Goh Chok Tong and Low Thia Khiang make their exits.

What do Goh Chok Tong, 79, and Low Thia Khiang, 63, have in common? 

Well, they both served about four decades in politics. GCT was 44 years and LTK, 40. They both brought in flesh young/vibrant blood to their respective parties. 

GCT talent-spotted LHL and persuaded him to join the election in 1984. He also had a hand in bringing 3G leaders into politics like Teo Chee Hean, Tharman, Khaw Boon Wan and Lim Swee Say. 

As for LTK, he had “secured a group representation constituency for the WP (in 2011).” He also renewed WP ranks by grooming current leader Pritam and outgoing Chen Show Mao and Png Eng Huat. 

And perhaps lastly, they changed the style of leadership to a more consultative, approachable one. 

GCT took over from LKY who had a more stern and firm leadership style, while GCT’s was a kinder and gentler approach. He also set a Feedback Unit to allow Singaporeans to share their views on policies. 

Further, he “used budget surpluses to set up endowment funds that to this day provide financial support to less well-off Singaporeans.” And he started “redistributing budget surpluses to citizens in the form of Central Provident Fund top-ups.” 

As for LTK, he took over from the more adversarial JB Jeyaretnam. The party then was plagued by infighting and that hindered the search for good candidates. 

When LTK helmed WP in 2001, he took “a different direction, focusing on issues of the day and creating a brand of constructive politics that strives to provide a check in Parliament.”

He said: “If I compare myself with my predecessor Jeyaretnam, I think I am probably mild, right? So probably this political progress, where you become less aggressive and you can sit down and talk about things rather than just political brickbats, is a good thing.”

So, those are the commonalities between GCT and LTK. Both leaders are nevertheless retiring from politics. LTK said he felt his work was done. And for GCT, he wrote in his farewell letter to LHL the following: -

“Marine Parade is my second home. I live the people...Many urged me to stand for another term. But I should not. I would not have the same energy when I cross into my 80s.”

And there you have, the life and times of politicians, both debating at the opposite sides of the parliamentary long table for decades. 

FYI, LTK saw his role as “a co-driver that would slap the driver, the PAP, if the ruling party were to go off course in governing the country.” And GCT saw it as a leadership to ensure Singapore flourish in every possible way, with a government “that listened and paid attention not just to material well-being but also matters of the heart, or “heartware””.

Now, the question, as posed by GCT, is “Quo vadis, Singapore? Quo vadis, me?” And in case you’re wondering, “Quo vadis” is Latin for “Where are you going?”, and that is for Singapore and, well, GCT and LTK to think about.

In reflection, GCT said his current priority is to complete his second part biography entitled Tall Order: The Goh Chok Tong Story.

As for LTK, he has this to say: “I do not have this hope that others will (remember me in any particular way). I have done what I should do, I have no regrets. Of course everyone will have different views. And as a public figure you have to accept them. That’s all. I would not be surprised if someone is scolding me; I accept it. I will remember the people, the voters. I think these are important life assets, friends in Hougang. I will remember them.”

Lesson? One. That’s the long journey of a political life in service. 

Politics is proned to acquire a bad name because it promises too much, and most of the time, it achieves much lesser than promised.

That is all in a day’s work for a politican trying his darnest to win your vote, and every one of them counts. He has to prove his mettle to the masses in rally after rally, and speeches of that sort always come in more exaggerative and idealistic form than in realistic self-assessment.

At its lowest, they are all professional performers marketing their perceived suitability and viability to persuade the majority and win their trust and favour. 

You can therefore expect a lot of bravados, at times, braggadocio, in order to fire the crowd. They spin some make-beliefs together with trust-me spiel to bridge the gap and win hearts. Not all of them feel at all natural “selling” themselves in that open, shameless and blatant way. 

