Mahathir Resigns - the politics of self-survivorship.

Trust me, you can’t fully understand the whole 48 hours drama in Malaysia politics without seeing it through the eyes of the family of Anwar Ibrahim. The view from where they are standing already foretold the stormy horizon ahead. 

Take their daughter, Nurul Izzah Anwar, for example. She quit the tumultuous coalition government (PH) even before her first anniversary (April last year) because the struggle for power between the grand old sage of politics Mahathir and her father has reached a point of no return. 

In fact, she was the symbol, the canary in the coalmine of what is now happening in the last 48 hours, that is, the shocking resignation of Mahathir and his appointment as caretaker PM until a leader (with majority) comes along. 

She said: “The big impact is you may not be able to see Anwar Ibrahim as the next PM, because the next PM has to be the one who receives the most support from the alliance and the people.”

She had resigned and will not be seeking re-election because she saw through Mahathir’s action and ploy, calling him “the former dictator”. 

But, the question is, is Mahathir attempting to form a backdoor government with the old kleptocratic regime? That is, a remarriage of sorts because better the devil you know than the one you can’t tell for sure? Hold that thot...

Next comes her father. 

All things considered, Anwar Ibrahim has suffered enough, but who is to say enough is enough?

He came out of a twenty year struggle for a clean and fair Malaysian governmemt under the banner of Bersih. He also made an uneasy peace with the one who had locked him up for all those years, thereby giving rejuvenated hope for the people that Malaysia can change, that Malaysia is really boleh. 

But now, this happens - the disintegration of PH, the defection in his own party, and the enigmatic shocking move of Mahathir, just because he said he will not work with the past regime, referring to the Najib-stained UMNO. 

So, from the view of Anwar, things get misty eye because the student is still orbiting around the master teacher’s finger. His daughter felt that he was too soft in engaging Mahathir’s salvos. 

In fact, Anwar pleaded with Mahathir not to step down. He said that the treachery can be addressed together, that is, the two of them against the corruption. 

But, “he was of a different mind. (Mahathir) thought he shouldn’t be treated in that manner, to be associated as working with those who are literally corrupt,” so said Anwar. 

“He made it very clear, in no way would he work with those in the past regime” for Najib had broken the law...”stealing government money.”

But the question is, does Mahathir trust Anwar and his party enough to continue working with him? Was his resignation then a calculated move because he does not see a future with PH alliance mainly on three fronts: -

First, the defection from PH (led by Azmi) and the break away of his own party PPBM (led by Muhyiddin);

Second, the growing strength of UMNO and PAS by opportunistically playing the race card, dividing the nation, and rallying the Malay voters to their side; and 

Lastly, and let’s face it, Mahathir is not getting any younger. At 94, he may have made peace with Anwar, but he will not have his legacy stained by leading a hardly viable government whose patriotic fuel from the astounding victory two years ago is running really low. Mind you, PH lost 4 of 5 of the by-election held last year.

And however unbearable to think of the old regime as corrupt, it is still one that Mahathir had led for decades. Thus, absence may just make the heart go fonder. 

So, there is two options for him: first, quit politics and retire for good, considering his age. It’s time to stretch those legs in Bahamas. 

Or, go for that premiership for the third time round, but with the winning coalition, which at the rate things are going seems to favour working with one’s past enemy. 

For if Mahathir can make peace with his foremost nemesis, Anwar, who is to say he can’t make peace with Najib, his favoured protege, (or the party he had led, UMNO)? Anyway, both in his eyes have broken the law, one for sodomy and the other bribery. 

And finally, seeing the whole saga through the eye of Wan Azizah is the most heartbreaking of them all.

The unassuming former ophthalmologist once complained to her husband in jail, recounting this: "I went to him and said "I can't stand it, going around campaigning and all that, why don't we change places"...and he said "You will never survive it." Then I knew it was not easy.""

