Heng Swee Keat - U-turn Part 1.

Singaporeans allow for U-turn. 

If you have not heard, DPM Heng Swee Keat (“HSK”) has decided to step aside as leader of PAP’s 4G team. He is not going to lead them in the future. He is passing the mantle to a younger leader. 

No doubt his age is one factor. He is 60. He said the crisis will be prolonged and he will be close to mid-60 when the pandemic blows over, if it blows over. He said “60s are still a very productive time of life.”

He explained: “But when I also consider the ages at which our first three prime ministers took on the job, I would have too short a runway should I become next prime minister then. We need a leader who will not only rebuild Singapore post-Covid-19, but also lead the next phrase of our nation-building effort.”

So, at 60, after fighting the pandemic, he will be inching towards seventy, and that leaves little time to lead the country to “the next phrase of our nation-building effort.” By saying that, I trust HSK is looking for continuity and stability if he should lead. 

You see, Goh Chok Tong took over the helm at 49 and served about 14 years. And LHL took over at 52, and pushing towards 70, he has already served more than 16 years, and counting. Their runways thus gave their leadership the desired continuity and stability for building up the nation in their respective unique phrases of development. 

But nevertheless, one has to ask, when he was anointed about three years ago, that should all be clear at that time right? 

In fact, one of the concerns was his age, apart from his health. For the latter, he had reassured the electorate that he had recovered and was going strong. 

But, having said that, surely his age ought to have already been factored into the decision to take up the leadership right? Whether long or short runway, at 58 then, the runway has already been paved in dried cement. It is therefore with eyes opened that HSK decided to assume the role after LHL hits 70. 

So, what gives? What happened? 

Well, Covid happens I guess. And no one could have foreseen that one single microorganism could create such a havoc on the world. I mean, who would have expected that in one year, you as finance minister would announce five budgets just to address the dire situation Covid has put us in? That’s unprecedented. That’s a challenge to the core of leadership. 

And HSK was honest about it. He’s only human. He too wears his parliamentary pants one leg at a time. He said that in addition to his age, that is, the short runway, the profound challenges of the pandemic and the demands of the top job were also the other important considerations for his stepping aside in favour of younger leaders. 

I guess he knows his limit. He counted the cost, and unfortunately, the rehearsal for the real thing was more than what he had expected, or bargained for, especially with the pandemic coming from nowhere and will be staying for some time. 

Alas, let me say that human leadership is human after all - flesh and blood, not brick and mortal. As such, we are all given the opportunity for U-turns, and it may not be a bad thing. For it may be a U-turn towards reform, coming back stronger, or a U-turn to face harsh reality and bravely admit that one is just not ready, or cut out for the job.

Mind you, it takes as much courage and self-awareness to fight on at the forefront, leading the pack, as it takes to admit I am not the right man and then do all one can to support wholeheartedly the search for the right man for the job. 

And this is not exactly a U-turn midstream since he is not formally appointed as PM, but one done before one takes the plunge. 

Yes, we can’t stop some from speculating about internal conflict or in-fighting, politicking or fractional competition, even going tribalistic and/or egoistic. In other words, we can’t stop the tongue from wagging and the press from impressing. But, I think we should at least give our leaders the benefit of a doubt. We are not in his shoes and we may not fully understand his woes. 

There is thus always a gap, or chasm, between the one who votes and the one who is voted in. Democracy is about majority’s preference or choice for a party to lead, and the one leader to be nominated by his party peers to the commanding height. 

It is therefore a completely different assault of emotions and responsibilities between the one who drops the vote in the ballot box, and the one who is being elected to lead the nation. The pressure, the burden and the physical toll on him are thus vastly different too. 

And being human, we are indeed allowed to make U-turns because when the tables are turned, we would equally desire for understanding and elbow room to move as we come to accept our own limitations when we confront our own Goliath. For not all of us are called to be the Davids of our circumstances. That is a fact that takes courage to own up. 

Sometimes, retreating from a battle so as to fight another day, or to pass the baton to a better fighter, to continue the fight together, is no less a victory through the perspective of time, humility and integrity.

 

In Memoriam - Eddie W Barker.

A few good men. A few honest men. A few godly men. 

