Billionaire's Breakups.

 

You know, at some point, people are going to ask a lot of questions about billionaires’ breakups. How did it happen? Why did it happen? Don’t they have everything? Doesn’t money solve all issues, if not most?

Today’s ST highlighted a number of them. They have more money than they can ever spend all in several lifetimes, yet no amount of it can guarantee a lifelong union. We all know that. Money in fact brings in more issues. 

Tech nerds are no different from the Don Juan DeMarcos of this world. Bill Gates’ 27-year-old marriage can’t bear the wily strain of his marital indiscretions. They may be world-renown philanthropist couple, saving the world from common plagues one life at a time, and even being named Time magazine 2005 (together with Bono), but when it comes to till-death-do-us-part, it’s more like till-I-can’t-bear-with-you-anymore-we-part.

Reports have been circulating that Bill “pursued several women working for him at Microsoft and at the (charity) foundation.” Bill is also a friend of financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. And they have had several private meetings in early 2000s. 

Adding to that list is the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, 57. He is worth an unbelievable sum of US$177 billion. He married novelist Mackenzie Scott in 1992, and four kids later, in 2019, they divorced. They separated before that. 

Again, rumors swirled that Jeff was involved with current girlfriend, Lauren Sanchez, before the divorce in 2019. 

Anyway, Mackenzie has since remarried to a high school chemistry teacher Dan Jewett in March this year. I guess chemistry beats big data hands down? 

Then we have the mercurial Elon Musk. His relationships are complicated, being divorced three times, twice with the same woman (actress Talulah Riley) that he had an on-and-off affair with, even during his first marriage to Canadian author Justine Wilson. Elon Musk has six children with Justine in a 8-year union. 

Lesson? You know, as I read the report (by Benson Ang), I ask myself, what marital advice can I give to my two daughters when it comes to choosing a life partner?” 

Well, my mother always half-jestingly tells them to marry rich guys - for at the very least they will be rich in a breakup and be set for life; if happiness for a lifetime is just not a realistic goal with one’s spouse.

She does have a point you know, even if it is a shallow one, because Mackenzie and Melinda are billionaires after the split up. Mackenzie met Jeff at a hedge fund in 1992 when she was his assistant. And Melinda was a general manager at Microsoft. Mind you, Mackenzie is now happily married and Jeff thinks he is a great guy. Mackenzie is giving her billions away. 

Anyway, we always tell our daughters (or sons) that marriage is to be taken seriously. Mutual respect, understanding and dignity are the red fine print in a marital vow. But, over time, marriage has to fight with age, overfamiliarity, contempt and temptations, which this world obviously lacks none of. 

So, if I would to offer an advice, bearing in mind even the wisest men, namely, Confucius and Socrates, left their marriages in tatters, I guess I would tell my daughters straight up that happy people in a marriage cheat too. That should get their attention, right? And ground them in reality too.

 

Money may buy you respect, deference and all the boastings you can throw at those who secretly envy you and want to be like you, it may also be a prominent reason why you stray in the first place. For success may bring many things to the marital table, but it can also break it for good. Look at King David...enough said? 

(And I wouldn’t even talk about Solomon, whose status differs greatly with the common man, of course). 

Going back to my daughters, I think I would gently remind them that sexual exclusivity in a monogamous union intended for life will always be an existential challenge, not just biologically, but emotionally, mentally and spiritually.

As a father and a husband myself, in a marriage of 21 years, my daughter must know that an enduring marriage starts not at the aisle, not even at the honeymoon, where intimacy and consummation are established. Ironically, it starts only when you start to have second thoughts about it, and in turn, confront yourself to choose how you want to respond to it. And such second thoughts will surely come. Doubts are an integral part of us, so are faith, hope and reconciliation.

My daughters must know that their best insurance against a breakup is to love intentionally. There is no autopilot to love. Nothing loosens the heart from its marital promise more than a heart that starts to take things for granted. 

In fact, my son ought to drill that into his spirit, for it takes two to clap, two souls intertwine. Soul mates are two souls joined as one, and not two souls doing their own things. 