At its highest, a politician put himself or herself out there to be lynched, pilfered, stoned, denounced and ridiculed. And because you can never please everybody, and it is a politician’s greatest mistake to even try, and also because you can’t ensure every citizen will get their fair share of the fruit of society’s economic labour, that is, the inevitability of the blind assortment process, there will therefore always be a section of society that blames them for their blighted state, causation notwithstanding. 

In a family, the father as the head of the household will always be respected. His proximity to his offspring and their dependence on him are the familiarity and nexus needed to ensure the reverence to him is properly accorded. 

But as a father of a nation, as a politician taking the helm, not all your children recognise your authority. There will always be the prodigals, the sidelined and those by the wayside. In other words, there will always be those who perceive you as exercising favourtism and discrimination, turning a blind eye to their plight, when the reality of things is indeed something that is clearly beyond you and your leadership. 

So, in the end, I guess LKY puts it aptly when he was asked - “What does it take to be a politican?” And he said: “You must have convictions. If you don’t have convictions, you are going in for personal glory or honour or publicity or popularity, forget it.” He also added “democracy as practised by the West is not a universal good.” 

Indeed, what is universal good is a heart that is humbled, a spirit for the welfare of others, and a mind that never let up to find solutions to bridge the gap even at one’s own expense. 

And I believe the best of our politicians embody most of all that, in good measure. 

Ps: Farewell GCT and LTK, a long journey completed, a good race finished.

Ivan Lim Saga.

I think the thing about skeletons in the closet is that it reeks. You can hide it from sight, but you can’t stop the smell from coming out. 

By now, it’s, well, yesterday’s news. Ivan Lim has withdrawn from the GE 2020. It was a brief political life of a candidate who was being relentlessly singled out by those he had crossed path (or sword) with in the past. Mind you, no other candidate thus far has to face his/her questionable past as Ivan had to. 

“I recognised that the controversy over my candidacy has eclipsed the core issues of what this election should be about - Singapore’s future and the difficult steps we have to take to recover from Covid-19,” Ivan wrote in a letter to PM Lee.

“The controversy has also caused intense pain and stress for my family. I cannot put my family through this.”

Alas, when you are put into the political grind, in a electoral process called democracy, be prepared to face your past, because the paper trail of your character will testify to whether you are able to stand up to public scrutiny or not. 

And don’t expect the more vocal section of the public to cut the dominant status quo some slack on this. Most times, every candidate they offer will be cut open for surgical examination. And one wrong pinch-like incision may result in an inordinate political haemorrhage with irreversible spillover effect. 

This squares with what Law Minister recently commented about “Alfiangate”. He said that “a small group of people” have “almost a Pavlovian response” to things said by the PAP or the Government, which he said was “sheer hypocrisy.” And it should be noted that these so-called Pavlovian dogs’ barks can be more lethal than its bite. 

In any event, this is a game PAP knows too well. LKY once said this about PAP’s success: -

“We will only be like this with an honest and capable government, capable of dealing with neighbours who do not want to see us succeed and capable enough to command the respect from the big countries with large numbers of able people and talk with them as equals. We choose our leaders carefully.”

He added: “What counts? First, integrity. Second, commitment. Third, ability. And fourth, most important, a capacity to expound and carry people with you.”

Unfortunately, Ivan’s capacity to carry people with him died stillborn because commitment and ability are not enough. You need to win hearts, that is, the heart of every voter, from the richest to the poorest. It is called the democracy of persuasion and conviction. 

And you can expect during such rare season of election to be a time where your faults/flaws are magnified a thousandfold, especially when it deals with the allegations of elitism and arrogance - the main scourge of inequality. For indeed, electoral hell has no fury like being shown an elitist’s smirk. 

And this is made worse with the help of viral technology, and especially when it comes at a time where people’s hearts are unsettled, anxious and insecure. 

So, in the end, PAP should have known better. And the way they have handled Ivan (with spillover effect to his family) is curious to say the least. This curiosity falls on three fronts. 

