The Balakrishnan Covfefe Part 2.

 

When I look at what I call “mic-gate” in parliament, between MPs Vivian and See Leng, I think about human foibles. Are we really all good or all bad, or a hybrid? Are we as Rousseauians would say, naturally peaceful, or as Hobbesians would say, naturally violent? 

Professor Richard Wrangham would call this the Goodness Paradox, and he wrote a whole book about it. If you fast forward to the concluding chapter of the book, this is how he ends the debate: -

“The paradox is resolved if we recognise that human nature is a chimera. The Chimera, in classical mythology, was a creature with a body of a goat and the head of a lion. It was neither one thing nor the other, it was both. The thesis of this book is that, with respect to our tendency for aggression, a human being is both a goat and a lion.”

I guess, ministers or otherwise, we are chimerical by nature, part-goat, part-lion. And the human variety is more about the human range than human nature. Most leaders are more lion than goat, and their followers are, well, vice versa. That seems to be the order of things in a hierarchical society. 

And we often look up to some leaders as heroes, drawimg inspiration from them, in words and actions. But, we often forget their human side, for the human foibles come in ranges too. Some are just more well domesticated by the pen of parliament, while others less so in the privacy of their own home.

Should we see more clearly this domesticated and wild side of our leaders, we ought to be more slow to hero-worship them, because hero-worship is no more than the superficial understanding of the part-goat, part-lion nature in all of us.

Some years back, there was an article by Michael Skapinker about heroes. It is entitled “We should not invest too much hope in our heroes”. The article spoke about three problems with regarding people as heroes. 

The first is what I have written above: We are humans beings. 

Our weakness are not non-existent. They are just not picked up by the social mic, so to speak. And trust me, given the right combustible mix, namely, power, sex and/or money, a majority of us may come undone.

Second, it is about lifting the carpet to reveal the cracks. Michael wrote that “(the heroes’) prominence invites greater scrutiny of their pasts”. 

Indeed anonymity hides not just our identity, but our past. But once the hero steps into the limelight, his/her flaws and past are duly illuminated and unduly magnified. 

The third problem about exalting heroes is that “behaviour is situational”. This is so true, as mic-gate shows. 

Michael wrote: “We have no idea how new responsibilities and situations are going to change people. We have little idea how they would change us...Most people promoted to a management job discover that leadership turns out to be more tedious, complicated and difficult than they thought.”

Alas, how often is this narrative read out to us: a hero-leader starts a revolution to topple a corrupt dictator only to discover that when confronted with the same realities of power the previous dictator faced, the hero himself struggles to not end up becoming the tyrant he once overthrew. Many times, the struggle is lost.

So, instead of putting our hope on the idea of a hero, Michael suggests that we ask a different question: -

“What did I learn from some of the people I admire?” 

This avoids the tendency to see those we admire as infallible, and put their humanity in the proper context. While they are not perfect, they however have their defining moments. These defining moments (arising out of their struggle) form the lessons we can learn from. 

For Aung Sun Suu Kyi, it was decades of standing up against the military junta; her failure to stand up to the Rohingya crisis notwithstanding. For Churchill, when he confronted Hitler’s Germany in WWII; his white-people supremacist views notwithstanding. And even for Mother Teresa, its her lifetime mission of mercy in the streets of Calcutta; her struggles with searing doubts notwithstanding. 

They are not perfect but what they do, the passion and courage they put into it, comes closest to the perfection that we strive for in our own life. So, emulation, yes; but worship, well, take a few notches down please. 

And talking about behaviour being situational, here is a young lady that turned her most dire situation around. She like many others are so-called the unsung heroes we often overlook. This is Ms Zulayqha Zulkifli’s story, and three years ago, she was featured in ST, reported by Cara Wong. She was then only 24. And I find this is the best way to end this post. 

In 2010, amidst a messy divorce, Ms Zulayqha’s father lost his job as a technician. She was only 16 then. He then sold their 4-room flat at Henderson Crescent a year later. 

The whole family went to live with a relative after that. When tension rose between the two families, Ms Zulayqha and her three siblings were made to sleep “at stone tables in the void deck instead.” 