So, to my kids, your best bet for confessing “I do” at the aisle and “I still do” at your deathbed is to arrest every moment of second thoughts. Because they, like emotional weed, do grow over time when you let them be (of course, this differs for different people in different seasons trapped in a perpetually abusive relationship). 

Other than that kind of toxic marital union, the promise of faithfulness is a lot of work, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. 

Let me end with the wise words of a renown psychotherapist Esther Perel, who wrote the book “The State of Affairs: Rethinking Infidelity”.

“Our partners do not belong to us; they are only on loan, with an option to renew - or not. Knowing that we can lose them does not have to undermine commitment; rather, it mandates an active engagement that long-term couples often lose. The realisation that our loved ones are forever elusive should jolt us out of complacency, in the most positive sense.”

“The current of aliveness, once awoken, is a force hard to resist. What must be resisted are the dwindling curiosity, the flaccid engagements, the grim resignation, the desiccating routines. Domestic deadness is often a crisis of imagination.”

So, keep not just the flame of passion alive; ignite your imagination too. For monogamy, like rental renewal, demands your conscientious engagement to keep the heart and mind focused on, and stand unwavering by, the signed dotted line.

 

Bill and Melinda Gates - Divorce.

 

First it was the richest couple, Jeff Bezos and MacKenzie Scott in 2019. Now, it is the fourth richest couple, Bill and Melinda Gates. Yes, you’ve heard. They are divorcing; in modernspeak, it’s decoupling. 

The Bezos marriage lasted about 25 years. The Gates union lasted about 27 years. The former have four adult kids and the latter (Gates) have 3 adult kids, the youngest is 18. 

Billionaires do get divorce you know. They are emotional beings too. They vacillate between love and hate, envy and contentment, sorrow and joy too. Like the Beatles song says, “Money can’t buy me love.” 

Wealth or fame, or both, does not provide lifelong innoculation. Akin to the covid vaccination, you either adapt or change in a marriage. For the Bezos and Gates, well, they change. Some marriages endure, others just end. 

Bill (65) and Melinda (56) may be a match from day one, marrying in 1994, with symmetrical goals to make the world a better place, but personal vows are not always made for a lifetime. There’s no guarantee in this world. 

“Over the last 27 years, we have raised three incredible children and built a foundation that works all over the world to enable all people to lead healthy, productive lives.” The statement they both released on Monday reads. 

“We continue to share a belief in that mission and will continue our work together at the foundation, but we no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in the next phrase of our lives.”

“We ask for space and privacy for our family as we begin to navigate this new life.” 

Together, as a couple for the last 27 years, they have led in a grand vision to make the world a place where many find hope and live out their dreams. Their Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has pumped in more than $36b between 1994 and 2018. The foundation has over $51b in assets.

 

Just last year alone, during the Covid-19 pandemic, they have given out some $1.75b to vaccine initiatives and research. 

After the split, they said that the work of the foundation is likely to go on. Bill said: “This is not some small family foundation that’s going to fall apart because a marriage is falling apart.”

I wish them all the best that lifelong friendship bestows. The fact that they remain friends, and responsible parents to their children is what is most redeeming about their 27-year union. 

Lesson? Well, not really a lesson, but a statement that I hope this is not going to be a trend - whether as an subtle encouragement to cut the knot or discouragement to tie the knot.

Mind you, rich people are trailblazers. And the Bezos and Gates wield great worldly influence because in terms of achievements, whether financial, technology and philanthropy, they serve as examples for others to emulate. A shining city on the hill, the gatekeepers and trendsetters of society. 

In a joint petition filed to dissolve their marriage, they cited that their union was “irretrievably broken”. I know divorces. As a family lawyer, I have attended weddings where love is prepared to overcome all. For it is all in their eyes, that is, the way they look at each other. The eyes are the window to the soul, the doorway to the heart. 

When the eyes lock in warm embrace, holding the champagne glasses before a crowd of witnesses, you can feel the radiance of a new commitment on a journey that may, for some, turn out to be more experimental than covenantal. That journey is however reflected in the soul of their eyes. It glows. It’s shared vision. It takes hold. 

But, in the office when you see the eyes of someone who has finally mustered the courage to file for divorce, a decision not lightly made, the eyes are almost lifeless. It’s tired, jaded. It’s pained, expressionless. 

Overcoming love had somehow been overwhelmed. And the last straw that broke the back is not so much in the weight of the straw, but it is in the back that has given up long time ago. Emotional divorce indeed precedes legal divorce. And the eyes tell more than what the ink on paper can ever express. 

So I can imagine what Bill and Melinda, not as billionaires but human beings, have gone through. Imagine having so much in common as husband and wife, and both so devoted to nurturing three grown up kids, while at the same time, having built a philanthropic empire that aims to transform lives all over the world, yet, hearts joined in fulfilling responsibilities could not remain joined for marriage. Like water droplets, the years hide an erosion that no one had anticipated. 

Their sad state of the union is captured in their joint statement - “we no longer believe we can grow together as a couple in the next phrase of our live.” Indeed there is no guarantee in life. 

I started the lesson by saying that I hope this doesn’t become a trend. For each marriage is like a fingerprint - no two of them are alike. Personalities differ. Circumstances differ. Life-paths of couples differ too.

 

At times, staying together requires couples to fight together, and not each other. You are therefore accountable to the love you have promised to another. You may not be as rich or famous as the Gates, but everyday is a choice in your marital journey, a personal choice that all adds up. 

And news of a famous breakup is not an excuse for you to claim that a lifelong marriage is a myth. It ought to challenge you to believe that the choices you make make the difference. Anything that is lifelong requires a lifetime commitment. 

Let me end with a marital advice from a famous couple too. He was asked - “What would you say is the secret to a long and happy marriage?”

He replied: “First of all, we accommodate each other. There was nothing we fundamentally disagreed on. She knew knew my quirks and I knew her eccentricities.” 

Like Bill and Melinda Foundation, they too have laid the cornerstone of a foundation, being equal-partners in a marriage with three adult children. They are Lee Kuan Yew and his lifelong partner, Kwa Geok Choo. 

And like I said, there’s no guarantee. Yet, whether a marriage is experimental or covenantal, the only guarantee is in the choices we make, one day at a time.

 

Monogamy is a demanding discipline.

It was a marriage of 30 years. They have two grown up sons. She is 56 and he is 54. They were both working in the civil service. 

She was 18 when she joined and she was working as a technician. It was reported that “throughout the years, her career had remained stagnant so that her husband’s could thrive, noted the judge. Her promotions were delayed because she had to care for the family.”

In 2017, she filed for divorce. It was on his unreasonable behaviour. “Such behaviour included the husband requesting the wife to accept his mistress into the family and into the matrimonial home which the wife agreed to,” noted the Judge. 

Yes, you read it right. It is not that uncommon. Some spouses bring their mistresses back home. Some are done in secret; others in the open. Still others ask for some permanent arrangement of blissful co-existence. While marriage covenants are exclusive, adultery (in some cases) is inclusive yet often unilateral in favour of the dominant spouse, that is, the husband usually gets the final say in such arrangement. 

Mind you, I have done divorces where, in a small 3-room HDB flat, the husband and his mistress(es) conducted their trysts in the master bedroom while his wedded wife and kids are squeezed into the other available room. I could still remember what the wife told me, quite nonchalantly: “they are very inconsiderate...sometimes at night they are noisy and my kids just can’t sleep.”

Alas, in most cases, the matrimonial bed is the bellwether of the health or the future of the marriage. It is supposed to be exclusive, and that is what the marriage vows have delineated for the couple before a crowd of witnesses. It seemed believable enough then.

But, in practice, especially when one party ages over time and the other party starts to wonder whether he has gotten the short end of the marital stick in a world so full of enticing options and endless opportunities for self-gratification, a sheen of cold wax soon starts to form around the edges of one’s restless heart. A marriage whose heart is unguarded often takes off at the slightest agitation of lust and self-devotion. 

The husband in that case was said to be confounded with the wife’s application for divorce. “The husband claimed in these proceedings that the wife was happy with this arrangement and was surprised she had cited this as a reason for the divorce,” observed the judge. 