The first front is in the words of PM Lee after Ivan tendered his withdrawal. PM Lee said: -

“Ideally, there would have been a fair and deliberate consideration of these allegations. Unfortunately, the nature of the campaign is such that we do not have time for a thorough investigation. The allegations spread like wildfire online, eclipsing the serious life and death issues we must grapple with.”

Mm...”we do not have time for a thorough investigation”? Strange...I would have thought that what would be ideal would have been in line with this quote: “Prevention is better than cure.“ 

So, it is curious that having trumpeted the unfolding of a seemingly half-vetted candidate, he now says that we have no time due to the short campaign runway to defend him thoroughly. 

Shouldn’t the party stand by their choice if the fruit bears him out and not “drop” him even if truly defensible “allegations (spreading) like wildfire online” make their unfounded appearance? 

I hope I am not nitpicking here, but if there is a stumble in the selection process before showcasing one’s candidates on Wednesday, isn’t it better to just admit it and move on? Doesn’t an apology clear a thousand fog of suspicion? 

And mind you, this is clearly in line with the spirit of what the Law Minister and Dr Tan expected of Pritam concerning Alfian’s questionable allegiance, that is, to make your stand clear, to stand by what you say, and to stand with the truth. 

The next curious development is even more curious for me. It is in the words of Mr Masagos. If you need some reminding, here’s the full extract. 

“But I also think it is important for the candidates who may have been alleged to be something or other, to also prove themselves.”“(It is) also an opportunity for them, if they have done something in the past, to redeem themselves, because we have seen qualities in all our candidates that make them, what we think, good leaders that will serve our people well.”

Where then are the “seen qualities” in Ivan (“that make (him)... a good leader”) when online dirt about him spread like wildfire? How about allowing him to redeem himself in the future as an MP for what was not denied by Mr Masagos concerning his past? And does the government then expect the so-called Pavlovian dogs to just lick their jewels and quietly traipse away from this apparent incongruity?

Lastly, the third front is in the words of Assoc Professor Bilveer Singh. He said: “If (Ivan) withdraws, it will reflect badly in the PAP’s judgment and selection process. But I think the backlash would be even greater, if he’s kept.”

Notwithstanding the backlash, I feel this can be avoided if proper scrutiny were carried out, in the first place, because this involves not just the people’s trust, but the lives of Ivan’s loved ones and the intemperate rage of online harassment. 

And even if mistake has been made, (because we are only human), the government ought to just acknowledge it and move forward to more pressing issue, rather than push the blame on the “nature of the campaign” - as if the incumbent does not have a five-year runway to fully prepare. 

And lastly, I find Mr Masagos’ curious magnanimity towards Ivan’s redeemable past even more confounding. How then should he fill in the blanks now with Ivan’s most unexpected withdrawal? Is it then a past that, for political expediency, is now - due to time constraint - beyond redemption? 

Alas, so many questions, but the answers (or conclusions), I guess, are foregone?

Lee Hsien Yang joins PSP.

LHY could have stayed out of politics altogether. Let his father’s political legacy continue uninterrupted in the party that he and others have founded. But, yesterday, he chose otherwise. 

LHY said: “I joined the (PSP) because I think that Dr Tan is committed to doing the right thing for Singapore and Singaporeans and he loves the country. And he has brought together a group of people who share his vision, and it is a vision which I believe will build a better Singapore.”

In fact, the signs were all there before yesterday. He was PSP’s hidden trump or wild card. The many coffeeshop talks planted for media teasings were little bread crumbs strewn along the way for political-crumb pickers to speculate wildly.

Although unlikely to be fielded as a candidate in the coming election, Dr TCB said: “He is not just an ordinary person. His father is the founder of Singapore, you know, (yes, we know), so that’s very important. And the fact (that) he has decided to join us is a clear indication that the current (Government) didn’t follow what his dad wanted.”