Well, politics is a game of survivorship. And the quizzical thing about politics is that the ones who get it right, which are rare, follow only one rule - keep your promises to the people, at all costs. 

But the ones who get it wrong, follow many rules, except the one rule that good governance demands. The many rules are essentially the rules of self-survivorship, and they will strive to hold on to power, at all costs.

Lee Saga - Lee Suet Fern Part 2.

This, I guess, is a two parter. I wrote about it yesterday, and today, the ST wrote another piece about it, which kept me thinking further. 

In sum, if you need a caption for it, you can borrow what the Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) calls the whole saga, “an unsavoury tale”.

Well, unsavoury or otherwise, Lee Suet Fern (LSF) has come forward to defend herself. She said: “I disagree with the disciplinary tribunal’s report and will fight this strongly when it is heard in open court.”

She urged the public to “look at the entire record of the closed-door proceedings and come to their own independent conclusions.”

If you read the papers today, and the day before, you will note that it is largely a rehashing of the DT’s findings. That is, in the 206-page report, LSF was described as a “deceitful witness, who tailored her evidence to portray herself as an innocent victim who had been maligned.”

Words/phrases used in both days of reporting were “facade”, “she lied”, her husband was “equally deceitful”, how they “misled” LKY on his last will, “cut off (LKY’s) lawyer”, “gave the briefest advice to Mr Lee” and “did not alert Mr Lee to all the differences between what Mr Lee had earlier wanted and what the last will actually provided.”

Although the title of the piece is “Lee Suet Fern rejects tribunal’s ruling against her,” the above quotes of LSF and her gratitude expressed to her stellar legal team (led by Walter Woon) just about sums up her side, save for reading the entire records and going to her husband’s FB post for more. 

However, I write today because there is another piece of the puzzle to the whole thing and I feel that it somehow spiced up the “unsavoury tale”. It is about what Dr Lee Wei Ling has to say. 

She called “the tribunal report a “travesty”, adding that it was an attempt to “rewrite history””. And she added: “My father knew full well what he was doing. He was clear in his decision for the will.”

He knew full well? He was clear in his decision? 

Note that Dr Lee is a neurologist and she ought to be able to tell who’s sound and who’s not. What’s more, I trust she knows her father better than anyone and she was by his side at all crucial times. She is not just trained expertly, but the “patient” she was tending to was her own father.

My point is, if what she said is true and can be objectively and medically proven on a balance of probability, that would add to the whole unsavoury tale a jarring twist to the heart of the plot. 

Why? Because, if LKY knew what he was doing, if he took cognizance of the identity of the drafter of his last will, agreeing to her being the drafter, notwithstanding the conflict of interest, thereby waiving it, then LSF may not be that “deceitful” afterall. 

Neither would LHY be “equally deceitful” to hurry the execution of the will, save for some inaccuracies posted. 

What I mean is that the preparation of the last will, the bypassing of Kwa and the hurrying to sign it by leaving it with LKY the night before and executing it the next morning, when seen in the entire context of a mentally sound, physically uncompromised and largely able and willing testator, save for duress, one then ought to be more reserved, cautious and circumspect when shifting through the evidence in the finding of facts. 

And since DT makes no mention of LKY’s mental state at the material time, but merely remarked (as published) that LKY was in “frail health”, which says little about his mental state and appears to be inconsistent with Dr Lee’s view, I feel that the key piece of the “unsavoury tale” puzzle is still missing. 

Indeed, that mental state of affair is even more unsavoury (in my view). 

As for duress, or undue pressure, well, currently, I am still looking for that smoking gun called motive (read my yesterday’s post). 

And I wonder, is the last will done in stealth, kept from PM Lee’s knowledge? Because, LKY had 15 months after executing it to change his mind, secretly call Kwa to amend it (making it the 8th will), or Kwa could have intervened (discuss with LKY, inform PM Lee) after having sight of the 7th will, or inform someone he trusts about it. 