In a bid to have his bed and sleep on it, the husband sought his wife’s consent in 2014. Well, she reluctantly agreed. 

But honestly, I too am confounded. I wonder, why do you bother pursuing an agreement when it is wholly one-sided? If there ought to be mutuality in agreements, would the husband readily accept it if the table is reversed? Indeed, some agreements are so devoid of self-awareness that it makes a mockery of a gentleman’s handshake. 

In any event, I am sure it is a conscience pact, one in which the husband gets to do what he wanted without keeping it under wraps. Somehow, the pleasure derived from lust under the covers is nowhere near the pleasure arrived at when such liaison is held in the open with a conscience naively mollified. 

The forbidden fruit may yield a juicy bite when taken in sheer darkness, but over time, it is the borrowed light of self-righteousness that holds a greater draw. And like the lust of a man’s heart, legitimacy in whatever form that one can secure compels him to a pact of betrayal under the guise of forced approval. 

At times, it goes beyond self-righteousness to a marital schemer manipulating the terms he wants, almost akin to an agreement that is secured under duress. 

Let me end with this inconvenient truth. In a sexually exclusive union, I have no delusions about the ideal as spelt out in the marriage vows. We are human after all, enfleshed in our own wayward desires. For whose mind in the course of marriage doesn’t wander to uncharted territory where the juiciest fruit are laid bare for the plucking? 

Monogamy is a demanding discipline, of the mind, of the soul and of the heart. When two souls intertwine, when they make a promise to each other before loved ones, the integrity of the union comes not from some ideal floating in the air. No, it instead comes from a lifelong discipline to subject one’s freedom to choose to advance only one’s pleasure for the freedom to choose to fortify what is the pleasure of a lifetime covenant.

That pleasure is beyond the lusts of one’s desires. It is beyond a momentary fling. It is a pleasure that does not outgrow the promise of the union. It in fact nurtures it. It grows stronger with age because it draws its resilience from time. And it comes with a price. It’s the price of enduring love. 

Not all can afford to pay it though. Or want to.

 

Leadership that matters - Shepherd vs Sheepherder.

 

What a leader says must make sense. That is the litmus test for me. 

In a sense, what makes sense is grounded on simple principles. Essentially, there is a consistency and coherency in his words and actions. His actions, based on sound principles, are always enduring, plain, mostly unseen, behind the scenes, quietly impacting lives, but without fail, open to correction, learning as he or she adapts, and always hopeful, especially of the potential of the people under his charge. 

Such a leader doesn’t say to his people, “where are you going?” and then run in front of them, in the direction they have chosen, and say, “follow me”. That’s not how Jesus led. 

In all his humanity, Jesus laid down the cost for his disciples. He put it out there for them. “Count the cost,” he said. He did not say, “choose the price tag.” His principles are non negotiable. His leadership is not emotional. It is not about what you want to pay; it is about what you are prepared to give up in order to live a disciplined life that bears fruit. 

He said, “follow me”, and his disciples have not the faintest idea what was in store for them. Jesus took the time to build them up from within so that when their time comes, they have what it takes to transform lives, especially their own. Jesus knew that one can never calm the storm if the storm in one’s heart is still unsettled. But I digress...

Let me say that firm leadership does not lead from above, from a place of creature comfort. He is called to be a valley-side companion, not a mountain top director. He is definitely not a disc jockey standing alone on the grand stage rah-rah-ing the trance-like crowd. 

When Jesus calmed the storm, he was standing in front of his trembling disciples, not behind them. If there were any loose debris taken up by the wind, his body would be the first to take the first projectile strike.

Let us be reminded that there is a scripture in Numbers that reads: “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint someone over the congregation who shall go out before them and come in before them, who shall lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep without a shepherd.” 

That’s firm leadership, one that goes before the congregation, comes in before them, and leads them out as well as brings them in. 

It’s not stationary leadership. It’s active, proactive. It’s word lived out, not just word spoken, however much they excite the senses. That’s what makes sense about leadership. It’s word embodied, word empowered, and word transforming. Not just words, period. 