She recalled: “We took turns to stay awake to keep each other safe. We didn’t have time to be sad or pity ourselves. Life went on. We were just trying to survive each day.” 

They eventually found a temporary roof over their head while they waited for a rental unit. When Ms Zulayqha was 22, she faced another hardship. Her mother packed her belonging and left them. She left without any explanation. A week later, she found that her mother had suffered from a stroke and left to recuperate on her own. 

Ms Zulayqha was clearly disappointed but she said: “We’d has been through so much together and we thought that we’d always have each other’s backs. But as much as I wanted to be angry, I kept thinking that I’d gone through so much hardship already, why should I give up now?”

And she didn’t. She fought back. Her defining moments came when she scored As in her N-level exams, entered ITE and scored As again and was awarded the Howe Yoon Chong PSA scholarship. 

At Nanyang Poly, she was awarded the LKY scholarship to encourage upgrading while she studied for her diploma in social sciences.

Ms Zulayqha is now a social work associate with the Cerebral Palsy Alliance Singapore, and “is studying part-time for a bachelor’s degree in social work at SUSS.”

She said: “We like to think that we are very unfortunate to be in our situation, but it’s only through volunteering and helping others that I realise there are so many others out there who are in worse situations.”

Her siblings are doing well too. Her younger brother is a chef’s associate at a restaurant, her younger sister works for security firm Certis Cisco and her older brother is in his final year at NTU. Ms Zulayqha puts it best in her own words: -

“Perseverance is a very important value that you have to acquire. Through perseverance, we are able to get through all the challenging obstacles ahead of us. It can be demoralising, having to wait for things to get better. But we should grit our teeth, move forward with a positive mindset, and just keep counting the blessings and achievements we have attained every day.”

A life like that is heroic in many ways. And whether we are up there as ministers or the hoi polloi below, her words and life inspire deeply. 

The reality is, the hero in us does not come in brochured image of a knight in shining armor emerging out of the glorious horizon to save the day. 

Most times, if not all the time, it comes from a heart that never stop hoping, never stop fighting and never stop believing. It is doing the most ordinary with perseverance, passion and hope that we make those moments extraordinary, and our life inspirational.

 

The Balakrishnan Covfefe - Part 1

 

It was a good debate. Thrashing out issues about foreign talent, Ceca, PMEs & PMETs, and job competition and future. They are heartland issues and grounded in the livelihood of many Singaporeans. 

But, amidst the debate between MP Tan See Leng and PSP Leong Mun Wai, there was a minor distraction yesterday. You can call it the Trump’s equivalent of a Covfefe, when MP Tan did not just leave the parliamentary table, he also left the mic on. 

Unfortunately for Minister Vivian Balakrishnan (“Vivian”), the mic captured this: “he’s illiterate...Seriously, how did he get into RI?...must have been a lousy school.” At this point, it seems like Minister Tan joined in too. He said: “I’m from Monk’s hill.” 

Well, what can be implied in that short exchange between the ministers is this: “How can someone from RI not get it? I’m from Monk’s hill, and I got it.”

Vivian immediately apologised for that remark. In his Facebook post, he said: “I called Mr Leong Mun Wai today to apologise for my private comments to a colleague in Parliament yesterday. I disagree with him on the issue but I should not have said what I said. Mr Leong has accepted my apology.” Integrity restored? 

Alas, modern technology had left hardly any room for privacy and the clatters of conscience. It goes further in fact. It has flushed out our most intimate thoughts, frustrations and prejudices, just as what the scripture had said: “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.”

But before you take this as an indictment of Vivian (or Tan), let me confess too that I had on some occasions caught myself muttering under my breath similar sentiments as Vivian’s or Tan’s. 

Sometimes, a situation becomes so intolerable or ludicrous, from one’s point of view, that you catch yourself, quite unwittingly, making snide and demeaning remarks, which admittedly, are made out in jest, but leaves a bad taste behind. A regrettable utterance of instinctual unthinking?

At other times, the emboldenment comes when you are in a group, and you want to fit in, or win some brownie points. This is the crowd effect, and if you are in a Man U game, and sitting by the side of the reds in old Trafford, you often catch yourself saying and agreeing with belittling and demeaning expressions you will never be caught for in a different context, like in a woman’s Bible study group or in a wake. 