Sometimes, you read the obituary and you realise the people who have gone before us had also lived their lives before us. That’s obvious I know. 

But what is less obvious is the lives they have lived, each of them tells of a story, a narrative of the moment they came, the crossroads they faced, the life they struggled with, and the death they came to terms with. 

It’s not all written so clearly unless you are prepared to read about them, learn about them, and at times, see through their eyes the furnace of fire they have walked through. 

Today’s obituary highlights a passing twenty years ago. He was our former law minister, a gentleman’s parliamentarian, a winsome speaker of the house, and a man who loved life as much as he loved sports, wine and country. EW Barker, the People’s Minister, and I have read the book written by Susan Sim about EW Barker. 

He was no doubt brilliant academic wise, being awarded one of only three Queen’s Scholarships in 1947. But as the People’s Minister, not much is known about him. 

SR Nathan said: “He was never much of a household name as some of the other pioneers. To understand his importance, you really had to know him and be aware of what he was doing.”

What he first did was to put Singapore on her first step to Independence when he drafted, finalised and secured (together with GKS) the signatures of the three separation papers that laid the cornerstone for the celebration of our National Day every year since Aug 1965. When he handed the signed papers over, LKY said: “Thank you Eddie. This is a bloodless coup.” 

He was known as the People’s minister because he blended in with the community. One day, he could be up there arguing in courts and parliament, and the next, bantering with common folks at the coffeeshops. 

Being the MP for Tanglin, the late legal eagle Subhas Anandan once described him as someone who “could go to a coffee shop and sit around the people. He could have his beer there. I don’t think any other minister could do it. I think EW Barker was the only person who could do it.”

And we must not forget that EW Barker (and GKS) were not afraid to stand up for what is right, or what they think is the right thing to say or do. They were the few good men who were prepared to stand up to disagree with LKY. Indeed, you will need such people to turn an echo chamber into a chamber of progress, learning and humility. 

In the book, here is an extract of what EW Barker shared about his working relationship with LKY. 

“I’m not scared of him. I’m his contemporary. I never wanted the job. He asked me to come in, and I came in. I gave him the benefit of my advice. Whether he took it or not, that’s another matter.

In fact, a few months after I was appointed Minister in 1964, he called me to his office and asked me: “Why are you always taking me on in Cabinet?”

I said: “Well, if I think you are wrong, I must tell you.”

He said: “But why so many times?”

I said: “Well, if you want me to be a yes-man, than starting tomorrow, I’ll say yes to everything you say.”

He said: “Well OK. You just carry on.””

Imagine that, LKY said “...but why so many times?” Yes, iron sharpens iron, and the best disagreement you can have is one premised on mutual understanding and respect and rooted on courage, principles and enduring friendship. LKY and EW Barker shared that bond that always puts their country and friendship above their differences and disagreements.

EW Barker continued: “About one month before I left the Cabinet (1988), (LKY) pointed to me and said (to the rest of the Cabinet): “He’s always disagreeing with me. Why don’t you all do it more often? There was no response. He went on: “Sometimes he’s right, sometimes he’s wrong, but at least I had the benefit of his advice.””

That’s so true. EW Barker was that man, that man who was not defined by the obsessive desire to be right all the time. LKY thus had the benefit of his advice because he spoke out from his heart, and if he were wrong, he accepted it and moved on. But at least, he was not known in LKY’s eyes as a yes-man, not one who was a voiceless advisor, but a fearless one. 

Another trait you should know about him is that he too struggled financially when he didn’t make enough to pay for his house mortgage. He took out the mortgage when he was working in Lee and Lee. But on a minister’s pay of about $2,500 in 1964, he and wife had to make do and spend less. 

Although the minister’s pay was increased to $4,500, it was nothing compared to what he could earn in private practice. In 1973, EW Barker’s pay was increased to $7,000 and the aim was to help him pay his mortgage. 

And that was why, over the years of service mainly motivated by a sense of civil duty, LKY, a man who said he has no regrets, said this: -

“I feel very guilty about Mr Barker, my friend Eddie. I robbed him of at least $30 million had he stayed in Lee and Lee or had he gone into business with my brother, he would have had easily $60 million.”

