Our law minister used the word “Micawberism”. It is “a reference to the feckless optimism displayed by Wilkins Micawber, a character in the Charles Dickens novel David Copperfield.”
The context is the controversial Parti Liyana case, which has resulted in further investigation and review of the justice system in the way stolen items are assessed and the manner the custody/evidential chain is processed. Mind you, that case has also led to disciplinary action being taken against the prosecutors and even Karl Liew was hauled up for questioning for his inconsistent statements in court.
With that backdrop in mind, here is our law minister’s reply to NCMP Leong’s call for a Committee of Inquiry for Parti’s case.
“Let me put it on record, I have no problem recommending such a commission of inquiry. We have nothing to hide. But in law, they will say (this is) Micawberism.”
There you have it, that’s the word. It is also defined as “irresponsible optimism”. And in derogatory term, it may be used to describe “shit-stirrer”.
(Although if you read up his character, with flaws, Micawber was a whistleblower exposing wrongdoings and later retired in Australia to become a magistrate. That is another story altogether).
But, the point of this post is well surmised in Shanmugam’s own inquiry on the call for COI: -
“...(Do) we have a commission of inquiry on the entire law, the police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable? So can we please have some clarity on what is it that concerns you?”
This is where I believe Shanmugam went full throttle, or unplugged. He talked about Goh Keng Swee’s warning about the “insidious “old boy” type” (referring to a type of nepotism) whereby no illegalities are committed - that will cause fundamental structures to be “eroded like the supporting beams of a house after termites have attacked.””
He said that deep connections between those appointed to high places is unavoidable. “They may have met through work, in school or during national service.”
That is why our government has to be vigilant. “Singapore‘s smallness presents a more “challenging environment” in managing connections and interactions among those in positions of influence.””
He added: “We will have to be very careful, always remember we are fiduciaries. It is critical that whatever the relationship, the Government maintains high standards of probity, of conduct, so that decisions are made on objective and impartial assessments.”
Lesson? One, it is about the insidious old boys.
They do exist you know. They are not a figment of our imagination. Their emergence is expected, and as natural as the rot in the head of a fish once exposed to the public air.
But they do not exist in the majority. That is what makes them so insidious. They nestle at the top of the pyramid. They wield disproportionate leverage by virtue of acquiring wealth, power and fame. They control the masses, and most times, the masses are enthralled by them. And anything that gets in their way, anything that needs to be checked, moderated and silenced, they have their means to do it, in the most legitimate way possible, whereby “no illegalities are committed.”
So, like Matrix Revolution, not all of the people invited want to take the red pill, where their reality is stripped away to reveal the shadowy truth of a society we are living in.
This ain’t no QAnon, but it is the occasional pierced veil that hides the dubious rich and powerful, and their many legal means of achieving questionable ends. It is therefore a choice between the red pill of knowledge or the blue pill of blissful ignorance.
But the question is, as posed by our law minister, “Do we have a commission of inquiry on the entire law, the police and enforcement system? Is that even imaginable?”
Yes, the CJ has granted leave for a disciplinary committee to investigate on the prosecutorial conduct concerning the video issue, and there will be some new protocols for the police to implement (and some tweaks on the existing protocols) when it comes to how they conduct their investigation. Even Karl Liew was questioned. What’s next then?
Are we saying that the Singapore government are the “insidious old boy type”? Are we saying that LML held sway over the AGC and the police in the prosecution of Parti Liyani?
Or, putting it in another way, that at every prosecutorial crossroad, are the directions of the investigation and prosecution determined by the subtle nods and shake of LML’s head that in turns directs the AG’s head and that nudges the rest of the prosecution head and the police head? So, are the heads at the top bobbing to one synchronised beat of the insidious old boy’s tune?
Well, our law minister has done his rounds and he presented to Parliament that there is no evidence of that, whether directly or indirectly.
There is therefore no cause or justification for a COI. The system is not the issue in Parti’s case. It is not systemic. It is individuated, and the “goats” of the system are already singled out for further investigation and discipline. The fault thus lies not in the judicial constellation, but in the wandered-off planets in our shining, unblemished system.
But, on that note, I do not think parti’s case is the lodestar for one to crack open the flaws of our meritocratic system where the social and income divide have created a platform that subtly discriminates, segregates and oppresses many for the benefit of a handful.
Alas, no system is perfect and the search for utopia is a dangerous, misguided sport as it often leaves a trail of bodies behind in the name of deluded change. And yesterday’s Parliament was not the forum to dive head first into that rabbit hole.
So, let me end with Shanmugam’s words. “The rot starts at the top. If the top is clean, the system can work well. And we’ve got to make sure of that. If it starts, then very few things can save such a country.”
Well, can’t argue with that. Leadership at the top is what the people at the bottom depends on. But the rot can come in many forms. And the most insidious ones are those where the people are in blissful ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment