Alfian Sa'at - Saga 1.

I guess Dr Tan Wu Meng has forgotten one of Sun Tzu’s advice: -

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

And for that lapse, you pay a political price. But he is fortunate he is in Jurong GRC, because it is helmed by a heavyweight Tharman. So, it is likely that the political price is three-quarter paid. 

If you need to be brought up to speed, Tan had shot from his mouth what had boomeranged back to his rear. In one swing of the bat, he knocked down two of society’s formidable opponents, WP chief Pritam Singh and poet Alfian Sa’at - although the target was more Pritam than Alfian. 

Well, I know neither of them personally, but the verbal mudslinging is familiar enough to me. And I don’t know for sure whether he was trying to score political brownie points for the dominant ruling party in a covid-plagued election run. But if it is, the brownie point unfortunately didn’t stick. 

In fact, Tan wrote an article, which was the genesis of this faux pas. And I have read it. It can be summed up as - “Alfian Sa’at is no loving critic”. But, as I’ve said, the main target is not Alfian, it’s his political opponent, Pritam. Alfian was just a stepping stone, a means to the doctor’s end. Here is his grievance as fleshed out below. 

“Mr Singh said that we should count ourselves fortunate that we have citizens who are “loving critics among us”. He gave an example, without naming names, but it was clear that he was referring to Alfian Sa’at.”

Tan added: “There are many Singaporeans who criticise Singapore out of patriotism and genuine care, including opposition leaders like Mr Chiam See Tong and Mr Low Thia Khiang.”

“But Alfian Sa’at is no “loving critic””.

Tan went on to say that on many occasions, Alfian has sided with Malaysia and her leaders. Alfian mocked Singapore when he called Singapore’s approach “jingoism”. That approach referred to the way PAP handled the 2018 maritime dispute after Malaysian vessels intruded into Singapore waters. 

In one interview in 2012, Alfian even said he “would love to become a Malaysian.” And on another occasion, Tan wrote that “Alfian likes the Malaysian Bumiputera policies. He says Singaporean Chinese are being selfish in not wanting merger with Malaysia.”

What is most disconcerting for me (in Tan’s article) was the part about LKY. In one of his poems on the eve of 2012 National Day, entitled “Death of a Tyrant”, Alfian wrote: -

“...in life, your snort was a decree, your fart a sermon, in death, a nation’s silence will follow you to the grave. Only then will you know what it means to be exiled, only then will they know what they have been holding their breaths so long for; the stench of your corruption...”

And when LKY passed on, Alfian wrote a loaded piece two days after, which smacks of backhand sarcasm. 

At this point, I caveat that I am not commenting on whether Alfian is a loving critic or not. I don’t know him well enough to make a judgment. He may have his agenda, idk. He is no less a poet, and a vocal critic of both Singapore and Malaysia (refer to his play “Parah” - about “the toxic racial politics in Malaysia”). Alfian is therefore anything but one-dimensional. 

I am however only limiting my post to Tan’s broadside rebuke of Pritam. And that brings me to the wisdom of Sun Tzu, that is, knowing yourself and your enemy, to bring my point home. 

Now, there is no doubt that the Cambridge-educated doctor, and medical oncologist is a knowledgeable man. He knows enough to be running side by side with Tharman. Mind you, he was also singled out by PAP to be an MP because he is undeniably a man of substance.

But, in politics, the calling is a relational ministry of knowing your target audience. This is one lesson you don’t find them teaching in schools. And this is where the wisdom of Sun Tzu becomes a necessary bridge to fill the gap.

I believe the intent behind “knowing yourself and your enemy” is to choose your battles. It is about selective winning, not indiscriminate fighting. And when you release your bow, you make sure you hit the bull’s eye. And at other times, I won’t deny that part of winning is also retreating. 

On this, Pritam took the high road when, in his reply, he wrote: “A loving critic. A son of Singapore. Not perfect. As imperfect as you and me Dr Tan, maybe more, maybe less.”