“When he left, all I could give him was a pension which he could commute. And he wanted to leave, from the 1970s, the moment the Government was stable, he said, “Can I leave now, Harry?” I said, “Who have I got?” He was honest. He was capable. He said as honourable. I trusted him. He ran the Ministry of National Development. He ran the Ministry of Law and he ran with competence. His wife was not a lawyer and they had only his salary. Can I repay him now?”

“All I could do was to ask the Prime Minister, “Will you consider giving the old guards a little token of recognition?” It is too late. By the time he retired in 1988, time had passed, his energy levels were lower.”

In fact, having said all that, EW Barker had always been puzzled about the high ministerial pay. At one social gathering, he said that he could not understand the need for huge salaries. He said to Anandan that as long as he got his “cigarettes and beer,” that was fine for him. 

And to add to the remembrance of a man who once graced this groaning earth, he was truly a family man too. His daughter, Deborah, recounted: “As a father, he played games with us in our garden. We used to have family badminton competitions...He would rent holiday bungalows in Changi. That was our idea of a perfect holiday - by the sea, walking along the beach, building sand castles.”

Here I recall what one professor of psychology Marshall Duke (of Emory University) said about life. 

He said: “All family narratives take one of three shapes...First is the ascending family narrative: We came from nothing, we worked hard, we make it big. Next, the descending narrative: We used to have it all. Then we lost everything.”

Marshall then continued: “The most healthful narrative is the third one. It’s called the oscillating family narrative. We’ve had ups and downs in our family. Your grandfather was vice president of the bank, but his house burned down. You aunt was the first girl to go to college, but she got breast cancer.”

“Children who know that lives take all different shapes are much better equipped to face life’s inevitable disruptions.”

That’s so true too. Life is not just up and up all the way. For what goes up comes down right? Valleys and mountaintops share one common golden thread or narrative: they are not what breaks us. In fact, they could very well build us up, regardless. 

Yes, circumstances challenge us, but it is a choice made as a family as one that determine how we make mountaintops out of valleys, and vice versa, valleys out of mountaintop. For you can be at the top and miserable. Or, you can be down there and yet your spirit is always up, lives are still touched by you, and your family and friends still stand by you. 

Alas, a healthy and resilient narrative is one where the downs are just as empowering as the ups, and the ups never cause them to lose sight of their humble valley roots. Remember trees grow from valley up, with roots grounded and hopes upward bound. 

Let me end with the words of EW Barker: -

“Life is what you make of it. There are some who inherit wealth only to squander it away, while others make their fortune on their own efforts by dint of hard work, determination and perseverance.

But happiness is not necessarily associated with wealth. The important thing is to have a purpose in life, a goal to achieve and the satisfaction of achieving it.” (18 Aug 1973, Swiss Cottage Secondary School Speech Day). 

That is why the quoted verse in the obituary is this placed on the doorpost of one’s heart: -

“What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” (Micah 6:8). Amen.

 

Heng Swee Keat - U-turn Part 2.

 

When asked, “do you need to nail every lie to protect your reputation at all cost?”, LKY said: -

“Put that question to the new leaders. I defended my position tooth and nail. I succeeded. I fought against the media in Singapore and internationally. I won because I’ve persuasive powers. I can speak to the people over the blather of the media...”

“So when I say I’m going to fix that guy, he will be fixed. Let’s make no bones about it. I carry my own hatchet. If you take liberties with me, I’ll deal with you. I look after myself because when you enter a blind alley with the communists, only one person comes out alive...”

With the recent announcement by HSK, I wonder, who amongst the 4G carries his own hatchet? And what kind of hatchet is it, blunt or sharpened? Or, is it a plowshare that they each carries together as a team, planting the seed, nurturing and growing, and harvesting also together as a team? 

It’s a foregone conclusion that PAP under the ironclad leadership of the first generation is long gone. LKY said: “So, I’m not afraid of going into an alley with anybody, let alone the foreign press. What can they do to me? Can they influence my votes? They can’t.”

That is one man vs the press world and that same man will go at it alone if he had to. That is the rugged individual that is LKY. 

Now, with the 4G, principally made up of CCS, OYK, Lawrence and Desmond, it is uncertain whether they will be going into the alley alone. More likely, they will go in and out as a team. As they’d said, it is a first-among-equal team, for there is no LKY-type in such a set up. 

It is undeniable that our leaders are a product of their time and circumstances. LKY and his lieutenants had their demons to fight.

LKY had the communists. He said this about his greatest fear for Singapore, “I think a leadership and a people that have forgotten, that have lost their bearings and do not understand the constraints that we face. Small base, highly organised, very competent people, compete for international confidence, an ability to engage the big countries. We lose that, we’re down. And we can go down very rapidly.”

Goh Keng Swee himself worked in the Japanese Tax Department during WWII. At that time, food was scarce and they had to make ends meet with food ration and running a modest tobacco business, exchanging luxuries then like tinned sardines, alcohol and cigarettes with the utmost secrecy. 

As for EW Barker, in June 1944, he was with the anti-malaria unit and had to trek up to work with a medical unit 160 km behind the Japanese frontline, in camps along the Siam-Burma Railway (known also as the Death Railway, where 16,000 POWs had died building it). 

But, each of them came out of it different. They carried with them their own distinct personalities, and however you stretch them, they ultimately “regress to the means” or return to who they were at the core. 

We have one who had armed himself with his own hatchet and was not to be trifled with. We have another who was a practical man, not bound by distracting dogmas. GKS once said: “Let me confess at the outset that I am a specialist by inclination, training and experience and not a happy generalist who can take a broader, even philosophical view of human affairs.”

He added: “My interest centres on how developing countries can lift their populations out of the wretched poverty which (it has) been their misfortune to endure. More recently, I had been concerned with how acquisition and spread of knowledge can contribute to a successful outcome.”

As for EW Barker, a Permanent Secretary for National Development, Benny Lim, once described him as follows: “Barker was not a natural politican - he lacked raw political ambition and the consuming passion of the ideologically driven. He was a natural leader - in sports, in school.”

“He also had a first-rate mind...He was a Renaissance gentleman and a human being comfortable in his own skin - no chip on the shoulder, nothing to prove and not one to seek out the political limelight.”

Both GKS and EW Barker retired from politics early, that is, 1984 and 1988 respectively. Like Benny said, they step out of the political limelight because once the job is done, they know it’s time to go. 

As for LKY, Singapore had always been his lifelong commitment. She was an ongoing concern for him, till the end of his life. And he was right when he made this observation: -

“Each generation faces different milieu, a different backdrop, a different set of problems. If you don’t have the conviction that you want to do this because you feel strongly you want to do something for the people, don’t do it.” Mind you, LKY did say this, “At the end of the day, what have I got? A successful Singapore. What have I given up? My life.”

The truth is, at times, we become reluctant leaders, assuming the role more out of obligation than conviction, because we just do not share the same intensity of passion that some leaders have or possessed. That is quite common, even understandable, and I guess HSK saw that hatchet lying there, lifted it up for a while, and then felt it did not cut it for him.

It should be noted that politics works on a different level as compared to running a family, a company or a town council. Morality and ethics work at different levels too. It is more nuanced than the million of voters would want to believe or subscribe to. It is much more than just ticking the desired square and dropping it into the ballot box. It ends there for voters, but it’s just the beginning of the furnace of fire for a politician leader. 

Just as not all lies are born equal, not all actions of a leader can be benchmarked against a fixed moral standard. Different situations call for different measures, not all of them pleases everyone, or even gel with certain moral expectation. 

For example, domestic violence within a home, in public or in the community is an offence. But a war president is often praised for his decision, even though more may die from it. Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb, though some had deem it wholly unnecessary, was hailed by others for making a tough decision with courage and resolute. 

Max Weber himself distinguished the ethics of conviction, which refuses to tolerate injustice, similar to what Martin Luther once said, “Here I stand; I can do no other,” and ethics of responsibility, which must focus primarily on results. And Max Weber had also forewarned leaders who always have in mind the pursuit of purity in politics. He said: “Whoever seeks the salvation of his own soul and the rescue of souls, does not do so by means of politics.” 

In the end, HSK, like EW Barker and GSK, knew his political journey towards the premiership has to end here and now to make way for others. Seen in that light, he may be considered as a reluctant leader, one who is no doubt competent, even persistent, but not convicted enough to take up that so-called hatchet-arming top job. 

Yes, he had made a u-turn, and it has been disappointing because every decision comes with consequences, especially at that level. In other words, legitimate expectations come with every decision made. But I guess it is all about damage control, and HSK knew it is better now than later - for himself and for the nation as a whole. It would be far worse when you change positions midstream, especially in such rapid waters on an uncharted route. 

After all said, here’s how I end this Sunday reflection and LKY’s words would be apt. 

“I have no regrets. I have spent my life, so much of it, building this country. There’s nothing more that I need to do. I can’t worry about the fourth generation leadership except to advise the current ministers to get a team in because they need time to develop the new leaders. They can’t just take a course in leadership for six months. They have to work together and understand this is the way it can work in Singapore. So there’s no glitch when the leadership transition takes place.” 

Let’s hope that this time, the leadership transition would take place without any more glitches, to elect a leader with enough conviction to carry us through as one nation. Not necessary one who carries his own hatchet, but at least one who is not afraid at times to go first into a dark alley alone, because even a fish swimming in the ocean has only one head leading its body, which is diligently supporting from behind.

 

Good Friday Reflection (April 2020)

 

I wonder, what does this day mean to me?

If you don’t know about this day, it can be surmised in three integral narratives. It’s about a man who claims to be God. It’s about a sacrifice driven by unconditional love. And it’s about a life who has endured the worst that this world has prepared for him, yet he overcame all, even death. 

The first part is about faith. The second about love. And the third is hope. 

Fabled tale?

Well, unlike the apostle, the personal witnesses of this nature-defying event thousands of years ago, by the time this narrative comes to us today, it is no doubt already been secondary sources many times over.

 

That is why year in and year out, Good Friday is largely about a recursive message repackaged from the pulpit before a solemn audience. And bless their rejoicing hearts, some churches will try to spruce the message up with theatre, a moving choir, a stunning stage performance, or a musical piece with intimate sound effects at the right intervals.

Still, if you want to relate to the message in a more personal way, you can also view this day as one about an exceptional life, even by the standard of the secular world, that had lived in an exceptional way, that is, against the grain of what we have been taught about success, and notwithstanding the disappointment, pain and deep betrayal, with tears shed like drops of blood, he never gave up, took that road condemned, and cried, “forgive them”, before ending with, “it’s finished”. 

So, if you piece it all together, as a runner, he has completed the race. As a warrior, he has fought the good fight. And as a man who came with nothing, he was raised to be something even up till today we are still reminded of him. 

The world just could not forget. The calendar remembers. He has indeed left a mark called the cross that has given the world a reason to celebrate life and afterlife. 

In fact, I know of a life who has recently left this world at such a young age, yet she had left it in such a way that has given me good reason to celebrate this day in the quietude of my heart. No fanfare. No frills. No theatre. Just a solitary walk of quiet realisation. 

I know her as See Ting. She passed on in February this year. She was only 28. Yet, she had fought the good fight and ran the good race. And she left with this resolution in her heart: “I want to be known as someone who loves well, and is well-loved.” That for me is the essence of the walk of via Dolorosa. 

So if Good Friday has a message, it is in the message of a life that has taken that same road condemned, the furnace fire, and turned it into a celebration not just of life, but of love, faith and hope. And the short life of See Ting borne all that fruit, and so much more. 

You can read about her life in a recent article in Vogue written by Amelia Chia, 31 March 2021. It is a beautiful article in See Ting’s own words. 

And for a glimpse of it, here is what See Ting had to go through at an age when most of us are thinking of career, marriage and family. 

“By the age of 28, (See Ting) had confronted hurdles most of us believe to be untouchable in our youth. 

When she was 20, she was diagnosed with alopecia areata, an autoimmune disorder where deregulation of the immune system leads to an attack on the hair follicles—causing her to lose her hair. 