And unless he is too frail to do anything after he signed the 7th will, or the mental deterioration had reached a point of no return, I feel that the case for it before the DT needs more evidential digging - hopefully the court of three judges can clear the air here. 

So, after all said, I wonder whether the DT only picked up the conflict, the hurrying and the bypassing (of Kwa), (and the FB deflection), to base their view that the couple is deceitful, thereby misleading their father (or FIL), or they have something more than that to arrive at that finding. 

If there is nothing more, then, wouldn’t it be like seeing a much older man tightly hugging a teenage girl and kissing her on the cheeks, and immediately describing the sight as disgusting, only to realise, after some enquiry, that they are actually father and daughter, and he is sending her off for overseas studies, and won’t be seeing her for the next few years. 

Ps: Just an analogy, don’t read too much into it. Cheerz.

Lee Saga - Lee Suet Fern a deceitful witness?

At cross examination, LHY conceded that his FB posts could be misleading and inaccurate. But he said they were not sworn statements, so different standard of care and attention applied. 

FYI, the misleading parts were twofold: first, Kwa prepared LKY’s final 7th will (she did not) and second, his wife, Suet Fern, had no role (she did. She prepared the final will as a request from him. She said she did it as his “obedient wife”). 

Kwa had been LKY’s lawyer for the past 6 wills since 2011.

Wait, there’s more. 

The papers today surmised the findings of the Disciplinary Tribunal (“DT”) and they found Suet Fern guilty of “grossly improper professional conduct in her handling of the last will of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew.” 

The DT said that “they cut off (Kwa) from communications with Mr Lee on the last will, and rushed through the execution of the last will, in (Kwa’s) absence.” 

Further, there is the conflict of interest issue, which Suet Fern explained that LKY “was fully aware of her involvement and chose to proceed.”

Another issue was whether Suet Fern had fully explained the final 7th will to LKY - bearing in mind his frail condition at that time. He was 90 then, and he passed away 15 months after signing the will. 

On this, Suet Fern explained it this way: “I think Papa was his own best lawyer. He knew what he wanted.”

Now I know the DT was convened to come to a finding on whether a lawyer has acted improperly. It therefore does not address the issue on whether the will is valid and binding. 

Yet, for me, the larger question is this, was LKY mentally unsound when he revised his final will? Or, was “Papa” really his own best lawyer and knew what he wanted with clarity of mind and firmness of resolve? 

Unfortunately, nothing substantial was reported in the papers about LKY’s mental state (maybe the full decision of more than 200 pages might help). In any event, DT only noted that he was frail in health. 

And just a day before signing the final will, Dr Lee Wei Ling wrote to Ho Ching to inform her that her father “had been doing very well” because he had not been admitted to hospital for more than a month.”” 

But Dr Lee also mentioned that “Pa was already (very) forgetful” and “age has caught up with his brain.” 

So, taken in its full context, is LKY of unsound mind? 

If I may, I speculate that he was not. Frail, yes. Forgetful, yes. Age catching up, yes. But unsound mind, that is, not knowing what he was signing, well, unless a court proper makes a finding on that after evaluating all the relevant expert medical evidence, I think it’s highly unlikely.

What’s more, if such is the case, I would expect PM Lee (or Dr Lee) to have applied to court to challenge the final will by now. Because, if you think about it, it was the most troublesome last will (of all 7), with the demolition clause reinserted (although I think I recall he said he didn’t want to make public personal family matters). 

Nevertheless, it bears repeating that that reinserted demolition clause has effectively divided the siblings in a very public airing of dirty linens with the laundry line stretching all the way to the corridors of Parliament. 

In any event, proving unsoundness of mind would mean that the 6th will will prevail without the cumbersome demolition clause. This would thus clear the snooty air on whether to demolish or not to demolish. 

How about duress or mislead then? That is another cause to challenge the final will. Was LKY forced by unconscionable methods to execute the final will? Was he misled? 

On this, the DT said: “Mr Lee, who was very frail and in poor health, was misled by the very people whom he trusted: his son, Mr Lee Hsien Yang, and daughter-in-law, the respondent.”

Well, was LKY really misled by his own flesh and blood? And if he is of sound mind, and knew what he wanted, it would then be harder to come to that conclusion. 

Maybe, one possible lead on the issue of misleading is to ask this: was there any reason or motive for LHY and/or wife to mislead his father (or her FIL)? Did he (or they) stand to gain more in the 7th will as compared to the 6th? 

Here’s some background to aid understanding. 

The 6th will gave Dr Lee (only daughter) a larger share. But the 7th will states that it was equal share for all. 

By simple comparison, the two brothers would naturally get a proportionately smaller share in the 6th will (not that they needed the money anyway). 

You must be wondering this at this point: “So that is the gain LHY was seeking after and thus, he engineered it all by bypassing Kwa and rushing the 7th will out?”

Well, not so fast, pause that thot. 

You see, 4 days before signing the 7th will, LKY had already emailed Kwa to tell her he wanted to change his 6th will. The change is from giving Dr Lee more to giving all three children equally. 

So, that change of mind was exclusively made by LKY and there was no evidence that it was “engineered” by his second son, LHY. As such, no gain there to argue about when it was already decided by the testator himself via his own email. 

Now, you may ask, how about the demolition clause in the 7th will but not in the 6th will? 

Well, yes, the 7th will reinserted the demolition of Oxley with some conditions. It was taken out in the 5th will and remained absent in the 6th will. Yet, whether demolish or not, has it got anything to do with LHY? Isn’t Oxley an issue between Dr Lee and PM Lee? 

Or, maybe I was wrong, and LHY and Dr Lee really wanted to demolish Oxley so that it will not be exploited for political advantage? Mm...any speculators here? 

What’s more, a trivia fact is that the LKY’s email also wanted LHY to have two carpets. Yet, it was not stated in the 7th will. So, you can say that LHY did not inherit the two carpets. Worse off? 

In the end, based on what was reported in the papers thus far, LHY seems not to have anything to gain from the 7th will. And if that is so, I wonder, what is his motive to mislead without clear gain? Is it then more than meets the eye here? 

Can one infer a mind (or minds) to mislead based on such circumstances as rushing to complete the will, bypassing Kwa, and the prevalence of a conflict of interest? Or, is this about an already soured pre-existing relationship between the siblings? 

Well, I guess we will never know the full picture unless the will is challenged in a trial proper and all evidence are placed before the presiding judge. 

But, I suspect, after this contentious unravelling, the parties involved have done enough exhuming of the past for now.

Chan Chun Seng - Closed-door meeting goes viral.

I wonder, could CCS’s Freudian slip be our Freudian slip? 

But the difference is that in that supposed closed-door session, which went viral due to a leak, it was one where CCS said, “I do not mince my words when presenting hard truths and trade-offs.” It was more of a no-holds-barred speak rather than a Freudian slip. 

Some of us are however pissed with him because a Minister of Parliament, elected by the people and also a former army general shouldn’t act the way he did in the SCCCI meeting, closed-door or open, right?

Why should there be a gap between his public and private personas? Shouldn’t we be the same regardless, at all times?

Where is the decorum? Where is the protocol? Where is the civility?

Calling some Singaporeans “idiots”? Telling others their behaviour “sia suay” us when they use alcohol swabs to clean tables, rushing to hoard toilet paper and instant noodles, and emptying condom shelves? 

Actually, at mediation, a typical closed-door session, divorcing couples or splitting business partners do it all the time. It is meant to be off-the-record because you can’t solve issues if you only deal with the cold-hard facts, without addressing the hot-burning emotions behind it. 

And the only way to solve the impasse is to let the parties ventilate, and at times, be brutally candid in the hope of unraveling their true motives, their hidden hurts, pent-up frustrations and even prejudices, inadequacies and envy.

Most times, you deal directly with the underlying emotions (with no mincing of words) and the knots of the issues will naturally untie themselves. 

At this point, I recall Tom Cruise pushing Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” to the emotional knife-edge with this memorable phrase, “You can’t handle the truth!”

Admittedly, that SCCI meeting, no doubt closed-door, is no courtroom drama, or intense divorce mediation. Neither is CCS Tom Cruise (just to be clear). 

But we deal with Jack-Nicholson type all the time. People who always get on our nerves. People who insist they are always right, and make sure you agree with them. People who are natural-born jerks. People who contribute little but claim the most, if not all. People who think the world spins around them, including the sun, moon and stars all doing a synchronised Fred Astaire. 

And those who hoard at such times, those who jack up prices to make a hefty profit at society’s expense, and those who think they have done nothing shameful, fall right smack into the category that Tom Cruise or CCS is warning us about. 

For Tom (in the movie), it is a fight for the integrity of the truth. For CCS, it is the fight for the unity of a nation. 

The scene or setting may be different, one closed-door, the other open court, yet the intention or aim is the same. Both share the same ventilation or frustration, that is, about the exasperation of dealing with, well, idiots. 

Nevertheless, I can picture CCS in public taking a different form of speech, but the substance of it is in no way different. 

For example, instead of describing them as “idiots”, he might say they are socially irresponsible. And instead of saying “sia suay”, he might say “it is a regrettable sight” or “it’s embarrassing” or even “shameful”.

Yes, the setting is different, and so is the ventilation and candidness, leaving the remnant of truth unchanged. Mind you, colloquialism or euphemisms should not erode or undermine the honest truth of the message that rides on it. It just makes it more palatable or digestible to selected audience.

The issue with some of us is that we shoot the messenger we dislike and throw his body together with his message into the sea. 

So, one shouldn’t be guilty of hypocrisy if he is merely calling a spade a spade, or a rotten apple a rotten apple, even if the kitchen knife he uses to cut the apple with is more blunt in one occasion than another.

When a situation warrants trust, you offer trust by speaking your mind. Not spewing hate speech, but delivering hard truths. 

The betrayal therefore rests with the leaker, and not the one who confided with sincerity, frankness and urgency. Now, I am no PAP supporter, but not everything they say or do must unthinkingly attract our unreserved criticism. 

And I know we all expect our leaders to be politically correct, for that is the liberal mindset of an enlightened politician. 

But at times, it is not unexpected, or even surprising, for some of us to take a much-needed vacation from it, to share our gripe and frustrations in a secluded chalet of trusted friends, in the hope that the catharsis-like rant might release our soul from the emotional gridlock and offer us fresh perspective to move forward as one spirit to tackle the issue with heart and soul.

Ps: we bitch because we care...some just bitch.

Prince - Psalm 91 Part 2.

Psalm 91 starts with these two lines: - 

“He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.”

This is Joseph Prince’s victory chant against the current outbreak of the coronavirus. 

In today’s papers, his church is reported as business as usual, that is, the Father’s business. 

It reports: “At New Creation Church in Buona Vista, large numbers of congregants were seen coming and going at The Star Performing Arts Center in between morning services.”

One churchgoer, Hui Yi, 35, said: “It doesn’t really seem different from the usual apart from (temperature-screening and cleaning) measures. It seems like it’s just as crowded as it usually is.”

At this juncture, you must know that the Catholic Church at Novena is going online, 

mass is therefore suspended for the time being. As such, the Church of St Alphonsus had “fewer than 30 people”, which has a seating capacity of 1,500. 

On Friday, Archbishop of Singapore William Goh said “that public mass for Catholics here would be suspended indefinitely from noon on Saturday to minimise the risk of spreading the coronavirus.”

Not only that, mega-church FCBC, with two locations, Marine Parade and Bukit Merah, has told church members on Saturday that services will be moved online - this is to reduce large public gathering at one place, at one time. 