Well, to be objective, Idk whether that is a “clear indication” because since that fateful morning in mid-2017 when the two siblings released onto the internet damning information about their eldest brother‘s conduct on a largely private family matter - and not to forget the fierce domestic exchanges between them over the allegation of the abuses of power, and the Parliamentary whitewashing for party members to toe the line - the relationship between LHY (and LWL) and his brother, PM LHL, has been hitting one rock after another in the stormy domestic seas. 

Mind you, the personal trail is clear enough. First, we have the hotly contested father’s will and Oxley. Second, we have the non-invitation to CNY dinner. Third, we have the internet truce, which didn’t last long. Fourth, we have the AGC prosecution of his wife and son. Then, we have the open donation to Leong Sze Hian in the defamation suit his brother took out. 

Alas, what is therefore clear is indicative of not so much that “the current (Government) didn’t follow what his dad wanted,” but it appears to be about the non-compliance of current leader/brother to follow their father’s testamentary wishes and possibly the distressing fate of his brother’s wife and son. 

Here, I recall an interview of LKY that went like this: -

“Q: You did not need a cane to discipline them?

A) No, I didn’t need a cane and didn’t have one. My wife’s cane was not used very often but she has caned them. The children knew that there are certain things you must not do...I have my wife full support. I would back her. On the whole, I would say it’s a harmonious family.”

Indeed, when harmony reigns within the family, sacrifices come naturally. It becomes others-driven. It becomes love embodied. But when disharmony reigns, especially when it concerns a political founder’s family, the spillover to public life can turn ugly, to say the least. 

Anyway, like Dr Tan said, “he is not just an ordinary person. His father is the founder of Singapore, you know, so that’s very important.”

And with that background, this is what LHY has to say: “The PAP has lost its way. My sister Wei Ling shares this view too. In fact, she said so in a Facebook post in August 2016 before Oxleygate...”

And here is the clincher: “It’s possible to be loyal Singaporeans, to be proud of what has been accomplished in the past, to recite with pride “we the citizens of Singapore”, to love Singapore and yet to not vote PAP.””

At this point, I really don’t know whether LHY risks throwing the baby out together with the bathwater, but there is definitely something brewing (or lurking) deep in the domestic waters that, for him (and his sister), need to be cast out in one swift action. 

LKY was once asked “What is your greatest worry for Singapore?” He rightly said that he has no worries. “I have done my job. I found a successor and handed over to another generation. I can do no more. I cannot life forever as a young, vigorous 40- or 50-year-old.”

As to the future, he said that he is “resigned to what will happen.” He added: “There is no need to be sad. It depends upon the generation that is growing up now, what they will do. Do they share the values of their parents’ generation?”

It is true that each generation will be called upon to confront their own demons, first, private, and second, public. But I trust even LKY would not have foreseen or imagined that the politics or leadership he had spent his whole life on would come back to his own home to threaten or haunt his legacy. 

Alas, the sibling spat has come full circle, and ironically when LHY said that he “wholeheartedly support the principles and values of the Progress Singapore Party”, I feel that he would be hardpressed to deny that that was the same principles/values that undergirds the current government, I mean, to a large extent, and the same ones his father’s leadership was based on, with flaws and all, of course. 

(Well, I don’t need to tell you my beloved readers that in politics, one’s objectivity always runs the high risk of bending towards one’s allegiance. No one is immune). 

And whether his brother has lost his way against the backdrop of his father’s Will, Oxleygate, the Parliamentary debates, the Elected Presidency, the defamation and contempt suits, and the prosecution of his brother’s wife, is a truth or reality that is still out there for historian’s interpretation. 

Let me however end with one conversation that LKY had with ST which seems prophetic enough for me. 

“Q) Is it possible for us to reach an equilibrium that is neither the overwhelming PAP domination of the past nor a two-party system, but somewhere in between? Perhaps, one-third to the opposition, two-third to the ruling party...

A) Do you think that is possible? If you have three children, can you persuade two of them to vote for the PAP and one for the opposition?”

Well, now it is possible. In fact, I can think of two of them who will vote for the opposition. So, in politics, I guess nothing is impossible Cheerz.