In 2019, when (See Ting) was 26, she came face to face with triple-negative breast cancer and a subsequent mastectomy. Last year, a couple of months before her 28th birthday, she was dealt life’s final blow. The cancer cells had migrated to her brain, resulting in leptomeningeal disease, which is terminal.”

Despite going through what is unthinkable and most heartbreaking for anyone at that age, or any age, See Ting was still so full of life and even declared this: -

“If left to my flesh, I do feel resentment for the life I’ve been given. There are times when I compare my life behind-the- scenes to others’ highlight reels, but this is my lot and I’ve become a better person after each health episode. I like me a lot more now; my character has been honed through the fire. I’ve learnt not to complain.” 

See Ting added: “I was very real about what faith looks like. I think many times, when people ask, “Oh, you are Christian, everything you just thank God, and thank God, you know, it’s just all fine and dandy.” Being a Christian is like one of the most difficult things...in my life, there’s just a lot of challenges, right? But I would not trade this for anything else, because in this journey, my God has always held my hand.” 

Now that’s faith, a faith that walks in the valley, and at the same time, celebrates at the mountaintop. They are one and the same thing to the one who is brought to the rock that is higher than I. 

Next comes hope. See Ting said: ““Our end destination is heaven. If I don’t see healing come to pass, then it is on the other side. I genuinely believe that we are sojourners passing through this Earth. We are homesick for a place where there is no more pain and suffering.” 

Now, that’s the hope of a believer. That’s the good news in Good Friday. Not an escape hatch, but a life living fully in the present in the shadow of eternity. 

Lastly, love, and love is even more beautiful in See Ting’s life. He comes as Ian Ng. Ian knew the cost, yet in November last year he proposed to her. They met on C&B in Feb 2019 and he stayed with her through all her nights and all her days, until her very last. 

But what is most moving is love overcoming in the midst of an uncertain future. Here is how Amelia wrote about it in the interview: -

“(Ian) decided to stay, but their relationship didn’t begin until (See Ting) resolved her own internal struggles. “I struggled to accept that Ian is a good man and he loves me,” she admits. “A friend told me that when a good man comes along, he will give you no reason to doubt and the only reason to doubt is yourself. Ian never gave me any reason to doubt; I realised it was my own insecurity and past baggage.””

“There’s a different kind of pain when you watch a loved one suffer and you feel helpless,” (See Ting) says, tears welling up in her eyes. “But I saw him dance, praise and entrust my life in God’s hands. He takes the best care of me and loves me more than anything. If God takes me away sooner rather than later, I believe our hope that it’s ‘not goodbye, but see you soon [in heaven]’ will carry Ian through.”

That is love, unconditional and enduring. A love prepared to go through the best and the worst of times. A love that will never leave, in the valley or at the mountaintop.

So, let me end with an encounter, a familiar one. 

“As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 

But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”

“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.””

Indeed, Mary has chosen the better thing; the only thing that epitomises what Good Friday means. It is the same choice See Ting had consistently made, confronting life, at its rawest and its joyous. In all circumstances, she chose the one thing above all. She chose faith, hope and love. She became abetterting. 

And that’s what Good Friday means to me.

 

Good Friday Reflection - Metanoia.

Metanoia. That is what resurrection sunday means to me. 

Meta is “after” and noeo is to reflect, to think deep. After the fact, metanoia compels me to think, to reassess, to change. It is the change of consciousness, radical change though, but a lifetime transition. It is a determined journey, not a half-hearted trek that splits into many directions midway. 

That’s the unassuming resurrection power on Easter, a day of change, a change of heart and soul, spirit and body - the sublime effect of intimate transformation. 

And the Cross is the axis mundi, that is, the connection between heaven and earth, through which a prilgrim may walk pass, like Jacob’s ladder. And this axis mundi is embodied in the words of Jesus, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” 

He is therefore the bridge; not one who stands at the other side and hollers the directions or throws a map over the chasm. But one who joins us in our quest for meaning and purpose, and in the pained journey, ends up inviting us to join him in the defining destination that is Calvary, to witness for ourselves metanoia at its bloodiest, at its most defenceless, at its most profaned. 

