PM Lee & Terry Xu's TOC.

 

“You can’t choose the family you’re born into, but you certainly have the choice to distance yourself from them if they’re toxic and they’re only causing you pain”.

The above was an extract from Ho Ching’s post two years ago entitled: “Here’s why sometimes it is okay to cut ties with toxic family members.”

Well, it is a family affair that has sadly gone down south quite rapidly, and the whole world knows about it. The siblings made sure of that when they blitzed the internet with serious allegations made against their elder brother, PM Lee, more than three years ago.

At the trial yesterday, as a witness, PM Lee said that he had waived his parliamentary privilege when he republished his ministerial statements outside Parliament. He said that would “allow his siblings to sue him over the statements, but they have not done so.” 

He added: “As far as the public is concerned, my not suing my siblings does not mean I condone (the allegations) or that their statements are necessarily true.”

“But if others repeat it and I don’t act against others for which my inhibitions against suing siblings do not apply, that would further spread the poison and aggravate the damage.”

By putting that on record, it is clear that our prime minister is sending a signal at large to the public that where personal dirty linens are concerned, there are two ways of cleaning them. 

First, they will wash those that can be washed via the parliamentary washboard. This was done on July 3, 2107, when PM Lee rubbished the siblings’ claim that he had misused his power. 

And second, for those that can’t be washed, as Ho Ching’s article about toxic people has put it, they ought to be deemed as a private matter, and those tempted to air them for other than the public interest had better think twice (or thrice) in the light of the Terry Xu’s defamation suit, now ongoing. 

Unless of course, you are his siblings. That itself warrants a different treatment. PM Lee said: “On the allegations made by my siblings, I had decided to take a different approach with them and it did not mean carte blanche for anybody else to use that to spread those allegations and further defame me. I am not obliged to sue everyone in order to sue one person.”

Well, it is true that a plaintiff picks his defendant(s). It is a fundamental right of a litigant to pursue his case whichever way he wants it. If he sues and the party is adjudged not at fault after a trial and/or appeal, there are cost consequences that he will have to bear. 

But, that said, this is no ordinary plaintiff and the allegations are no ordinary allegations. Neither is this an ordinary defamation suit. 

In short, there are larger issues at stake here and hereon like freedom of expression, of the press other than the mainstream’s, of repeating an allegation yet to be debunked by a court of law where there are equal representation, of addressing an unresolved testamentary intention beyond probate, of a country still being criticised by foreign press for oppressive tactics, and of the balance of ethical considerations concerning a siblings’ rivalry that has forced the prime minister’s hand, which may be perceived by many as some form of preferential treatment, if not an act of self-preservation. 

As such, every act taken by such a prominent figure has wider political, social and legal implications for the republic at large, especially her home-grown style of paternally nurtured democratic values. 

Let me nevertheless end on these two points. 

First, when PM Lee was asked whether he is suggesting that the media can never report on what his siblings have accused him of, he replied with this double edged sword: - 

“Not at all. They can report what they think needs to come out and if I sue them for defamation and I am wrong, they can go to court, vindicate themselves and demolish me - which is what I believe you are hoping to do in this trial.”

I felt that that hints to an imbalance of power between a public leader and his private citizen. Although PM Lee had given TOC a chance to retract and apologise, and TOC did not accede to it for whatever reasons, the signal sent (together with what he had said in court) is however one where the die is cast that the alleged defamer will be duly demolished. 

I thus wonder, are we going back to the days of when these words still reverberate in our hearts: “Between being loved and being feared, I have always believed Machiavelli was right. If nobody is afraid of me, I’m meaningless”?

Second point is about animosity. PM Lee said that “neither he nor his wife Ho Ching held any animosity towards his siblings.” He added: “I think the animosity is evident on one side, from my siblings...And I hope against hope that one day, matters may be repaired. But it is one of those things that happen in life, and this too shall pass.”

Well, with the concluded contempt action against his nephew, the recent conviction of his sister-in-law at the disciplinary courts, his brother’s recent membership with TCB’s PSP, and the two defamation suits pending, I guess the hope against hope of “this too shall pass” will take a little longer to pass, if at all.

 

GE2020 - PM Lee's Mandate.

I wonder, what is a strong mandate for the PAP? 

PM Lee said this yesterday about the opposition: “What contribution will they make in Parliament, adding “contrast” to the discussion, if they get elected as MPs? What will happen to Singapore, if they form the government?”

I think the part about forming the government is quite fanciful because no slogan of the opposition parties runs on that theme, not even close. 

Surely the newcomer PSP’s “You Deserve Better” cannot be construed as a parliamentary replacement. Neither can the veteran WP’s “Make Your Vote Count” be seen as a majority takeover. Not by a long shot.

In fact, PSP’s backmasking message comes mostly from the totemic LHY’s video call to deny PAP her supermajority. But without him joining the electoral fray, most will see him as venting, out of pent up sibling rivalry sentiments, rather than being a serious political rival. 

