Once saved always saved (revised)

John is an etherist. What’s that? It is a new-age movement with about 100,000 registered members. They do not have a place of worship like a church, temple or an ashram. Instead, they congregate in cyberspace like Facebook, Instagram with the occasional Skype to carry out initiation ceremonies and message dissemination.

 

Their god is a primordial energy and this original force exists everywhere. It is actually the source of all technology that runs the earth – so the etherists believe. And when they die, the etherists are promised that they will enjoy eternity in a celestial grid that stretches beyond the horizon. There will be no more tears and fears in this heavenly technological bliss that the etherists affectionately call glitteris.


 

The founder of etherism was a man called Jack Sparrow. He grew up in a Methodist home and was a technology genius at 9 years of age. Like Gates and Zuckerberg, Sparrow was also a college dropout. High Priest Sparrow, as he was known to his votaries, earned his first billion when he sold his neural mind-map program to a technology company from China.

 

Sparrow retired at 19 and started etherism. Its members believe that he was to be the chosen one, the elected saviour of the world. He was destined to solve the climate problem, defeat the robotic usurpation and redeem the earth from her own destruction.  However, Sparrow died of a heart attack at age 33. Many believe he is now in glitteris, the technology heaven for all etherists. After his death, the mantle was passed over to his wife, High Priestess Sarah Lee. Now, Sarah Lee claims that she is the new saviour of the earth. So much for cognitive dissonance, right?

 

Anyway, our story really begins with John and not Sparrow or Sarah Lee. But the background of Sparrow and the sect he has founded (etherism) would come in handy later. 

 

John is a die-hard member of etherism. He sold
everything he had to give to this movement. When Sparrow died, he was inconsolable. He fasted for weeks and even went to live for months in the woods. But, following his master’s footsteps, John also met his fate and died too. He passed on at age 33, same age as High Priest Sparrow. So, here comes the point of the story about “once saved always saved.” 

 

 

John: Where am I?

 

Angel: You died...you were electrocuted when you spilled green tea over your lap-top. Your heart stopped.

 

John: What? Just like that? I died? Where is this place?
 Who are you?

 

Angel: Welcome to the place of eternal rest. I am your angel guide.

 

John: Place of eternal rest? You mean glitteris?

 

Angel: This is heaven son.

 

John: Heaven…you mean the Christian’s heaven?

 

Angel: Yah…the one foretold in the Bible. Recall “in my father’s house there are many mansions”?

 

John: OMG, you mean this is not
glitteris, the techno-heaven of eternal bliss reserved just for etherists?

 

Angel: Erm…unless glitteris means heaven son, then yes welcome to glitteris then. Same place different name.

 

John: But…but, I renounced Christianity a long time ago. When I was 23 or 24. So, how is it that I still landed up here? Shouldn’t I be in that place of fire? You know, hell.

Angel: Well, here’s the thing…there’s a policy here called “once saved always saved,” and since you accepted Him in your youth, it’s forever…sorry. You so-called sealed the deal at 17 son.

 

John: That’s strange...I am an etherist. I died an etherist and not a Christian. I should be in glitteris. You mean to tell me that glitteris don’t exist?

 

Angel: Look here, I have a queue here. I don’t know about this place you call glitteris, but you are here now. You need to get on the program…once saved always saved program.

 

John: (thinking) Wait, you people believe in free-will right? Choices? Autonomy? Enlighten me on that. I chose etherism, I should be in glitteris. I strangely…erm, still believe in it.

 

Angel: Oh…here we go again…that free-will shenanigans.

 

John: Yes...free-will. You mean I can’t choose to renounce my belief and accept another? Doesn’t my choice count for anything? Can’t I unsave a save? 

 

Angel: Son, you’re obviously not getting it about the “once saved always saved” thingy. It’s just four simple words. How hard can it be? No theological baggage or philosophical debate here. Read my lips, “ONCE-SAVED-ALWAYS-SAVED”. Understood? Kapish.

(John shakes his head…)

 

Angel: Ok, son, I would just say this once. Free-will don't work the way you think it works on earth. There are some things that take precedence over free-will here. But there are others that don’t. Take for example, the choice of a movie, a school, an investment, a future wife or even going to war. These things...the man in charge here don't really bother. You people have absolute free-range on them. But when it comes to salvation and heaven, well…he has the final say. He crosses the “t” and dots the “i” so to speak. That’s what
"once saved always saved” means. In other words, his sovereignty reigns supreme. Suck it up. Can we move on?

