistics hub - of which Singapors economy is largely based on, costing billions in future growth.

Singapore’s role as a transshipment hub means it’s hyper-sensitive to global trade flows. A brief tariff could disrupt just-in-time manufacturing or shipping schedules, leading to delays, higher costs, and lost contracts. For example, electronics, a key export, rely on tight margins—any hiccup can cascade.

If China’s economy slows due to tariffs on U.S. goods, Singapore’s exports to China (think components, chemicals) could tank.

Even a three-month tariff war could shave 1.5% off GDP, per analyst estimates, hitting jobs and wages. That’s not a “bloop”; that’s a retrenchment notice.

Goh’s point might be that Singapore’s resilience—built on diversified trade partners and government agility—can absorb a temporary shock.

Fair enough.

We’ve got FTAs with the EU, ASEAN, and Japan, and the PAP’s track record of rolling out SME aid is solid.

But resilience doesn’t mean immunity. Uncertainty breeds hesitation—businesses pause hiring, and consumers tighten belts.

Why uncertainty is the real villain

Trade isn’t just about tariffs; it’s about confidence.

Singapore thrives on predictability—stable ports, clear trade rules, and a government that doesn’t surprise you.

SMEs, which employ 70% of Singapore’s workforce, can’t plan if tariffs might vanish or double. Should they eat the 10% cost? Pivot to new markets? Lay off staff? The indecision itself is paralyzing.

Trump’s tariffs aren’t just about Singapore. If the U.S.-China trade war escalates, global demand could slump, hitting Singapore’s exports across the board.

Does Goh Meng Seng have a point?

To give Goh some credit, he’s likely trying to counter the PAP’s “sky is falling” narrative ahead of GE2025.

The PAP’s warnings—PM Wong’s “seismic change,” SM Lee’s globalization eulogy—can feel like election scare tactics.

Goh’s post taps into that skepticism, suggesting the PAP’s hyping a temporary issue to rally voters.

And he’s not entirely wrong: Singapore’s economy has weathered shocks before (SARS-08, COVID-19), and a short tariff might not trigger Armageddon. The government’s got tools—subsidies, retraining programs, trade pivots—that could soften the blow.

But Goh’s oversimplifying.

The damage—lost contracts, spooked investors, job cuts—lingers.

And if Trump’s tariffs spark a broader trade war (say, EU retaliates or China doubles down), Singapore’s caught in the crossfire. Goh’s confidence feels like a campaign soundbite, not a strategy.

Goh’s “it won’t last” is refreshingly defiant, but it’s also naive. He’s betting on resilience without acknowledging the chaos a “bloop” can unleash.