It reports: “A worship session was streamed live - The Straits Times understands that only about 20 staff members were in the audience - and church members were directed to give their weekly offering through PayNow or card payments. A sermon was part of the service as usual.”

So, looking at the religious landscape as reported thus far, can it be said that, what we have is different manifestations of faith or different attitudes adopted towards the spread of coronavirus?

While the Catholic Church and some other Churches are going virtual space, others services like NCC are “just as crowded as it usually is”. And for Paya Lebar Methodist Church, she is doing both, that is, having weekend services and online streaming.

Now, let me explain that I revisited this topic (from last Friday on Prince’s confident pronouncement of Psalm 91) because one friend/netizen wrote to me and said that, if I want to see whether Psalm 91 really works for NCC, then maybe I should wait for the outbreak to be officially declared over, and then count whether NCC has a significantly lower rate of infection (even zero) as compared to other churches. 

Anyway, I am sure my friend does not mean that as a scientific way of evaluating/comparing the evidence because at the highest, we are just talking about correlation, rather than causation for there are more factors at play here than just the recitation of Psalm 91 

(Notwithstanding that psalm 91 is a prayer which is often times held closely and endearingly in a soldier’s heart when he goes to war, not knowing for sure whether he will be spared a bullet or not). 

So, the question is, have we misunderstood Prince, when he preached Psalm 91 and then used it to say with such certainty that if you believe it, no virus, corona- or otherwise, can come near you as a believer? 

Should we then take his word quoting God’s word as the medical ”refuge and fortress” against pestilence, terror of night and arrows that fly by day? 

Well, that is the issue right? And it boils down to how effective it is in keeping one completely untouched by the coronavirus. 

In any event, putting aside the atheist’s smirk of bewilderment, wondering what kind of supersitition we are mired in, in this scientific day and age, as a believer, I perennially struggle with the gap between the emotional side of faith and the scientific side of it. 

And if faith is the evidence of things hoped for, then isn’t it as good as saying that it is very much a no-enter-or-fly-zone when I attempt to trek the path of faith on the scientific side. Because, if you think about it, “evidential hope” is rather oxymoronic? (I know the debate here will go on like the Titanic song. So I leave it at that here for the time being). 

Now, let me also add that this is not a case of being “unreasonable”, or seen as one, when it comes to the perplexing questions of faith, but being reasonably ignorant/humble about it, because there is still many things we don’t know, save for gravity and textbook arithmetic, among other things. 

This brings me to the emotional side of faith, and I am afraid Prince may have given it too much air-time, or stretched it to breaking “unrealistic” point. For who is then to say that a believer in his church would not interpret psalm 91 as a sure thing, a form of medical amulet, to be worn over the trembling neck to ward off the “secular” virus? 

Is this what charismatic preaching demands then - front-load the good stuff and hide in the shadows the qualifiers and caveats to it, and risks arousing populist sentiments that usually boils over? Discerning listeners in his church excepted of course. 

And if it is meant to be a mental balm to soothe the jangled nerves at this time of uncertainty, then will Prince make it clear, that is, by way of illustration, psalm 91 has been cited by even soldiers, but not all of them return to their families alive? 

That is my burning issue with the emotional side of faith and how some preachers - having critical masses beholden to him or her - apply the scripture as an opportunistic means to a self-favouring or self-confirming end. 

Mind you, the risk is this - the emotional side of faith can be a bottomless pit of credulous elasticity, and not all believers can be considered as mature, prudent and people who apply critical thinking to what is preached. 

Some take it all in, lock, stock and barrel. Others examine the lock, sift through the stock, and empty the barrel of weed and rot.

And that is my point about Prince rah-rah-ing the crowd like a spiritual cheerleader with his scriptural pom-pom instead of taking the stand of a shepherd with a more discerning and balanced take on this specific issue.

And let me therefore end with what I had said before, that is, as leaders, with greater influence comes greater prudence, especially when the emotional side of faith is so pliable, and risks misinterpretations, that one cannot be deemed too careful about it during such sensitive time