Parti Liyani - Shanmugam"s Micawberism.

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.

 

Shan vs. Thum.

If you ask me about fake news, I think it is a scary thing. The only question here is, "Who is the final arbiter of truth?"

Yesterday's grilling of Oxford's research fellow, Dr Thum Ping Tjin by our law minister Shanmugam for a rather relentless six hours hinted to this scary prospect. 

Both sides implicitly laid claim to being more true than the other. 

Both sides appeared to be intransigent or uncompromising about their core stand. 

And both sides walked away from the Select Committee hearing with their version of truth held tightly to their chest.

The target of their dispute? Operation Coldstore. 

It happened more than 55 years ago. It resulted in a crackdown of more than 100 leftists politicians and unionists in one major swoop. 

It reports that "it aimed at preventing subversives from establishing a "communist Cuba" in Singapore and mounting violence just before Malaysia.""

The human cost of Operation Coldstore was that some were detained for more than 15 years. 

Our longest detainee was Dr Chia Thye Poh, who was arrested on the follow up of a Operation-Coldstore-like roundup in 1966. 

He was denied his freedom for about 30 years (including being confined to a one-room guardhouse in Sentosa).

Dr Poh said: "I am confident that no matter how much difficulties I face, and how long it will take, the government will have to release me unconditionally one day... I hope that with continued support from the people, I can one day gain my complete freedom."

Going back to yesterday's session, I guess the highlight was our law minister's "put-like" questions to Dr Thum. 

He was bent on discrediting Dr Thum's professsorial objectivity. Somehow, you have a feeling that Dr Thum was lured into a trial proper.

Here is what I mean.

"Mr K. Shanmugam: These are the essential documents on which the Operation Coldstore was decided upon...(he went on to cite telegrams, notes, quotes from Professor Richard Evans)...can I suggest to you that you have pretty much breached a number of rules that he set out. Let's not argue about it. You can just disagree.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin: Yep, I disagree.

Mr K. Shanmugam: I would say you have fallen completely through the standard of an objective historian. You can also disagree.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin: Disagree.

Mr K. Shanmugam: Your views on communism, CUF (Communist United Front) in Singapore, Operation Coldstore, which you have been repeating at multiple fora, are contradicted by the most reliable evidence...You ignore and suppress what is convenient and in your writings you present quite an untrue picture. You can agree or disagree.

Dr Thum: I disagree. Of course, I disgree."

At one point, it was reported that "Dr Thum was subjected to yes-no questions, which he said he could not answer because nuances would be lost. He repeated a few times that as an academic, he had to qualify his answers." 

And "defending his research, he also said that if his work was inaccurate or if he had neglected to include any sources, he would have received a bad peer review, which he had not."

Lesson? One.

The Chairman of the Select Committee Mr Charles Chong mentioned yesterday that there were two recurring themes that emerged in the proceedings:-

"The importance of free speech and the need for added legislation."

Well, we all know free speech is not free here. It is a precious commodity in our guarded political climate. In other words, it comes with a price tag. 

And should you be made to pay for it, you would then know intimately what it would cost you to say what you want to say that exceeds the OB markers set by our government. 

But however controversial this right to speak freely is, I nevertheless endorse the government's move to hold these proceedings to gather and marshall feedback from people of all walks of life and professions to speak freely about their views and opinions on fake news and how to tackle it, especially news that are "demonstrably false and harmful."

Yet, my only concern here is, what "truth" really means?

Are we biased towards one truth against another truth? Or, is it as simple as Aristotle puts it, "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false"?

Here I recall a quote, "The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."

And my point is that sometimes, the opposite of a truth one speaks may not be a lie that another keeps. They may both be credible in some ways, and their truth may overlap in a meaningful, constructive and self-correcting way. 

Let me add that where they do overlap, and where parties are able to keep an open mind to the opposing ideas, there is undoubtedly the flourish of knowledge, the deepening of character, and the radiance of humility.

In the end, like what philosopher Julian Baggini said, "our problem is not primarily with what truth means but how and by whom truth is established." 

You see, the truth of one group might lead them to kill for just cause. The truth of another may lead them to arrest for political ends. The truth of still another may lead them to tolerate no dissent. 

And the truth of another may lead them to apply political means no different metaphorically from using "tomahawk blade to mow the lawn" should the same be infringed. 

Examples of what I mean is that we will never know where the truth really lies in such events like Operation Coldstore, the Marxist Conspiracy in 1987, what President Ong Teng Cheong meant when he revealed a "long list" of obstacles he had encountered in discharging his functions of his office, the Lee family disputes, the controversial reserve election, and the recent Sylvia-PAP split on the GST issue and the elusive apology (and if I may add, where the truth lies with what CEO Kuek meant by "deep-seated cultural issues").

And for the above reasons, it is quite unfortunate that our law minister took upon himself the exclusive duty to turn yesterday's Select Committee hearing into a trial of some sort when he encountered dissenting opinions from the one he (and his government) holds. 

Such battle-ram defence of "truths" (or opinions) tends to divide more than bridge, and feeds antagonism more than heals wounds (or promote deeper understanding). 

It also gives the impression that history indeed belongs to the victors, and the losers (and their narratives) are relegated and reduced to footnotes that are best kept hidden from public sight and scrutiny.

On defending truth, Julian Baggini wrote that "the greater, unifying enterprise is to defend the shared values we place on truth, the virtues that lead us towards it, and the principles that help us to identify it."