Finally, we must not forget that there is a difference between a shepherd and a sheep-herder. If you google it, “a sheep-herder is a person who herds sheep in large numbers in unfenced country. A shepherd is a person employed to guard, tend, and herd sheep, especially at pasture.”

A sheep-herder goes everywhere with his sheep. Their numbers define him; his validation comes from it. His pasture is unfenced because his will goes with the urgency or trend of the time. And when one sheep strays, the sheep-herder is the least perturbed. 

A shepherd however knows his mission. It is anchored on timeless truth. He is the sentry guard for his sheep. He protects as well as nurtures. His pasture is a rich green meadow, where his sheep are always nourished, inside and out. 

A shepherd thus leads; a sheep-herder excites. A shepherd is never far from his sheep; a sheep-herder stands afar. A shepherd takes the first hit; a sheep-herder hides behind his sheep. And a shepherd goes out of his way even for one sheep; the sheep-herder can afford to lose a few. 

And the shepherd leads under the employ of the one who calls him. The one who went before him. And the one who gave his life for him, and for all who are placed under him.

 

Enduring truth vs transient lies.

 

When the going gets tough, the tough stays calm. This is the message by WP who have called for unity, empathy in Covid-19 video. It’s what we need at such time. 

Dennis Tan said: “We must pull together to plug the gaps and address any deficiency. We must work together to combat this difficult enemy. We have no room for complacency.”

Raeesah and Nicole call for an end to spousal and domestic abuse. “So, be considerate to your wives, mothers and sisters. They need all the support and help they can get,” Nicole said. 

I guess when it comes to being considerate at such uncertain times, sparing a thought for unity, empathy and charity, the recent TOC video posted on its Facebook is a most unfortunate deviation. 

It was uploaded online by Instagram user @nichology, and it showed the police officer reprimanding the woman (who has dementia) for not wearing a mask. Whatever the person’s intention was when he took the video, law minister Shanmugam has called it ”a cynical, unethical and malicious attack on the police, adding that TOC took advantage of an old woman with dementia.”

Not one to back down from a challenge, he said: “TOC attacks the Government with its team of Malaysian writers. That’s regular, but I would say keep your malice and venom to politics.” (now that’s what I call a preemptive strike from the media’s backdoor). 

“We can deal with it. Don’t bring that toxicity to attack police officers, spare them. They’re just doing their jobs.”

The SPF had their own body-worn camera footage, probably installed as a precaution against stirrer of public shit, and it showed them “engaging an elderly woman who was not wearing a mask in public.” The footage also showed one officer buying a packet of food from a nearby stall for her, and not taunting or reprimanding her.

The daughter of the woman, who declined being interviewed, said that she was “disappointed that TOC interviewed her mother and posted the video online without attempting to understand her condition.”

Mind you, negative news sell. Sensational ones go viral. And when it involves the arm of government, or the government itself, the perceived elitist establishment, such news have the Midas’ touch of turning even the most pedestrian events caught on camera to pure viral gold. 

Not surprisingly, the bandwagon of truth sets the bar high because seeking it requires patience, context and critical thinking. But the bandwagon of fake news is a hippie joy ride for the unthinking, unwitting and unsuspecting. It mindlessly takes the broad road, that is, one that glitters with juicy gossips, loose associations and half-baked truths. 

Its bar is therefore deliberately set low to readily welcome all and sundry who have an axe to grind against the object of their ire; even if such seething hatred has shallow roots. That is why it is said that “a lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Like it or not, we are living in a world of compromised truth, where there is not just a pandemic that we are fighting against, but there is also an “epidemic of alternative facts” to guard against. 

It is a flighty reality supported by an echo chamber, blindly endorsed by a crowd whose mind has already made up. And we all know that to uproot one from his or her entrenched opinions would require a strong regular dose of self-awareness, self-checking, and at times, self-reproach. 

The truth is, many of us are pretending to look for objective evidence, when what we are really looking for is none other than corroboration - the more, the merrier. And the numbers often justify the cause, not its content or its objectivity. 