In any event, the opposition parties are much more realistic than that. They know the hold of PAP over the silent majority is quite ironclad, and the well-to-do, the toe-the-line, and the don’t-rock-the-boat will have already made up their mind before ballot Friday. 

So the contribution that the opposition parties, at least a selected credible handful, can make is not about ”contrasting” (whatever that means). The reason for their existence in Parliament (whether seen as contributing or not) is much more human than utopian political theories would make it out to be. 

Stripped of all its fanfare, it is simply about the distrust of human leadership. This distrust is deep-rooted. This distrust is directed against a parliament of one party rule. 

You see, history has taught us that no system run by us (human beings) is foolproof. No civilization, however great, lasts forever; not even for a durable season. 

Decay always starts from the head down to the body. Complacency runs in our veins. And absolute power corrupts absolutely, or at least, creates opportunities for corruption that are hard to resist even for the best of leadership. That is why we distrust a government of one and only one, without any checks and balances from outside. 

It is true that for now, if a freak election result happens, and WP and PSP were to form a coalition government to run Singapore, you can expect that the struggle to take over the steering wheel would be herculean; but of course, not impossible. 

But the silent majority are too nestled in our cozy comfort zone to want to ever risk that. And that freak election result will not happen mostly because of the unproven quality of most of the opposition parties and the stellar track record of the incumbent. 

The reality is, it is difficult to compete with PAP and their slate of high-flying candidates who will always have the experience in real time with a good lead time as compared to those whose experience is largely in the “classroom of rallies and online broadcasts”, save for WP who has nearly a decade of experience running a GRC and PSP led by someone from the inside. 

So, it is highly curious for PM Lee to even assert or hint to the possibility of the opposition forming the government (unless it is an intended play on hyperbole for effect). Because, if anything, it is much more likely at this time when we are still in the eye of the Covid-19 storm that a freak election result may just go to the other extreme, that is, the supermajority gaining an even more supermajority, if not the foreboding 100%. 

I believe that result, albeit freakish, would disappoint even the silent majority. Imagine a Parliament of unadulterated whites, no opposing voices, no contrast, no stain; just a sea of whites. Alas, it would be so bright, so uniform, so uneventful, the business of the state would be too unbearably dull to watch. 

In the end, both sides are pitching it for the safest psychological persuasion or anchorage. Both are dabbling in hyperbole for effect. Both strive to instil some uncertain and fear to finesse the silent majority. 

For PAP, they know they have got this. They are pushing for a strong mandate, and strive to repeat the 2001 GE victory of more than 75%, possibly scoring an 80%. They are taking nothing for granted especially when this will be the swan song for the last of the Lees in Parliament. 

In essence, this is an election to endorse all that PM Lee had done and stood for, and also to endorse the confidence and trust reposed on the 4G leaders of what they are going to do in the future for Singapore.

And for the opposition parties, it is indeed about making your vote count. The distrust element has always been on their side. And PAP may have the first-mover and the long-stayer advantage, but the opposition have the human-fallibility x-factor on their side. For what is the symbol and meaning of democracy, when the people’s voice in Parliament is being “whitewashed” by one political party making all the decisions?

Well, PAP can ensure (and they have always done so) that there will still be robust and impartial debate even without opposition parties, and without the perilous folly of groupthink, but it is just not the same thing in the anxious mind of the electoral. Why put all your electoral eggs in one white basket right? 

And when PM Lee said, “at this critical moment, Singapore needs a capable government with the full support of a united people, more than ever”, this unity of the silent majority still covertly craves after some credible diversity in Parliament as a psychological consolation, very much like a security blanket for us to sleep more soundly at night.

PM Lee's "broad church" of diverse views towards "ping qi ping zoo" resilience.

I can’t say that PM Lee’s message is not inspiring. I felt that in some ways he had pushed all the right buttons. He shared about leadership renewal, unity, centrism, broad tent or broad church, inclusive politics, and human touch. 

It was also a creative speech to the PAP mass gathering of ministers and members (more than 3000) at the weekend’s party conference. 

He shared that there were definitely differences of opinions like “some want to keep the Primary School Leaving Examination while others favour scrapping it, and some want to retain Section 377A...while others want to repeal it.”

This is what he meant by having a “broad tent” or “broad church” of diverse views. He said: “We may not be able to reach a consensus on all issues, all the time. But we should always try to find common ground, and more importantly, maintain a shared space where the different views can be aired constructively, where we can engage in a way that does not erode trust and social cohesion.”

Unity also means taking a centrist approach to political philosophy. Centrism prevents the politics of extremes. He warned about the zero-sum game where it is “organised along fault-lines in Singapore society, and such politics would only make the fault-lines deeper.”

The recent 377A debate is one such fault-line where moral sentiments mix with religious fervency risks erupting into political fanaticism. 

He doesn’t want a situation whereby politics divide people such that “people would be forced to take sides, you are either for me or against me.”

At this point, PM Lee has got a point. Look at American politics, between the blue and red, the Democrats and Republicans, you would notice that it is no longer about the good of the people, but vindication, ego-takedowns, vengeful politics, mutual recriminations, and extremism. Sometimes you wonder whether Trump is leading a United States or a Disunited States of America. 

PM Lee said: “(US) politics is so deep that when families gather, they cannot talk politics. And it is reaching a point where marriages between Democrats and Republicans are frowned on. It is like between Romeo and Juliet - different clans, different tribes and different nations.”

He added: “So when we talk about maintaining cohesion and centrist politics, it may sound ordinary and dull, but, in fact, it is vital for Singaporeans and very rare in the world. It is the key reason why we have done better than most.”

Then, there is the human touch. 

PM Lee said that the party’s key objective is to let the people know that “the Government understands your concerns, that the PAP is working with you to tackle problems together, and that whatever your diffculties, in Singapore you will never walk alone. To do that,” he added, “we have to complement good policies with a human touch.”

This is what human touch entails: “You are not just helping to write letters and send them off to the Housing Board or Central Provident Fund Board or some other government agency. You are offering residents friendship and encouragement, so that they identify with you and confide in you - help you to help them more.”

If there was ever a Jericho chant by PM Lee, this has to be it. This is the rallying call for unity in diversity and equality amidst inequality is these words: -

“But we are all here today because we count it a privilege to serve. Each person we succeed in helping, and whose life we make better - even by a little bit - makes it all worthwhile.”

Lesson? One. 

I find that PM Lee has just outlined for the 4G leaders what it takes to bring the nation to the next level of “happiness, prosperity and progress” for all. 

And if anyone has caught the leadership baton well, it has to be Chan Chun Sing, where he recently called the leaders to “build a sense of stewardship” and “to be a force of good.”

His tall order is in this Socratic inquiry: “How do we bring about this concept of stewardship and imbue that into the next generation, where the definition of our success is not how well we do for ourselves here and now, but the definition of our success is how well we enable our next generation to do even better than us?”

Chan’s next line of questioning is more pertinent. He asked: “How do we build a system that allows the human potential to flourish? How do we build a meritocratic system of talent and trades where each and every individual’s achievement is determined by his talent, effort and commitment, and never by his language, race, religion, ancestry or family ties?”

Here are my thoughts...

In a speech or a podium address, the PAP has got the political rhetoric all down. The fundamentals are definitely sound. The government’s blueprint on multiculturalism, meritocracy and economic development (to be the first in all areas) cannot be faulted. 

You cannot expect a speech of this nature addressed to 3000 prominent members and pitched nationwide to be one that is short on idealism since at the top, that has always been the touchstone of a resilient government for, by and with the people. 

The unspoken goal is always to aim for the stars, within pragmatic limits, so that the political marathoners run a good race that is worth the prize they deserve at the finishing line. 

This is where a generous injection of loftiness is always prudent to keep the government on their toes and the governed on firm footing. 

But inevitably, and this has to be said, as we progress down the many layers of society, idealism at the top always gets watered down when it confronts the realities at the bottom. 

There may no doubt be consensus solidified, which is forged by the charisma of the leadership at the top, but it is always the grassroot that experiences the raw effects of promises kept and unravelled to varying degree. 

That is, not everyone will enjoy the benefits of policy reforms and the utilitarian bend for the government is always to ensure that those at the top secure the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people below. 

Ultimately, for all practical reasons, it is about the principle of utility or the number game. And CCS spelt it out most honestly when he said this: -

“There will be winners and there will be losers, and there will be people who win a lot, and those who win relatively less. There are differences in absolutes and there are differences in relativities. How a society manages the disparity between the winners and the losers, between those who win more and those who win less, will have domestic political implications with global significance, and we have seen this happen in the last few years where the domestic relativities, when not well managed, translate into a global backlash against the natural forces of integration.”

Alas, he is right you know. There are indeed differences in absolutes and relativities, and most of the time, if not all of the time, it is the gap in the domestic relativities that results in either revolution (regime change) or disillusionment (regime decay). 

Let me end with the words of PM Lee. Here goes.

“That is what our meritocracy is about - helping each other reach the best of our ability, and not holding back each other’s with potential to do better than ourselves. We cannot cut tall poppies down. We must encourage every poppy to grow. We will be different colours, different heights. But we will be one community, one Singapore succeeding together.”

He ended using the Chinese saying “ping qi ping zuo” - “We sit together, we rise together, we are on the same level. We feel the kinship and comradeship.”

Let’s hope also that we sit on the same chairs and rise on shared platform so that the rhetoric of the government over the podium is not just about flourishing ideals, but flourishing reality too. Cheerz.