Alas, in my view, the Shanmugam-Thum exchange yesterday was a step back for this "greater, unifying enterprise" where our "shared values" were challenged, our "virtues" were sidelined, and our "principles" duly retired. Cheerz.

Elaborate Charades: TCB, Shanmugam & Chuan-Jin.

If you flip thru it, you might miss it. 

Today's papers reveal something not quite right. And as a citizen, a morning reader of the Straits Times, I am confused. 

Why? Here's the background.

First, we have the exchange between TCB and Shanmugam. The latter said: "(Dr Tan) spliced my remarks, rearranged them, and put them together in a way to suggest something which I did not say."

He was referring to what he said last year about some "circuit breaker" which would trigger a reserved presidential election. 

It reports: "In (Shanmugam's) answer, he said it was a policy decision for the Government to make, adding that the Government would make its position clear after it had sought the AGC's advice on some legal questions."

In short, what our law minister said was this:- 

"Once we get the advice, we will send it out. Certainly by the time the Bill gets to Parliament, which is in October (1996), I think we will have a position and we will make it public."

But the issue is "what is to be made public - the AGC's advice or the Govt decision (on the hiatus provision)?"

TCB said: "Would the Minister explain to Singaporeans his apparent contradiction?" TCB was referring to the statement "Once we get the advice, we will send it out."

But the law minister replied: "Clearly, I was referring to making the Government's position (and not the AGC's advice) public." 

Actually, the law minister has a point. The AGC's legal advice is generally privileged and it was sought on the legality of the reserved presidential election (on its trigger).

I would not think that it is to be disclosed as it usually contains sensitive information to allow for confidential, candid, and free discussion. But there is no doubt that our law minister should have been clearer, because at such time, the last thing you want to do is to play with words. 

And our law minister being our law minister added this remark: "Dr Tan may be bitter. But that is no excuse for engaging in these elaborate charades."

Mm...I underscore the phrase "these elaborate charades" when I read in another section where House Speaker Tan Chuan-Jin was asked in an event organised by Roses of Peace about "how the elected presidency can continue to be representative as racial groups become less distinct?" 

He said that he expected the reserved election system to be tweaked over the years when it evolves. This was actually anticipated by Parliament last year.

He added that the CIMO (Chinese, Indian, Malay and Others) construct "remains valid certainly for the near term. But over time, indeed as more and more mixed marriages take place, and we begin to see the shift in a more significant way, then you need to evolve."

This is what the House Speaker meant by evolving when he said:-

"One option to ensuring the system remains representative is the old way of appointing presidents...This was mooted by a Constitutional Commission reviewing the elected presidency last year. It had said the Government could, at some stage, consider separating the custodial and ceremonial roles of the President and return to having Parliament appoint the President." 

Did I hear it right, "return to having Parliament appoint the President"?

He added: "Under this system, that was in place until 1991, there was an unspoken rule that saw the role being rotated among the major racial groups."

Mm...that's the confusing part for me this morning. 

Are we evolving (or tweaking) by "devolving" into the system before the EP was even started (the old way), that is, reaffirming parliamentary sovereignty by allowing parliament to (s)elect again when races get more "mixed up" and the racial lines are more blurred? 

Well, I can't say that the recent Presidential walkover was not somehow deja vu for me of the old ways of parliamentary appointment. 

Lesson? Just one, and it kind of puts the TCB-Shanmugam debate on the back burner.

Talk about "elaborate charades"... 

If a singlish phrase is apt here, it will go like this: "elect or select, you say one; race or non-race, you say one; 100m or 500m, you say one; trigger or not-trigger, you say one; and new way forward or old way back, you oso say one."

In the end, are we back to square one? Or worse, are we back to square one as and when parliament decides to go back to square one?

I guess the ruling party rightfully rules and we have collectively signed this social compact like a marital vows for good and bad, in sickness and in health, in open, frank discussion and in elaborate charades. 

Maybe this is a suitable case of "If it ain't broken, why tweak it?" 

Our past selected presidents like Ishak, Sheares, Nair and Wee have been exemplary and shouldn't we just let dead dogs lie - if ultimately we may be going back to the old way?

And even if we wanted to evolve to be more democratic, cosmopolitan and all-encompassing, there is no doubt that the elected presidency was a refreshing touch to the whole EP system. 

Singaporeans went to the poll for OTC and the four Tans, and we were finally voting for a truly elected President to represent us as the ceremonial head and nation-unity symbol. 

All was fair and square in the election front, and the dogs were still sound asleep, dreamy even. 

Then came parliamentary slam dunk this year with the trigger of the hiatus provision and the awkward presidential counting, and it hit us like hurricane all-whitey - the dogs are awaken and barking now...

While our ears were still ringing with the bombshell of Parliamentary sovereignty, trying to compose ourselves, the next thing that hit us was the presidential walkover. 

Before that, there was a parliamentary siren-warning sounded when Chun Seng twice addressed the then House Speaker, "Madam President". But none of us took him seriously then.

And lastly, the new House Speaker now says that we may go back to the old way of selecting the president when races get too mixed and beyond clear definitional lines. 

Well, you can't really blame me for having this feeling that I have been taken for a democratic joyride, or on a democratic treadmill where I have this sense of moving forward just to discover that I am actually not going anywhere. Cheerz.