In a world where the endless repetition of something unfounded can reach some form of truth status with an inflammatory crowd, we must be wary of such repetition without cause or sound basis. We must, like WP said, come together to fight that which threatens our hard fought unity and diversity. 

I know it takes all kinds to make the world. But to destroy it, to divide it, it only takes one kind, the unthinking kind.

 

Taking Umbrage - CEO Ng of SPH.

 Let me start this post with an irony. 

CEOs are not hired to be a gentleman if they can’t even show them the money. What good is a chief executive if he, being well-mannered, is unable to deliver the dough? Between a gentleman and a boor, with the latter being able to bring home the fatten calf, shareholders will choose the boor at a heartbeat. 

For the only public good shareholders are interested in is the good that comes with growing their investment in the fastest time possible. That is the bottomline, the profit motive. And with enough to spare, the hand of public good will then get to enjoy the juicy crumbs falling from the banquet table. But first, money first, because money makes the world go round, right?

Don’t forget that you are hired because they don’t want to do your dirty work. And they pay you good money so that you, by whatever legal means, make even more money for them. That is the reason for the season. And it‘s always hunting season for a ceo who can drag in the kill. Have no illusion about it. Money talks, even if it is rude about it. 

That is the pressure that SPH faced in the past five years when revenue as a whole has been cut by half. And that must also be one of the straws that broke the back of its ceo when he pointed his finger at a reporter and told her in no uncertain terms that he’s no gentleman. 

He in fact told her that he takes offence to her insinuation that SPH under his commanding hand (since 2017) had sold her editorial and journalistic integrity to the highest advertising bidder.

At one point, ceo ng went gangsta with this warning: “...the fact that you dare to question an SPH title for, in your words, conceding to advertisers, I take umbrage at that comment. Because I don't believe that even where you come from, you do not concede to the needs of advertisers.”

Well, ceo ng was right about one thing. He was not going to be gentleman about it. He doesn’t mince his words. He gives it to you whole, umbrage and all. That why he concluded with a LKY-like bravado: “The purpose of doing this (restructuring) is to make sure that SPH Media will continue to do the job it has done so well for so long.” And he ended with a militant stiff upper lip. 

Let me however slice it at the marrow for you and strive to be fair. I believe ceo ng has SPH interest at heart. He was anxious about the cost-cutting measures and retrenchment, especially during the pandemic, which risks compromising the quality of journalism that SPH Media has been providing since 1984. He said the restructuring exercise “is to make sure that we preserve the fine bowl of china.”

That china bowl metaphor was what LKY told SR Nathan in the 1980s when Mr Nathan was appointed its executive chairman. LKY said: “Nathan, I am giving you The Straits Times. It has 150 years of history. It has been a good paper. It is like a bowl of china. If you break it, I can piece it together. But it will never be the same. Try not to destroy it.”

That same china bowl was what ceo ng was defending at the press conference. And although observers and pundits have called this the right move to restructure and boot out the encumbrances that comes with shareholders’ intervention, the changing times and digital disruption was just one battlefield too many for even an ex-general. Mind you, during peacetime, war of a different kind can also cost jobs, hopes and lives too.

In this post, I don’t see the need to say anything more about his admitted ungentlemanly conduct at the press conference. It’s misguided bravado methinks, even though the intention is less brash in nature. 

Anyway, the online public court has already taken him out to be hung and dried many times over and there is even a petition calling for his resignation. It’s the usual gaston’s chant - “kill the beast!” all over. 

It is no doubt a difficult time, pandemic and all, and we are all reeling from its effect. At such time, the default position is to go hunting for a scapegoat and emotions boil over easily. 

When you place a thermometer near collective steam, the mercury shoots up to the extreme. We forget that just as love unites, hate unites too. Yes, the public court can bring justice to the fore, but it can also steamroll its way taking justice with it. There is always a middle ground, one that a gentleman would stop, ponder and embark upon. It’s also called common ground. Yet, the boorish side of us exists on both sides, that is, the side of offender and the side of the offended. 