Alfian also chimed in. “In the grand scheme of things, I’m really a nobody (or non-essential as some might say!). And by dragging me into this, you’re risking coming down to my level to become another nobody, discussing things of very little consequence to the elections. But as someone who's an elected representative, you’re a somebody. From a nobody citizen-voter to a somebody MP: please, let’s get serious about the upcoming elections. If you truly love Singapore, then you know it deserves at least this.”

You know, Alfian is right about “coming down to his level to become another nobody.” 

For a somebody (MP) to ride on a nobody (Alfian) to swing at another somebody (Pritam) in that manner he has chosen, the cost-benefit calculus just doesn’t add up. Alas, as things developed, it turned out to be a lecture that ended up with one being lectured at. 

My point is that it is not worth the penmanship or publicity. And to use such tactics to undercut one’s political opponent is unlikely to achieve the result one desires. 

On the other hand, I believe Pritam has played by Sun Tzu’s political handbook. He had chosen his battles. He has refrained from ad hominem attacks. He has stuck to the issue, not person. Even when he endorsed a “loving critic” in his speech, he did not name names. 

And I know the context upon which his speech was based on made it obvious he was referring to Alfian, yet the general tone or intent of it (if you read it as a whole) is to discourage “binary black-and-white perspectives” which would risk reducing critical-thinking leaders to engaging in narrow-minded political spats. 

And whether Alfian is a loving or unloving critic, the point is that even a nobody in our society, imperfect as he or she is, has something to teach a somebody if the latter keeps an open mind, a listening ear, and a discerning heart that picks his/her battles - because at times, self-control goes much further than always insisting to have full control.

Alfian Sa'at - Saga 2.

Honestly, what are we supposed to do with a critic like Alfian Sa’at? In his no-holds-barred vent as a poet, prone to use intemperate, if not antagonistic, language to make a point, however blunt, is he for or against Singapore? 

During a visit to Yishun Link, Law Minister Shanmugam said: “(Mr Alfian) would like Singapore to merge with Malaysia...he dislikes Mr Lee Kuan Yew intensely and loves Dr Mahathir.”

He added: “He takes Malaysia’s side when the Malaysian government’s vessels are in Singapore waters and in a very tense stand-off on territorial issues as well as air issues...and says Singaporean’s are jingoistic...This is a free country, he’s entitled to his views and I think most Singaporeans know him for what he is.”

Well, if there are illuminary sons of Singapore that we know of, then would Alfian be classified as her prodigal son? That is, one who has benefited from the country’s system, being a Rafflesian, attended NUS medical studies but did not graduate, and having received numerous accolades for his plays, poetry and short stories, yet, having strong, at times, jarringly discordant, views of the way Singapore manages her local and foreign affairs. 

Is he then a petulant son craving for attention, or a patriotic son holding very strong views, or both? 

I know, as Pritam puts it, he is an imperfect soul, maybe as imperfect as Pritam and Dr Tan, maybe more or less, but what does Pritam mean by that? 

Is he saying that however imperfect, Alfian has nevertheless matured over the years? At 43, is he saying that Alfian at heart loves Singapore, the country of his birth and the crucible of his struggles, of his growth and of his hope? 

Pritam said that the term “loving critic” was first coined by Professor Tommy Koh. So, what does Prof Koh mean by that then? The last I checked, he wrote an article just last week entitled “Are art workers non-essential?”

In the article, he did not use the term “loving critic” but he did say that amongst the literary works of Singapore (eg. Kuo Pao Kun’s play, Stella Kon’s Emily of Emerald Hill and Tan Tarn How’s The Lady of Soul and Her Ultimate “S” Machine) Alfian’s Cooling Off Day is one of Singapore’s most important plays.

So, what does being “loving critic” mean? 

Alas, here is what Alfian himself has to say. Go read his FB, cos ST did not entirely flesh it out. Is he really pro-Malaysia? And when the rubber meets the road, will the Alfian Sa’at we know switch sides? 