 

John: Ok. I see. Once I am saved, I am saved. Nothing I do can change that, right? So, I am a Christian for life and even afterlife, even if I end up a Buddhist, Hindu or an atheist.

 

Angel: (smiles) Yes, we have a convert here! Next!

 

John: But...wait, in that case, I should expect High Priest Sparrow to be here too. He was a Christian, Methodist I think. He was baptized in a Methodist Church. I’m sure he said the sinner's prayer too. Where is he? Is he here?

 

Angel: Mm...

 

John: What? Jack Sparrow is here right?

 

Angel: Ok, it gets a little tricky here. He’s not here. He didn’t make it. That Sparrow nut…well, he is not our kind of nut, so to speak.

 

John: Aaah? I don't get it. Once saved always saved remember? You preached it earlier, right? He was saved, he is saved, he will be saved, kapish!

 

Angel: Son, don’t rub it in. I didn’t make the rules here. And it’s infinitely, erm…pun unintended, a little more complicated than that. We have to define “save” here.

 

John: Define save? Save is save. Save means save! The sinner’s prayer. The confession. The forgiveness. I am sure he did all that. Once saved always saved. 

 

Angel: You really ask a lot of questions, don’t you? Well, if you must know…save actually means more than that. Or more accurately, it means nothing like that actually.

 

John: You are not helping my heavenly guide…you are backtpaddling.

 

Angel: Well, in his book, save is a loaded word. It is all about population control I guess. Or keeping heaven heaven…or else we would have all kinds of weirdos here. You know I heard even Hitler once believed in Him.


 

John: Population control? You mean being saved is not just about saying the sinner’s prayer? Secured for life?

 

Angel: Erm…it’s about election son.

 

John: Election? You mean chosen? Chosen how? Chosen when? 

 

Angel:  …erm…before the creation of time.

 

John: So, he chose us even before there were anything? Isn't this
predestination?

 

Angel: Whoa, you make it sound like it’s a bad word. Just go with the flow son. I haven’t got all day…wait, I have eternity.

 

John: I see…I was, am chosen. Lucky me.

 

Angel: Yes, congrats! Move on…

 

John: And Sparrow didn’t make the cut…he was not chosen.

(Angel nods).

 

John: You know, if you come to think about it, it really doesn’t matter what we do on earth or in our lifetime then. We are either in or out, chosen or not, and the decision has already been settled long long time ago. This is really a lot to digest.

 

Angel: Well son, it is much deeper than that and you have an eternity to figure it all out.

 

Joh : Okay, I think I have a rough idea for now. In a nutshell, what you are telling me is that it is all done and dusted from the start. The book of life is the book pre-written.




Angel: Watch it son. You shouldn’t be complaining. You made it right? You're elected. Count your blessing. You want to spend one day in the complaints department here. The complaints are endless from the millions and millions who had dedicated their whole life for something that was never meant to be in the first place. You know how much explaining we have to do to tell people like Trump he is not elected…Trump my friend! I can expect him to rally up a storm when his time comes.

 

John: Mm…I guess you are right then. I should count my blessing. What a game changer! So, what now my guardian angel? Where do I check in?

 

Angel: Welcome to your eternal rest and bliss. Your mansion awaits. Let me take you there. Look out for the gold trimmings on the road. It is actually just next to…

 

 

 

PM Lee - Free Rider Issue

 

“At what point does a vote for a strong opposition become a vote for a different government?” PM Lee asked yesterday in Parliament.

Last night, the media has been abuzz with the description of “free rider” because PM Lee has been insisting on it even after Pritam Singh had explained that “voters who say that they want the PAP in government, but also want an opposition in Parliament, are giving voice to what many Singaporeans feel.”

PM Lee however said: “I think that is wrong thing to teach people to do. You go to the elections, you vote for the person whom you have trust in, who will run your system, who will run your government.”

“And our system is designed so that if you do that, it will be stable. If you don’t do that...you are courting trouble.”

“Therefore, something is wrong when you say, I really want one government but I will vote for another...I think it is necessary that people understand this, and understand what is at stake when you elect a government of Singapore.”

Personally I feel that after Sengkang quite unexpected win in July, and the general dip in percentage of the PAP dominance in Parliament, the mere mention of those who vote with that mindset as being “free riders” misses the point altogether, or worse, trivialises the sincerity of the voter.

 

In any event, by that logic, you can never vote for the opposition without being characterised as a “free rider”. Because, if you think about it, many considerations go into a vote, and one of them for the earnest voter is that he or she may feel that more competent opposition in parliament serves many purposes other than for transition of governments. 

Well, aside from those who give it no thought, waste or destroy their votes, or resign to the fact that PAP will dominate once more, just as the status quo has been so for the last 55 years, any vote cast for the opposition will be a vote with that thought in mind. Whether that thought is dominant or in passing, there is no point splitting political follicle over it.

The reality is, the system is fixed. Democracy is one man (or woman), one vote. Your vote is not weighted with explanatory note. It is basically a binary system where you either vote PAP or you vote opposition. There is no third way, excluding the possibility of destroying your vote of course.

As such, you do not have the luxury of explaining why you vote for one party and not the other. What’s more, I am quite sure some who vote for PAP also didn’t give it much thought, or maybe it was because, like some old folks said quite matter-of-factly, “they give money”. 

Anyway, I believe no one is so naive to think that every vote cast is arrived at after much conscious thought and deliberation. 

Mind you, in the light of our unique political development and system, mainly one-party dominant parliament since independence, how does the government expect a voter to vote if he or she feels strongly that there is a need for opposition, not in preparation of a change of government like the Tory and Labour, but for the purpose of acting as check-and-balance?

 

This in turns leads me to ask, why call someone with that mindset a free-rider when he votes for opposition because he wants to guard against groupthink, complacency, or echo-chamber syndrome, or to hold the government to greater account and scrutiny, notwithstanding that he genuinely appreciates what the government has done so far? 

And if democracy is about the freedom of choice and expression, can you blame the voter if he prefers to vote opposition from scratch rather than to vote otherwise because he is wary of the surrogate opposition schemes designed from within the party? 

And what if the voter is in a GRC where the competition is stiff, where each side fields equally good and honest candidates, and the voter is pressed for choice between the two, and she, after much consideration, casts her vote for the opposition, is she then a free-rider, even though she enjoys the security and infrastructure the government has provided her?

Alas, this may be the case for Aljunied and Sengkang, and it is not that the voters doesn’t appreciate the status quo, but instead they feel that, based strictly on candidate credentials and earnesty, their hard work and sincerity, the opposition tilts the balance just that tad for them. Are they then a free-rider?

My point is that we should give more credit to a thinking voter, who is concerned about the future direction and well-being of his or her country, especially in a Republic where all he or she has ever known are the men-in-white dominating Parliament. Not that credit is not due, or gratitude is not extended, but if our government endorses democracy, and live by its principles, then we ought to allow them to cast their vote in a way their conscience is clear or at peace with. 

While I trust there are free-rider or free-loader out there, I nevertheless also trust they are not the ones as characterised by PM Lee, that is, “a Singaporean (who) votes for the opposition, with the assurance that the PAP would still form the government of the day.” 

Mind you, that assurance is entrenched since day one, and to presume that that assurance is all a voter ever needs and can rely upon unconditionally or unthinkingly, without resorting to or appealing to his own democratic principles and good conscience is not only naive, but smacks of elitist governance. 

Let me end with Pritam’s own words. He said: “I am not desperate for power, Prime Minister, but we have got to get good people if we want to bring this country forward...At this point in our growth, I think, we have to grow our roots as a loyal opposition.” 

Well, since independence, power has been residing relatively safely in the hands of the ones who control Parliament. No doubt, looking at world developments elsewhere, and how corruption has torn a country apart, power in our case has been entrusted in good, responsible hands. 

Yet, power changes people. Like money, or the love of it, power harnessed and kept over time can lead not just to corruption, but complacency or blindsidedness. It can also lead to a form of unwitting arrogance and/or a sense of self-conceited paternalism. 

And all that or any one of that may just be reason enough to put more thought into one’s vote, without being unfairly labelled as a “free-rider”.

 

Goh Chok Tong and the inflexion point.

 

Towards a fair and just Singapore in a brave new world? 

That is the caption-title of an article written by Editor-at-large Han Fook Kwang this morning. He has a point when he wrote that “when you see 70-year-olds having to clean tables and toilets at hawker centres, you do not need a degree in economics to know it is not right.”

Well, a degree in economics can only get you so far. You can measure economic growth with plotted charts and graphs, but you can’t ensure or develop the moral courage to see it through. And what is growth anyway to an economist? GDP? NNI? Or is it about the most optimal allocation of scarce resources and risks based on market prices? 

Mind you, there is a difference between telling the people that the economy is growing 4%, with inflation under control and telling them that there will be a fairer distribution of income and gains in society and assuring them that the market has been tweaked in such a way that those who pollute more pay more. 

At this point, Fook Kwang reminded us about Tharman’s social compact, that is, not the invisible hand of the market, but the invisible heart for those in our society who are struggling to make ends meet. And that includes the 70-year-old cleaning tables and toilets and that 80-year-old pushing a trolley of cardboards for sale.

Tharman urges us “to go back to a sense of moral purpose in government, having the confidence to convince the population that these are the right thing to do...and go about it with the spirit of an activist.” 

But what is the activist’s mindset then? Do our leaders have that mindset? Are they there yet? Let’s pick the mind of a seasoned politician in Singapore to answer that.

ESM Goh was also featured in the papers today. On GE2020, he said: “To be very frank, I was expecting a better performance for the ruling party because of the Covid situation. I do believe that people generally will take flight to safety.”

He added: “I don’t think the party was addressing the aspiration side of what the young wanted, because they started to message on Covid-19 challenges and so on. But the young felt it’s your job, you can handle it; but what about my aspirations?”

When PM Lee unveiled his GE2020 manifesto with this motto of “Our Lives, Our Jobs and Our Future”, riding on the Covid pandemic to call upon Singaporean to choose safety over risks, he has underestimated the people who has always wanted a greater stake in how their future is shaped, rather than just taking cover when the weather turns. It is thus not just about calming the storm, but asking, “Where are you steering the boat to after the storm has calmed?”

For it is one thing to lead to inspire and another to lead with exacting efficiency.

On observing that we have reached an “inflexion point” in the people’s expectations, ESM Goh said: “I think the 4G has not yet shown themselves politically. They are intelligent, very competent, hard-working and good in running ministries. To be fair to them, they have not quite yet shown that political acumen, politician leadership.”

Is that the activist’s mindset that is lacking? That is, a mindset that goes beyond bread and butter issues to what Tharman calls a society with heart, with leaders able to move hearts and give them hope to aspire for greater things for themselves and for their family. 

Fook Kwang mentioned that “it is very hard to get everyone to pull together in the same direction when there are too many areas of unequal opportunities and inequality. It is why America is such a divided country.”

While some can retire comfortably, Fook Kwang wrote this about the plight of many in our unequal society: “When a person who has worked for 40 years full-time in affluent Singapore cannot afford to retire and have a decent life thereafter, it should be clear to everyone that his fate has not been fair and just.”

Well, fate by birth and circumstances is one thing, but some fate are fashioned by culture, and others by the hand of leadership. It is a fate that sees the minority governing from the commanding height of affluence with a widening moat of inequality that separates them from the others.

Alas, the recent social spat when someone who possibly earns tens of millions a year taking an indirect swipe at someone who has made a painful public decision to give a portion of his less than $400k a year to charity after an intimate discussion with his wife shows a society that is premised less on a moral purpose of being gracious, open-minded, humble and inclusive and more on a purpose that needs to put others down in order to “score political points”. 

Let me end with the hope that Fook Kwang is pinning on in his article. He wrote: “I hope therefore that when the Government speaks of continuity it does not mean more of the same, but will find new ways to steer Singapore successfully in the brave new world.”

I share the same hope with him in this brave new world. It is a world where moral courage means that our leaders are able to inspire a community built on a strong sense of shared belonging that carries the conviction that the only way our society can become strong is when they care for the weak, and the only way it can become rich is when they care for the poor. 

It is therefore a brave new world we can all have a stake in because it is one where we move from chasing after self-enriching projects that is socially isolating to a community in the pursuit of the common good for all, where no one feels he/she is left behind. 

To me, that is the empowering mindset of an activist. A mind that inspires unity by genuinely identifying with the people through personal sacrifices rather than one that instills fear in the hope that the people will run for cover, for the familiar, for the unchanging status quo.

 

Love in many languages.

“It is not that financial stability is not important, but having generosity towards others is more precious to me.” Ms Peng Cheng Yu said. 

She married Abraham Yeo last year. Abraham cofounded Homeless Hearts of Singapore. Their age gap is 13-year apart - he’s 38, she’s 25. Here’s their love story. 