Alas, this is not the kind of society that is kind, because at some point, we take things further than it deserves and we change the whole balance of what is right and what is wrong. We tilt it over and lose ourselves in the hate. We unknowingly become what we readily cast stone at. We may have taken up a good cause but somewhere in the dark woods, we take a wrong turn at great cost. 

Let me end by saying that this is not a post defending ceo ng or the cna reporter. This is not a post calling for blood or a pound of flesh. It is one calling for a pause, maybe a ponder, and hopefully a good look at ourselves.

 

Do crazy people do crazy things?

Do crazy people do crazy things? Well, that seems obvious enough right? What else does society expect crazy people to do? They scream at you. They harass you in a crowded MRT train. They ask for your badge.

Before I address that, let’s talk about today’s article. It carries this caption: “1 in 43 found to have had psychotic disorder.” Yes, this is a study conducted by IMH, the hospital for the mentally unwell. 

One in 43 translates to 71,600 people with psychotic disorder, give or take. And this is only limited to those reported cases, that is, those who sought help. Many out there keep their struggles to themselves, refusing to admit they have a mental condition (or two) that is out of control and is destroying their life, career, hope, marriage and relationship with their children. 

Help is a loaded word. At times, the charity adds to the trauma. It is one thing to lend a helping hand to another for a good cause, but it is quite another to do so when the society thinks you’re a lost cause. Most times, the lonely road to healing is fraught with people who take pity on you rather than take the time to understand you, befriend you and be patient with you. 

Time is an issue too. It comes in two. One is about the rat race of life. We are all running after something. It is a race of life for that material crown of life. It is the idolatry of the prize. Winner takes all.

And the blind obsession turns everything that doesn’t help us to get there faster or sooner into an obstacle or an inconvenience to be eradicated or sidelined. This also turns society into a well-oiled machinery centred around quick-fixes, which effectively sorts, labels, pigeonholes, and distances people we don’t have time to understand or don’t want to take the time to do so. Recall that they are obstacles or inconvenience to be done away with? 

This brings me to the second issue about time. We have commodified it. Time is money. We want results with timelines. The faster the result the better. We thus don’t see long term. We see only what we can reap in the short term. This takes a toll on how we see people, especially people who are different from us, that is, people who cannot keep up with us. 

I honestly believe that the mentally unwell needs an environment safe and assuring enough to heal. Medication and treatments are no doubt important, yet understanding, acceptance and transparency are also important. We deal with one another with dignity as human beings with different needs and struggles. Not all are born equal. Some are born less equal than others. 

And I always believe that there is a very thin line between the mentally ok and the mentally less ok. For none of us can say that we have never experienced a snap moment, or moments where, if given the right conditions, we too would do things we would never catch ourselves doing in the normal run of things. Most times, we manage better not because we are different, but because we have a community that is different (or one that is not indifferent).

Of course, there are the handful who really need prolonged medical attention, but for the rest, a little understanding, a call to suspend our judgment, and a hand to hold can go a long way. 

Let me return to the article. The journalist Timothy Goh interviewed Marilyn, who “has had three psychotic breaks since 2010.” She has since led a normal life, “working as an accountant for seven years, getting married in 2017, and recently becoming a mother.”

Marilyn has this to say: “A lot of times, people think that those with this condition cannot be cured, and it’s the end for them. They also think it means they have to stay in hospital on a long-term basis.”

“We can lead a normal life as well with proper medication and intervention. The stigma against those with mental health conditions still exists in Singapore. I hope that people here can learn more about these conditions and reduce this stigma because we are able to lead normal lives - we’re not crazy people.”

So I return to where I first started. I asked, do crazy people do crazy things? Well, we all do, crazy or otherwise. It is of course a matter of degree. And I do not want to pretend that some people don’t need genuine help. But I also do not want to pretend that I am not part of the issue, because our perception and prejudice count, and more so when we are mindless about it. And it counts enough to contribute to one’s road to recovery, and our own self-discovery. 

Hence, a little more self-awareness here would go a long way in that mutual-healing journey.

 

Lee vs Leong - Defamation Saga I.