It is again quite similar to the demeaning things Trump said about women and he excused it as boys’ locker-room bantering. However, I caveat that Trump takes such unthinking chatters to a whole new level, and his actions speak for itself. That topic is for another day. 

And this also reminds me of the many levels or sincerity of a Freudian slip. In the book, Everybody lies: What the Internet Can Tell Us About Who We Really Are” by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, he noticed that in a large dataset of typos, many of us see a person walking down a street and describe him as a “penistrian”. 

Yes, you heard it right - penis-trian. That was a typo...of course? Because, clearly, it is “pedestrian“ misspelt. But, for some of us, is it really about the misspelling? Is this then a case of “out of the abundance of the heart...”?

Well, all I can say is that the mic might catch your tongue hanging loose, but it is big data online that catches you with your pants down. In absolute anonymity, we are as transparent as a plain glass window just kleenex’d. Privacy flushes out all that system’s junk or filth. But sometimes, it is necessary for us to confront ourselves and then commit to a path of innermost spring cleaning. 

In any event, this is what author Seth wrote: -

“At Google, major decisions are based on only a tiny sampling of all their data. You don’t always need a ton of data to find important insights. You need the right data. A major reason that Google searches are so valuable is not that there are so many of them; it is that people are so honest in them.”

“People lie to friends, lovers, doctors, surveys, and themselves. But on Google they might share embarrassing information about, among other things, their sexless marriages, their mental health issues, their insecurities, and their animosity towards black people.” 

(You shall know the truth, and it is found online? It is like a global Catholic Confession Booth, but the difference (or problem) is that it stops at confession). 

So, for the ministers in parliament yesterday, well, I believe that short exchange is similar to locker room bantering, but made in bad taste, and it shows the imperfection of humanity as a whole. We all have our biases, and elitist inclination, expressed in other ways. Some of us are just more discreet about it than others, because human relationships sometimes bring out the worst in us. Mind you, we are all arrogant in our own ways, some are just more self-righteous about it than others. 

And Vivian will have to live with that, because the mic never forgets. It is also a good lesson in eating the humble pie, cold. I still can taste mine years ago. 

Yet, most of us, if not all of us, can quietly identify with his Covfefe, and loosening that grip on the stone meant for casting is good for the soul, especially since the man has apologised and his apology generously accepted. 

So this is a good lesson for all. A lesson in controlling the tongue. But I suspect, even a rudder sometimes turns the wrong way, because we are only human after all. 

And for many of us, especially me, we just have to make a long detour back on the straight and narrow, and bear the mistake, like a blistering ulcer in the mouth and a discipline whip to the heart.

 

Ivan Lim Saga.

I think the thing about skeletons in the closet is that it reeks. You can hide it from sight, but you can’t stop the smell from coming out. 

By now, it’s, well, yesterday’s news. Ivan Lim has withdrawn from the GE 2020. It was a brief political life of a candidate who was being relentlessly singled out by those he had crossed path (or sword) with in the past. Mind you, no other candidate thus far has to face his/her questionable past as Ivan had to. 

“I recognised that the controversy over my candidacy has eclipsed the core issues of what this election should be about - Singapore’s future and the difficult steps we have to take to recover from Covid-19,” Ivan wrote in a letter to PM Lee.

“The controversy has also caused intense pain and stress for my family. I cannot put my family through this.”

Alas, when you are put into the political grind, in a electoral process called democracy, be prepared to face your past, because the paper trail of your character will testify to whether you are able to stand up to public scrutiny or not. 

And don’t expect the more vocal section of the public to cut the dominant status quo some slack on this. Most times, every candidate they offer will be cut open for surgical examination. And one wrong pinch-like incision may result in an inordinate political haemorrhage with irreversible spillover effect. 

This squares with what Law Minister recently commented about “Alfiangate”. He said that “a small group of people” have “almost a Pavlovian response” to things said by the PAP or the Government, which he said was “sheer hypocrisy.” And it should be noted that these so-called Pavlovian dogs’ barks can be more lethal than its bite. 