She joined Homeless Hearts as a volunteer and that was when love at first step became a walk down the aisle a few months later. Ms Peng is now 7-month pregnant and is expecting a baby girl. 

“While Mr Yeo’s age was initially a concern, it was his generosity and heart for others, as well as his missionary way of life - choosing to serve God and others - that she also sought to follow that changed her mind.”

That missionary way of life colours everything they do and say. With hearts dovetailed towards generosity, the couple are “also keen to explore adoption and fostering.” 

Abraham said: “Being married also gives us the opportunity to move out into our own space and host people who need space, such as those who are homeless.”

I write this because if there is a black swan in our society when it comes to compatible goals in marriage, Abraham and Cheng Yu must be it. Abraham said: “A reason we were able to progress at this pace was that we had a clear idea of what we were looking for in each other. We know our life goals and the paths we wanted in life are compatible.”

Abraham admits that he married later in life because of the way he had lived, yes, that missionary way of life. That means that if you are scrolling through coffee and bagel and looking for financial stability as one of the prerequisites, well, people like him are out. 

And who doesn’t want that kind of stability? Isn’t it basic? Isn’t it what you want for your daughter in a future son-in-law? No money, erm...hard to talk. Understandable. 

But bucking the trend is Cheng Yu and Abraham. Not that it is not important, but like Cheng Yu said, “having generosity towards others is more precious to me” or us. And the two goals are not mutually exclusive though, and that mutuality reminded me of a scripture in 1 Timothy which says, “But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.”

Likewise, generosity with financial stability is great gain too; for an ungenerous heart will never find stability even if the world is handed over to him on a silver platter. When a heart takes more in than it gives out, what he stores up becomes an obsession, his preoccupation, his distraction. 

For without generosity, the heart piles up for himself what he cannot take with him when he is gone. He can no doubt leaves an amply inheritance, but that doesn’t heal the heart that is untouched by the gift of generosity.

Incidentally, the headline today in the Home Section is about this: “Fewer marriages, more divorces last year”. Couples who are going to ROM to register their marriage is 6 per cent lower last year (2019) as compared to 2018, that is, from 25,434 (2019) against 27,007 (2018).

At the same time, couples who had divorced or annulled their marriage have increased by about 4 per cent, that is, 7,344 in 2018 as compared to 7,623 in 2019. 

Without more, I can’t say in particular that this is a trend. I guess we have to wait and see, although it is quite apparent that over the years, divorces have been rising steadily. 

Sociologist Tan Ern Ser said that the fall in marriages may be due to “a variety of factors”. For example, the economy’s not doing well, deferment to buy flat because of affordability, and “there is a shift in social values towards approval of cohabitation”.

As for rising divorces, Focus on the Family’s principal counsellor Theresa Pong said: -

“Many married couples in the midst of balancing multiple responsibilities and roles, would place their marriages on the backseat, putting greater priority on other aspects of life such as career, finances, and even parenting.”

“Without intentional effort in investing in the marital relationship, this can often lead to an increase in unmet expectations between couples and a variety of marital issues that may result in divorce.”

Well, after reading all that, I choose to end with the missionary way of life of Abraham and Cheng Yu. 

They are newly wed no doubt, and will be starting their family soon. It is definitely an exciting new marital path they will be walking together, from the aisle saying “I do” to the journey they will take saying “I will” - while at the same time, sharing their home and life with those who are in need, those who need shelter, and those who need a warm meal. 

The truth is, nobody can tell for sure whether their union will overcome the test of time, circumstances and even personalities, for marriage is indeed like a searing searchlight of the soul, and it unravels as much as it excites. For while the excitement bubbles at the aisle, the unravelling culminates along the character-testing journey. 

But, I believe with my heart that their marriage is not just a black swan, it is also foundationally sound. Because what they got right is not about meeting their own expectations, or matching the ideal of a marital union.

On the contrary, what they got right is how they seek to serve others first. 

For a marriage that is built on generosity and sacrifices is a marriage that allows love to transcend and overcome all the trials in life. But a marriage based on “unmet expectations” unravels when the first crack emerge. 

Indeed, when the heart is generous, it is always contented. It lacks nothing. It is sufficient by itself. And when you join the two hearts together in their missionary way of life and love, what you have is a marriage built to last for a lifetime, and a legacy that will endure even after they are long gone.