That is why CS Lewis said: “A cleft has been opened in the pitiless walls of the world,” and with it we catch a glimpse of that holy intersection between a kingdom the tempter is offering us and the kingdom the one crucified has promised us. Alas, the two worlds often colliding in our struggles to live with meaning and purpose; one world is unrelentingly irresistible and the other is infinitely indispensable. 

But let me just say that the enduring power of his story is not on the day he is risen. And I am not being a wet blanket here, in particular, this wet Easter morning. Its enduring power is however on the day or the many days prior. For no champion worth his weight in gold wins by having the crown handed over to him without fighting for it. 

In other words, he wins it by fighting the good fight, and running the good race. We all know that no race finishes at the starting line. And it is not so much the end that changes the partaker of this race, it is the decision to run it to the end, one persevering step at a time, that metanoia is made complete in our life.

Author Brian Mountford said: “The spiritual and moral heart of the Gospel is expressed not so much in Easter Day as in that goes before. If you haven’t got the message by the time Jesus is nailed to the cross, you’re never going to. In telling the story, our contemporary culture has concentrated on everything being lovely on Easter Day, and decorated it with kitsch - eggs and bunnies - whereas the power of the story is in Jesus’s resilience and integrity as he walks through the valley of the shadow of death.”

Yet, having said all that, the cross and the resurrection do not stand separate and apart. What is one without the other? Like colours and light, you can have the most mesmerising colours in the best combination ever conceivable, but in sheer darkness it lies in waste, denied of sight and appreciation. 

So, truly, the resurrection may celebrate a victory, but focusing on it exclusively makes faith a mirage that can never withstand the siren call of a world the tempter has prepared for us. 

If you need an example, it is no different from one who enters the race hoping for a big break midstream. Very much like the prosperity gospel, he craves after the risen rather than the seed that first falls to the ground and dies. Nothing rises without first being planted. And no seed ever flourishes apart from the good soil. Indeed, anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternity. 

But mind you, focusing exclusively on the cross turns one into a recluse, living a life of an ascetic. For he has left us with one compelling commission and two empowering commandments, not a hermitage for us to hibernate in. What good is then a seed that bears no fruit or a light hidden under the bed where no one is ever guided by it.

Let me bring this to a close to say that Jesus did not come to persuade us with possession or power; neither win us over with fame nor fortune. For didn’t he say that the first shall be the last; the poor shall savour his kingdom; the hungry filled, the weeping laughing, and the persecuted rewarded? 

His message is thus simple enough. He had in fact demonstrated it in the life he had lived. For he is the way, because he journeyed through it; the truth, because he lived it out; and the life, because he had given it up. That is the power of the cross and the resurrection - when the two become one, when colours and light coincide. 

That is also the essence of metanoia, that is, the enduring change that awaits at the foot of Calvary when we partake not just in his overcoming, but also his suffering. And to think of it any lesser is to believe in a form of godliness and not its power, in the appearance of change and not enduring change. 

Indeed, Jim Elliot’s journal entry puts it timelessly: “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." 

Have a restful Easter. Have a victorious week. Have a day of fruitful reflection.

 

The Rice Bowl Leadership

I visited a cell group last Friday and had a heart-to-heart talk with the young adults.

I shared with them how I felt when RZ fell. It was scary (to say the least) how a man that well-versed in defending the faith and that successful in ministry worldwide could have engaged in such blatant sexual acts for more than ten years without anyone within his leadership circle calling him out. 

In fact, I have a name for that kind of leadership. It’s call rice-bowl leadership. It is quite universal, even amongst secular organisations. This is how it works, even quietly thrives. 

If you follow the trail in RZ’s countless of secret rendezvous, you will note that it goes back to 2004. That is the exposed trail that is known. 

In 2008, Salt and Light reported that he was “seen with a woman he was not related to in a Singapore hotel.” He was holding her hand and “appeared to be intimate with her.” When questioned, RZ said it was a misunderstanding, and his ministry declined to investigate. 

This is what the then Singapore Board chair said: “Directors agreed that derogatory remarks of any kind by any of the parties must cease immediately as they do not glorify the Lord...We are of the same conviction that brothers should reconcile where there have been misunderstandings...The work of RZIM is making great impact on unbelievers and any public dispute will bring irreparable damage to parties concerned and the organization.”