In any event, this is a game PAP knows too well. LKY once said this about PAP’s success: -

“We will only be like this with an honest and capable government, capable of dealing with neighbours who do not want to see us succeed and capable enough to command the respect from the big countries with large numbers of able people and talk with them as equals. We choose our leaders carefully.”

He added: “What counts? First, integrity. Second, commitment. Third, ability. And fourth, most important, a capacity to expound and carry people with you.”

Unfortunately, Ivan’s capacity to carry people with him died stillborn because commitment and ability are not enough. You need to win hearts, that is, the heart of every voter, from the richest to the poorest. It is called the democracy of persuasion and conviction. 

And you can expect during such rare season of election to be a time where your faults/flaws are magnified a thousandfold, especially when it deals with the allegations of elitism and arrogance - the main scourge of inequality. For indeed, electoral hell has no fury like being shown an elitist’s smirk. 

And this is made worse with the help of viral technology, and especially when it comes at a time where people’s hearts are unsettled, anxious and insecure. 

So, in the end, PAP should have known better. And the way they have handled Ivan (with spillover effect to his family) is curious to say the least. This curiosity falls on three fronts. 

The first front is in the words of PM Lee after Ivan tendered his withdrawal. PM Lee said: -

“Ideally, there would have been a fair and deliberate consideration of these allegations. Unfortunately, the nature of the campaign is such that we do not have time for a thorough investigation. The allegations spread like wildfire online, eclipsing the serious life and death issues we must grapple with.”

Mm...”we do not have time for a thorough investigation”? Strange...I would have thought that what would be ideal would have been in line with this quote: “Prevention is better than cure.“ 

So, it is curious that having trumpeted the unfolding of a seemingly half-vetted candidate, he now says that we have no time due to the short campaign runway to defend him thoroughly. 

Shouldn’t the party stand by their choice if the fruit bears him out and not “drop” him even if truly defensible “allegations (spreading) like wildfire online” make their unfounded appearance? 

I hope I am not nitpicking here, but if there is a stumble in the selection process before showcasing one’s candidates on Wednesday, isn’t it better to just admit it and move on? Doesn’t an apology clear a thousand fog of suspicion? 

And mind you, this is clearly in line with the spirit of what the Law Minister and Dr Tan expected of Pritam concerning Alfian’s questionable allegiance, that is, to make your stand clear, to stand by what you say, and to stand with the truth. 

The next curious development is even more curious for me. It is in the words of Mr Masagos. If you need some reminding, here’s the full extract. 

“But I also think it is important for the candidates who may have been alleged to be something or other, to also prove themselves.”“(It is) also an opportunity for them, if they have done something in the past, to redeem themselves, because we have seen qualities in all our candidates that make them, what we think, good leaders that will serve our people well.”

Where then are the “seen qualities” in Ivan (“that make (him)... a good leader”) when online dirt about him spread like wildfire? How about allowing him to redeem himself in the future as an MP for what was not denied by Mr Masagos concerning his past? And does the government then expect the so-called Pavlovian dogs to just lick their jewels and quietly traipse away from this apparent incongruity?

Lastly, the third front is in the words of Assoc Professor Bilveer Singh. He said: “If (Ivan) withdraws, it will reflect badly in the PAP’s judgment and selection process. But I think the backlash would be even greater, if he’s kept.”

Notwithstanding the backlash, I feel this can be avoided if proper scrutiny were carried out, in the first place, because this involves not just the people’s trust, but the lives of Ivan’s loved ones and the intemperate rage of online harassment. 

And even if mistake has been made, (because we are only human), the government ought to just acknowledge it and move forward to more pressing issue, rather than push the blame on the “nature of the campaign” - as if the incumbent does not have a five-year runway to fully prepare. 

And lastly, I find Mr Masagos’ curious magnanimity towards Ivan’s redeemable past even more confounding. How then should he fill in the blanks now with Ivan’s most unexpected withdrawal? Is it then a past that, for political expediency, is now - due to time constraint - beyond redemption? 

Alas, so many questions, but the answers (or conclusions), I guess, are foregone?

Has our government bet on the wrong horse?

This is going to be an uphill climb. 

Lawrence Wong (our Second Finance Minister) has thrown the gauntlet down during the 48th St Gallen Symposium in Switzerland. This time I hope the government and society will give him full support.