Alfian Sa'at - Saga 1.

I guess Dr Tan Wu Meng has forgotten one of Sun Tzu’s advice: -

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

And for that lapse, you pay a political price. But he is fortunate he is in Jurong GRC, because it is helmed by a heavyweight Tharman. So, it is likely that the political price is three-quarter paid. 

If you need to be brought up to speed, Tan had shot from his mouth what had boomeranged back to his rear. In one swing of the bat, he knocked down two of society’s formidable opponents, WP chief Pritam Singh and poet Alfian Sa’at - although the target was more Pritam than Alfian. 

Well, I know neither of them personally, but the verbal mudslinging is familiar enough to me. And I don’t know for sure whether he was trying to score political brownie points for the dominant ruling party in a covid-plagued election run. But if it is, the brownie point unfortunately didn’t stick. 

In fact, Tan wrote an article, which was the genesis of this faux pas. And I have read it. It can be summed up as - “Alfian Sa’at is no loving critic”. But, as I’ve said, the main target is not Alfian, it’s his political opponent, Pritam. Alfian was just a stepping stone, a means to the doctor’s end. Here is his grievance as fleshed out below. 

“Mr Singh said that we should count ourselves fortunate that we have citizens who are “loving critics among us”. He gave an example, without naming names, but it was clear that he was referring to Alfian Sa’at.”

Tan added: “There are many Singaporeans who criticise Singapore out of patriotism and genuine care, including opposition leaders like Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang.”

“But Alfian Sa’at is no “loving critic””.

Tan went on to say that on many occasions, Alfian has sided with Malaysia and her leaders. Alfian mocked Singapore when he called Singapore’s approach “jingoism”. That approach referred to the way PAP handled the 2018 maritime dispute after Malaysian vessels intruded into Singapore waters. 

In one interview in 2012, Alfian even said he “would love to become a Malaysian.” And on another occasion, Tan wrote that “Alfian likes the Malaysian Bumiputera policies. He says Singaporean Chinese are being selfish in not wanting merger with Malaysia.”

What is most disconcerting for me (in Tan’s article) was the part about LKY. In one of his poems on the eve of 2012 National Day, entitled “Death of a Tyrant”, Alfian wrote: -

“...in life, your snort was a decree, your fart a sermon, in death, a nation’s silence will follow you to the grave. Only then will you know what it means to be exiled, only then will they know what they have been holding their breaths so long for; the stench of your corruption...”

And when LKY passed on, Alfian wrote a loaded piece two days after, which smacks of backhand sarcasm. 

At this point, I caveat that I am not commenting on whether Alfian is a loving critic or not. I don’t know him well enough to make a judgment. He may have his agenda, idk. He is no less a poet, and a vocal critic of both Singapore and Malaysia (refer to his play “Parah” - about “the toxic racial politics in Malaysia”). Alfian is therefore anything but one-dimensional. 

I am however only limiting my post to Tan’s broadside rebuke of Pritam. And that brings me to the wisdom of Sun Tzu, that is, knowing yourself and your enemy, to bring my point home. 

Now, there is no doubt that the Cambridge-educated doctor, and medical oncologist is a knowledgeable man. He knows enough to be running side by side with Tharman. Mind you, he was also singled out by PAP to be an MP because he is undeniably a man of substance.

But, in politics, the calling is a relational ministry of knowing your target audience. This is one lesson you don’t find them teaching in schools. And this is where the wisdom of Sun Tzu becomes a necessary bridge to fill the gap.

I believe the intent behind “knowing yourself and your enemy” is to choose your battles. It is about selective winning, not indiscriminate fighting. And when you release your bow, you make sure you hit the bull’s eye. And at other times, I won’t deny that part of winning is also retreating. 

On this, Pritam took the high road when, in his reply, he wrote: “A loving critic. A son of Singapore. Not perfect. As imperfect as you and me Dr Tan, maybe more, maybe less.”