That is very much the deindividuation of faith - that is, “the loss of oneself as an individual,” and in the Christian context, a variant kind of bystander effect, where seemingly good leaders stand by one side, the organisation side, dismissing any cause for inquiry as a misunderstanding, and justifying it with this often heard forewarning - “any public dispute will bring irreparable damage to parties concerned and the organization.”

I trust that there is the peculiar universal effect concerning organizations, especially those who claim to be the emissaries for God. It is the rice-bowl leadership where one would do what it takes to keep one’s rice bowl from cracking. 

This bowl is often associated with economic incentive. But it covers reputation too. It also covers the zealous protection of status and positions. When the bowl is set up, comfortably receiving the earthly rewards that one’s unquestioned allegiance brings to it, there is little incentive, if at all, for breaking it because it just costs too much. 

Mind you, that “irreparable damage” part comes in two parts, that is, irreparable damage to the organisation also means irreparable damage to one’s rice bowl. 

No one is therefore exempted from this effect because it is in our nature to want to protect that which we have greatly been benefiting/profiting from, whether it is a costly purchase we had recently made or an organization we have given up many years of our life to build up. 

When we are beholden to an edifice, we become that edifice, an integral part of it. And when things go suspiciously wrong, we unknowingly give the responsible part of ourselves to the irresponsible part of the whole. The sum of the parts thus swallows whole the individual parts itself and the two become indistinguishable.

When that becomes a reality, even the best of us as leaders becomes a tool or a means to its end. And as RZIM has shown, the irreparable damage to the faith is even deeper as offices worldwide struggle to remain open with the decision to remove “RZ” from RZIM. 

Sadly, this is the extent of the irreparable damage done to the faith when one protects the rice bowl instead of mustering up the courage to break it because the elements it has been receiving can no longer hold true. Here is what the spokesperson for RZIM has to say: -

“The board’s trust in Ravi led to no further action being taken. With broken hearts, we now see this trust was completely misguided and misplaced, and we are sorry. There were no other situations or cases reported to the Singapore board at that time or subsequently, which raised any suspicion of wrong-doing.” (spokesperson for RZIM). 

Indeed, without hearts broken, you will never have the heart to break your rice bowl for God. 

It is in fact ironic that even in a statement like the one above, the leadership is still able to say that “there were no other situations or cases reported to the Singapore board at that time or subsequently, which raised any suspicion of wrong-doing.” 

Alas, what does it take to slay the dragon of the cult of personality, if inappropriately holding a woman’s hand in public, appearing to be intimate in a Singapore hotel, doesn’t put one on notice of possible misconduct? 

And yes, it could very well be a misunderstanding, but to kill any desire stillborn for an inquiry because RZ said so, or because ”there were no other situations or cases” before and after, or because such “derogatory remarks” would not glorify the Lord, is what contributes to the indestructibility of the rice bowl. 

If you need a clearer case of rice-bowl leadership, here is an extract of the investigation into RZ’s sexual misconduct. 

“At an all-staff virtual meeting in January 2018, after significant details of the Thompson communications had been made public, Mr. Zacharias offered explanations that many staff members found nonsensical. But some staff members reported to us that when they expressed doubts about Mr. Zacharias’s story, they were ignored, marginalized, and accused of disloyalty.”

That is the main issue when the body of Christ becomes a church, and when the church becomes readily and concretely identified with its human leadership because of the numerical and monetary growth the leadership is raking it in. 

Often, when it reaches that point, the Christ in the body is quietly removed, so that the body is taken over by its human leadership. This body-snatching sleight-of-hand is always very discreetly done and members, even leaders, would scarcely notice. 

And because of the by-stander effect and the process of deindividuation, where the sum of its parts takes over the parts, none is the wiser or is courageous enough to call out the crook insidiously embodied in the cult of personality. 

And this is scary because very much like the license to kill that Mr Bond holds, RZ and the many like him are handed over, in the poisoned chalice of leadership, the license to do as one pleases because to even think of doing otherwise would be to cause “irreparable damage to parties concerned and the organization” and to the glory of the Lord. 

...and that is the lesson a genuine believer must never forget when it comes to a leader using God as a means to his end.