 

 

GE2020 - Swearing in ceremony.

They have been sworn in and confirmed. All 93 of them with the cabinet and the opposition WP. 

Addressing President Halimah, PM Lee said: “Madam President, I have spent my entire adult life in public service. I will continue to devote myself to my country and people, drawing strength and purpose from the support of Singaporeans, young and old.”

Now, the work is all cut out for them, especially with the Covid pandemic and how the economy is reeling from it. The acid test of government is really about transforming that social contract with the people into a social pact or covenant that transcends race, language, religion, and economic privileges, and thereafter brings about a unity that joins minds, hearts and souls together against one’s common foe. 

As a citizen, I wish them the best, both the leader of the ruling party and the leader of the opposition.

Lesson? I have three metaphorical lessons, and they are from the teasing words of the speaker of the house, Tan Chuan-Jin. He posted a “rueful shot of himself adjusting the strap of his mask, which appeared to have snapped,” with this remark: - 

“Lesson learnt: Don’t fiddle with mask. Make friends with cameraman. Always practise your knots.”

1) Don’t fiddle with mask. 

To me, this means, let’s stop playing politics. We can’t end the misgivings or the disappointments, or salvage the lost opportunities. And we can mourn about it and criticise it. But as a nation, we will have to find our own ways to move forward. 

Some will need more time to do so, and others may be swifter in taking that first step. Yet, there is still a difference between a healthy critical mind, open to ideas yet skeptical for the right reasons and with the right attitude, and a soul bitter at almost everything, with hearts hardened and fists clenched, always looking at the worst in every action and situation. 

In the same way that you will never see a vulture swooping in to fan her wings out to protect a dying victim grasping for air, such mindset has only one thing in their mind, that is, to view everything as a dead carcass ripe for the picking. 

Alas, the season for choosing is over. It is done. It is now the season for healing, for advancing together, and for building trust, hope and resilience. 

2) Make friends with cameraman.

Ultimately, the people matters. PM Lee said: “We aspire to be a fair and just society, with opportunities for all. We wish to fashion an inclusive community, where we look out for one another, reach out to those who need help and show every Singaporean that they have a stake in our future.”

To be honest, this reality is far from the ideal. We still judge people not so much by the content of their character, but by the make up of their resume. We still polarise towards convenient categories like race, religion and social status/privilege. 

The recent video made by the unwitting and unthinking calling the LGBT community an “agent of satan” is an example of seeing people not by the struggles they have gone through, but by the fixed labels some segment of society have arbitrarily thrown at them. 

The label is our rule of thumb. Our security blanket. It is a convenient way to just lasso one category up, and indiscriminately discriminate. By doing so, we readily reduce them into “not us” and thereby making it easier to fight a cause either for their segregation or redemption, both of which comes from the same source, self-righteousness. 

So, yes, make friends with cameraman, be authentic and real, tell it as it is, don’t pretend to be what you are not, and if you need time to change, be sincere about it and get on with it. 

We can understand and support a person on the road to redemption, determined to make amends, but not someone who takes hypocrisy to new heights by weaponising what is good and pure, and turning it into a cause for self-promotion and attention. 

And...

3) Always practise your knots. 

I guess practise makes perfect, but it also depends on what you are practising. Does it make you more human or less? Does it move you towards becoming a better you or a more hypocritical you? 

Addressing WP, PM Lee said: “I hope our colleagues across the aisle will step up to play their role of a responsible and loyal opposition.” I trust by loyal, he meant loyal to the people. 

“Their duty is not merely to raise criticisms and ask questions of the Government, necessary as these functions are. But also, more importantly, to put forward serious policy alternatives to be scrutinised and debated.”

Well, Pritam is the Leader of the Opposition and I trust he will practise his political knots by making sure they are not dead, fixed or immovable, and at the same time, are also able to hold on firmly at the right places so that the reason for which they are voted in is not undermined. 

In any event, I believe we are entering into a new era of political leadership in Singapore. With ten seats out of 93, and two GRCs, leadership in the midst of a crisis is not about rallying together out of fear, but one out of courage, confidence and sacrifice. 

The reality is, we can no longer surf on the waves of the old guards led by the iconic LKY, but we can ride on the wings of diversity, regardless of political pedigree and meritocratic privilege, with the aim of fostering enduring unity and resilience. 

So, indeed, I wish them all well, with the support of and from the people, as we all move forward together against our common foe.