Alfian also chimed in. “In the grand scheme of things, I’m really a nobody (or non-essential as some might say!). And by dragging me into this, you’re risking coming down to my level to become another nobody, discussing things of very little consequence to the elections. But as someone who's an elected representative, you’re a somebody. From a nobody citizen-voter to a somebody MP: please, let’s get serious about the upcoming elections. If you truly love Singapore, then you know it deserves at least this.”

You know, Alfian is right about “coming down to his level to become another nobody.” 

For a somebody (MP) to ride on a nobody (Alfian) to swing at another somebody (Pritam) in that manner he has chosen, the cost-benefit calculus just doesn’t add up. Alas, as things developed, it turned out to be a lecture that ended up with one being lectured at. 

My point is that it is not worth the penmanship or publicity. And to use such tactics to undercut one’s political opponent is unlikely to achieve the result one desires. 

On the other hand, I believe Pritam has played by Sun Tzu’s political handbook. He had chosen his battles. He has refrained from ad hominem attacks. He has stuck to the issue, not person. Even when he endorsed a “loving critic” in his speech, he did not name names. 

And I know the context upon which his speech was based on made it obvious he was referring to Alfian, yet the general tone or intent of it (if you read it as a whole) is to discourage “binary black-and-white perspectives” which would risk reducing critical-thinking leaders to engaging in narrow-minded political spats. 

And whether Alfian is a loving or unloving critic, the point is that even a nobody in our society, imperfect as he or she is, has something to teach a somebody if the latter keeps an open mind, a listening ear, and a discerning heart that picks his/her battles - because at times, self-control goes much further than always insisting to have full control.

Alfian Sa'at - Saga 2.

Honestly, what are we supposed to do with a critic like Alfian Sa’at? In his no-holds-barred vent as a poet, prone to use intemperate, if not antagonistic, language to make a point, however blunt, is he for or against Singapore? 

During a visit to Yishun Link, Law Minister Shanmugam said: “(Mr Alfian) would like Singapore to merge with Malaysia...he dislikes Mr Lee Kuan Yew intensely and loves Dr Mahathir.”

He added: “He takes Malaysia’s side when the Malaysian government’s vessels are in Singapore waters and in a very tense stand-off on territorial issues as well as air issues...and says Singaporean’s are jingoistic...This is a free country, he’s entitled to his views and I think most Singaporeans know him for what he is.”

Well, if there are illuminary sons of Singapore that we know of, then would Alfian be classified as her prodigal son? That is, one who has benefited from the country’s system, being a Rafflesian, attended NUS medical studies but did not graduate, and having received numerous accolades for his plays, poetry and short stories, yet, having strong, at times, jarringly discordant, views of the way Singapore manages her local and foreign affairs. 

Is he then a petulant son craving for attention, or a patriotic son holding very strong views, or both? 

I know, as Pritam puts it, he is an imperfect soul, maybe as imperfect as Pritam and Dr Tan, maybe more or less, but what does Pritam mean by that? 

Is he saying that however imperfect, Alfian has nevertheless matured over the years? At 43, is he saying that Alfian at heart loves Singapore, the country of his birth and the crucible of his struggles, of his growth and of his hope? 

Pritam said that the term “loving critic” was first coined by Professor Tommy Koh. So, what does Prof Koh mean by that then? The last I checked, he wrote an article just last week entitled “Are art workers non-essential?”

In the article, he did not use the term “loving critic” but he did say that amongst the literary works of Singapore (eg. Kuo Pao Kun’s play, Stella Kon’s Emily of Emerald Hill and Tan Tarn How’s The Lady of Soul and Her Ultimate “S” Machine) Alfian’s Cooling Off Day is one of Singapore’s most important plays.

So, what does being “loving critic” mean? 

Alas, here is what Alfian himself has to say. Go read his FB, cos ST did not entirely flesh it out. Is he really pro-Malaysia? And when the rubber meets the road, will the Alfian Sa’at we know switch sides? 

From what I gather, on Malaysia’s entry into Singapore waters, his jingoism comment was a poet’s way of pleading with our Govt to try to exhaust all peaceful means to resolve the issues rather than to risk being seen as adopting a Sabre-rattling stance. To Alfian, at such sensitive times, the sound of sharpening one’s sword might just provoke an escalation of agression. 

In his defence, he said he was not mocking Singaporeans but was expressing “(dovish) anxiety over military escalation.” 

How about his praises for Mahathir and his intense dislike for LKY?

What about that? 

This is his defence. 

“So drawn to Dr Mahathir...that irresistible charisma...that shark’s instinct for his opponents’ soft underbelly...that caustic wit...that cunning slip into an earthly Kedah accent and that commoner’s slouch when he gets all folksy...where LKY gets all huffy and karate-chops the air to make his points, all Dr M needs to do is lean back, twiddle his thumb, and flash that tiger smile. Help...”

Alfian said that he was referring to Mahathir as a “Machiavellian politician”. He is thus admiring the way he played politics, coolly reaping the most advantage from the least of efforts, while LKY had to resort to intensely deliberate and overly wrought actions. 

But, he’s no Mahathir lover. In another article, he commented: “I’m upset to hear that Dr Mahathir stated that the Chinese have rejected the “Malay hand of friendship”. Don’t say that people have rejected your “hand of friendship” when you have no idea what friendship even means. Friendship doesn’t mean, “we can get along, as long as you accept my superiority.””

Alfian was basically saying that the grand old Tun was being hypocritical. In other words, it was an overdose of Machiavellian bravado, minus the “shark instinct” subtlety. 

So, in view of the above, I’d say that, more context on the pretext somehow clarifies the subtext? 

Lastly, does the prodigal son of Singapore really love, well, Singapore? 

Mm...on this, he was said to have expressed his preference for Malaysia (over Singapore) after its historic victory in May 2018 (To be honest, I too wrote a post to praise the people of Malaysia for their courage, passion and love for country). 

So, what does the petulant child of Singapore has to say then?

Alfian wrote: “there is nothing (in his statement) that I wished Singapore can be more like Malaysia.” He said it was a mischievous thing to say. He added: “Readers might assume, without context, that I am wishing for all the “bad things” they associate with Malaysia - Malay supremacy, semi-theocracy, corruption etc. But I am actually only implying that Singapore should review some of its more repressive laws.” 

(Well, here, I can think of Chia Thye Poh, Singapore’s longest political prisoner - 23 years of detention without trial and 9 years of house arrest in Sentosa; longer than the late Madiba. A life which sadly went quietly into the night just to keep paranoia at bay, and one’s pillow soft). 

For completeness, you can go and read Alfian’s FB, and then judge for yourself. Don’t take his word for it. Or mine. 

But the lesson I have learnt here is that artists may be non-essential, so says the recent sample poll, yet, what they have to say, how they want their country to change, and what burns within their tortured soul for their birth nation, are definitely not “non-essential”. 

There is always a context to their madness or perceived petulance. They express it with irony, biting irony; and if you get it, it doesn’t just bite you, it takes a chunk of your soul, and forces you to think deep, to depths that awaken you from within. And if you take a superficial jab at it, you will always be pissed.

Pritam is right. They are not perfect, because at times, they face an enemy that knows them too well, that pushes their buttons. And yes, that enemy is themselves. 

So when I read the news today, about our Law Minister defending Tan, and demanding Pritam to clarify his position, I felt that the forest has been missed for the trees. 

Alas, sometimes, we become so much of a tree-hugger, protecting a stubborn oak, that we forget the forest of fresh shrubs and flowing rivers, which give our nation hope, perspective, and innermost renewal.

And in hugging the tree too tightly, for too long, we run the risk of overlooking some of the decay that desperately needs reviewing, recalibrating and maybe, replanting.