This is what he said: "The paper qualifications do not define who you are as a person. That is a mindset change that we are trying to effect in Singapore."

He was responding to this query from the audience: "Whether Singapore's education system gives opportunities to less qualified people."

Now, if that were the question asked specifically, then, in my view, Lawrence did not answer it specifically with that above statement.

But he nevertheless went on to clarify. 

It reports that he "noted that the focus on credentials is not an education problem per se, but a societal mindset."

Still that answer avoided the question, but not for long.

Lawrence gave a hint of a cautious "no, it does not" - that is, Singapore's education system does not give opportunities to less qualified people - when he added: -

"It is not unique to Singapore by any means, perhaps less so in Europe...but certainly when you look at Asian countries, there is that emphasis in credentialism as a signal for employers to decide who is a better candidate, as a signal to society to decide whether you can do well in life. So, we should move away from that."

If you are looking for the clincher of a reply, then yes, the last phase underscores it: -

"So, we should move away from that." 

Note the choice word "should" and not "must" or "shall". 

Of course, it would be more reassuring if it had been this: -

"We SHALL or MUST move away from that" instead of "we should move away from that."

Yet, admittedly, the consolatory "should" is as good as it gets with our ingrained and hallowed meritocratic system (as I'd said, it's an uphill climb, of a Sisyphus nature, because reality is so different from a glib Symposium pronouncement). 

And I think Lawrence should be applauded for taking that stand in front of a liberal and enlightened audience that I presume most are highly credentialed members? 

Also, note another choice word used, that is, "credentialism" instead of "meritocracy gone rogue or wrong". Too long or politically incorrect?

So, for his lexicon intelligence, Lawrence not only deserves an applause but also be credentialed for being diplomatic. 

Lesson? Just one. 

Sometimes, I think it is good to pretend that paper qualifications don't matter that much. 

Sometimes, I think it seems so right to tell others that "hey, chin up, diplomas and degrees don't define you, you are much more than that, much more," and then you turn to your own children and grill them on ten-year series and go cold turkey during the exams period as if their future depends on it. 

Honestly, which Singaporean parent can be faulted for such bipolar attitude concerning our fiercely meritocratic historical background that is based stridently on grades and its inequality. 

And with Lawrence's "moving away" speech, our Civil Service would have its work cut out for them. From their perspective, isn't it like expecting the "paper qualifications" hare to slow down and wait for the "skills and experience only" tortoise to catch up? Too unrealistic?

Alas, meritocracy, multiculturalism and economic development have been the bedrock principles of our nation-building since our Independence.

While you can't go wrong with multiculturalism, because you can't have "too much" of an effort to fostering harmony and unity in diversity, I can't say the same for meritocracy when it is left to its own devices.

If the avengers' Achilles' heel is Thanos, then meritocracy's vulnerability is guarded elitism, that is, elitists who exploit meritocracy to build up a gated society for themselves while paying lip-service to equality. That's also another word for the widening social and income inequality, and we are in the thick of it now. 

Is this then a case of unchecked sowing and reaping by our government over the decades? 

What's worse is the Molotov cocktail of mixing unbridled meritocracy with the traditional 5Cs (as pursued blindly by us). 

When you put meritocracy, elitism and materialism together, the mix is a potently toxic brew for a society, which is only recently making an earnest U-turn to correct a systemic problem with deep creepy roots. Imagine a rich farmer returning from a long self-indulgent holiday to a weed filled garden.

And on that inflammatory liquid concoction, this reminds me of the eminent barista emeritus SM Goh. 

At a National Day Rally in August 2003, PM Goh shared his heart's concern with the people: - 

"I am not too worried about our young people. There are many exciting opportunities for them in the new industries we are developing. They will eventually get their 5 Cs – cash, credit card, car, condominium and country club - except it will take a little longer.

I am more worried about older Singaporeans. In this slow economy, they may not get another job easily if they are retrenched."

I can hear the 5 cheers for the 5Cs, which represent cash (as in more money), credit card (as in instant gratification), car (as in higher cost of living, less exercise and health issues), condominium (as in the threat of a real estate bubble), and country club (as in prestige to deepen the social divide). 

At this point, a caveat is in order. 

Please note that there is nothing wrong with owning the 5Cs, my parenthesis above however forewarns about the unchecked governmental policies of unintended consequences, and not the censure of individual ownership (and I am sure it was an unintended, innocent remark from our beloved barista ESM Goh).

Now, back to my point... 

So, after decades since Independence (of unchecked meritocracy) and about ten years or more since ESM Goh's rally speech (about the 5Cs), our government in the words of Lawrence is wise-ing up. 

Recall that Lawrence said: "The paper qualifications do not define who you are as a person"? And the corollary of that is, neither should the 5Cs define us. That is an admirable U-turn.

So have no fear, Dr Amy Khor doing the U-turn is here. She is our Senior Minister of State for Health.

And at the graduation ceremony of Nanyang Polytechnic's School of Health Science this week, she offered her newly blend of 5Cs.

She said that "graduation is no longer the end of learning. A critical skill of survival is to be able to unlearn and to relearn. Learning involves challenging and abandoning outdated practices or thoughts that no longer serve in the interest of our patients."

Here's unveiling her 5Cs, ready? Drumroll please. 

They are "Competence, Creativity, Collaboration, Compassion and Commitment".

Unlike the 5Cs of cash, car, credit card, condominium and country club, which are essentially an end in themselves, Amy's 5Cs are a means to an end.

And that end, I choose to believe, is to become a better human being, one where our parents, our children and the society can truly be proud of, regardless of how much we own or possess. 

In my view, that is the only effective antidote to check unchecked meritocracy, which inevitably leads to elitism that threatens to divide the society.

While I don't deny that you will most likely end up possessing the 5Cs ESM Goh talked about with Amy's 5Cs, the point is however not about individual ownership (recall my caveat above?). 

In other words, my point is about policies that are blindsided by both unchecked meritocracy and economic developments that benchmark itself to the material (car, cash) rather than the immaterial (competence, compassion and commitment). 

Mind you, a society that sees the securing of car and cash, for example, as a hallmarked goals of success runs the risk of causing a misguided generation to be depressed for the want of them or even more depressed for not having enough of them (as compare to his or her next door neighbour). Alas, the human appetite is seldom sated. 

But a society where the government walks in step with the people by encouraging timeless virtues like competence, compassion and commitment towards that which makes us better human beings is a society that is instrumental in guiding and transforming meritocracy towards achieving a fairer, happier and more contented society. 

In my view, though not admitted, this is what our government is trying to make up for in the many decades of putting their bets on the wrong horse, that is, unchecked meritocracy, by not changing horses midstream.

Well, with such thing, you are never too late to make a definite and determined change as Amy and Lawrence (and LHL) are doing with words, and hopefully deeds too. 

Let me end with a scenario empowered by the gift of hindsight. 

Imagine this, what if PM Goh had offered a different speech than the one he gave about the 5Cs in 2003?

In other words, what if he had determinedly and sincerely promoted and encouraged Amy's 5Cs instead. What would that part of the speech of today be as he looks back?

Maybe, with some imagination, it would sound something like this: -

"I am not too worried about the younger and older Singaporeans. In this economy where we put compassion, commitment, collaboration and competence first in all that we do, they will get a job easily if they are ever retrenched. 

And because we have developed the right Cs, they are resilient and hopeful in a society that looks beyond grades to the development of every individual's potential to his/her fullest."

After that, he may just end with this caution:-

"I would however be more worried for our young people if they had pursued the wrong 5Cs as an end in itself. You see, there are many exciting opportunities for them in the new industries we are developing. No doubt, they will eventually get their 5 Cs – cash, credit card, car, condominium and country club - except it will take a little longer. 

But then, without developing their character, that is, without the compassion and commitment to be a better human being, the 5Cs would not guarantee a contented, happy and resilient life for them. 

In fact, they may just grow up lost and empty in a world driven by endless consumption. 

And as the elected custodian and facilitator of their dream, career and growth, the last thing we want to do is to lean the ladder of humanity against the wrong side of the wall."

Mm…an overwrought imagination? 

Nevertheless, may I propose that what I have written above, if given some thought, is not too far from the truth? Cheerz.