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 Ivan Lim has withdrawn from the GE 2020.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?