It is an intriguing development. Blogger Leong Sze Hian settled his judgment debt and legal costs plus interests without coming out a single cent from his own pocket. Well, what can I say, he beat the system? 

Altogether, it totalled $262,327.22. The legal cost alone came up to half of it - $129,327.22. 

When you defame someone, or more rightly, when you are adjudged to have caused the Plaintiff quantifiable reputational loss in his claim against you, you pay for it. Yes, you, not someone else. Yes, from your own pocket, so you feel the pinch. Not from someone’s pocket, and in turn, you feel the vindication instead. And while PM Lee got his vindication from a sealed court judgement, Leong got his from a sealed public endorsement. 

Thanks to online technology, the public contributed, regardless of amount given, and yesterday afternoon, his lawyer delivered a cashier’s order for the sum adjudged to PM Lee’s lawyers from Davinder Singh Chambers. 

Of some note, it is also the first time ST is publishing it, that is, the complete story or collection, up to every cent satisfied. 

And it was delivered with its own tinge of sarcasm, a kind of backhand slap. The covering letter writes: -

“Your client will be aware that every cent of this amount was donated to our client by the people of Singapore in an epic demonstration of their condemnation and anger at your client’s use of the libel laws to silence and chill dissent. It was conduct unbefitting of a Prime Minister. The courageous citizens of Singapore were determined not to show your client the satisfaction of suing critics until their pants drop.”

Alas, there is more drama on display here than justice on the bench. If the law of defamation is to deter people from damaging the reputation of another, that is, in the mind of right-thinking members in society, then would Leong’s case be a lesson in the opposite direction? No or little deterrence? 

I mean, what is the right-thinking members of society thinking about this case? Does the court represent them? In the end, who really got his fair share of comeuppance, the person who won the suit in the court of law or the person who pays the debt with the full support of the court of public opinion? 

More relevantly, will this set a precedent of some public importance for future cases since the one who pays the piper may get the judgment that is music to his ear, but as it turns out, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings, and she sang, and it was louder than the judicial chorus being played out in chambers? It’s chamber music vs town square flash mob, right?

Yet, a measured tone is advised. This may be unprecedented post-judgement, but I think we should have some tempered pauses in our so-called victory dance in the public square. For we are not generally called “right thinking members of society” for nothing. 

You see, I choose to believe that the average wage earner don’t give indiscriminately. $260k takes more than a handful of them to give before the target is reached. I trust some discernment was exercised by the majority, and it was not completely a mob instinct here. 

So, if you are a rebel without a cause, or a rebel faking a cause, I believe you’ll only hear coin-drops in your coffers. The support is unlikely to be forthcoming. 

But in Leong’s case, I think many can identify with him. Here are some similarities: A Facebook user. A mindless share. And he’s not the only one. No comment offered. Withdrew within days, but no apology though. 

Then, came the lawyers, the exercise of one’s rather selective freedom to sue, the legal suit commenced, the publicity, the trial, the public resources thrown in, and the judgment of $130k. This is followed by the demand to pay up, though the money will go to charity (and it is ironic that out of charity, it returns into her own hand. Charity paying charity). 

When you add all that up, over a FB share without much consideration, which involves a leader of a country and a private citizen in a perceived culture of fear and oppression when it comes to freedom of expression, what you get is the tugging of heartstring in some quarter of society for a justice that they can better swallow. 

The truth is, this is unlikely to be repeated for cases where the heart of justice in the courts resonates with the heart of justice in the public square; unless of course, public trust is eroded to such extent that everything becomes trigger happy for the disappointed or disillusioned right-thinking members of society. 

Thankfully, we have not come to that stage yet, not by a long shot. And that is a good thing, because chaos should never be underestimated. Mind you, an unthinking fling with fire will eventually burn the whole house down. 

And I am sure Leong would not want to go through all that again, even if he has received some level of public vindication. 

Finally, on the Plaintiff’s side, it may be a case where one of the fangs of the defamation bite is disarmed with such public support, yet, it is nevertheless still a legal precedent set with a rustic signpost staked at the heart of a largely compliant electorate that reads: “Enter at your own risk”. 

Now, who has the last laugh?