From what I gather, on Malaysia’s entry into Singapore waters, his jingoism comment was a poet’s way of pleading with our Govt to try to exhaust all peaceful means to resolve the issues rather than to risk being seen as adopting a Sabre-rattling stance. To Alfian, at such sensitive times, the sound of sharpening one’s sword might just provoke an escalation of agression. 

In his defence, he said he was not mocking Singaporeans but was expressing “(dovish) anxiety over military escalation.” 

How about his praises for Mahathir and his intense dislike for LKY?

What about that? 

This is his defence. 

“So drawn to Dr Mahathir...that irresistible charisma...that shark’s instinct for his opponents’ soft underbelly...that caustic wit...that cunning slip into an earthly Kedah accent and that commoner’s slouch when he gets all folksy...where LKY gets all huffy and karate-chops the air to make his points, all Dr M needs to do is lean back, twiddle his thumb, and flash that tiger smile. Help...”

Alfian said that he was referring to Mahathir as a “Machiavellian politician”. He is thus admiring the way he played politics, coolly reaping the most advantage from the least of efforts, while LKY had to resort to intensely deliberate and overly wrought actions. 

But, he’s no Mahathir lover. In another article, he commented: “I’m upset to hear that Dr Mahathir stated that the Chinese have rejected the “Malay hand of friendship”. Don’t say that people have rejected your “hand of friendship” when you have no idea what friendship even means. Friendship doesn’t mean, “we can get along, as long as you accept my superiority.””

Alfian was basically saying that the grand old Tun was being hypocritical. In other words, it was an overdose of Machiavellian bravado, minus the “shark instinct” subtlety. 

So, in view of the above, I’d say that, more context on the pretext somehow clarifies the subtext? 

Lastly, does the prodigal son of Singapore really love, well, Singapore? 

Mm...on this, he was said to have expressed his preference for Malaysia (over Singapore) after its historic victory in May 2018 (To be honest, I too wrote a post to praise the people of Malaysia for their courage, passion and love for country). 

So, what does the petulant child of Singapore has to say then?

Alfian wrote: “there is nothing (in his statement) that I wished Singapore can be more like Malaysia.” He said it was a mischievous thing to say. He added: “Readers might assume, without context, that I am wishing for all the “bad things” they associate with Malaysia - Malay supremacy, semi-theocracy, corruption etc. But I am actually only implying that Singapore should review some of its more repressive laws.” 

(Well, here, I can think of Chia Thye Poh, Singapore’s longest political prisoner - 23 years of detention without trial and 9 years of house arrest in Sentosa; longer than the late Madiba. A life which sadly went quietly into the night just to keep paranoia at bay, and one’s pillow soft). 

For completeness, you can go and read Alfian’s FB, and then judge for yourself. Don’t take his word for it. Or mine. 

But the lesson I have learnt here is that artists may be non-essential, so says the recent sample poll, yet, what they have to say, how they want their country to change, and what burns within their tortured soul for their birth nation, are definitely not “non-essential”. 

There is always a context to their madness or perceived petulance. They express it with irony, biting irony; and if you get it, it doesn’t just bite you, it takes a chunk of your soul, and forces you to think deep, to depths that awaken you from within. And if you take a superficial jab at it, you will always be pissed.

Pritam is right. They are not perfect, because at times, they face an enemy that knows them too well, that pushes their buttons. And yes, that enemy is themselves. 

So when I read the news today, about our Law Minister defending Tan, and demanding Pritam to clarify his position, I felt that the forest has been missed for the trees. 

Alas, sometimes, we become so much of a tree-hugger, protecting a stubborn oak, that we forget the forest of fresh shrubs and flowing rivers, which give our nation hope, perspective, and innermost renewal.

And in hugging the tree too tightly, for too long, we run the risk of overlooking some of the decay that desperately needs reviewing, recalibrating and maybe, replanting.

Alfian Sa'at - Saga 3.

This is still a live issue. It is a fight over relative adjective. Is Alfian a loving critic or not? I guess this is worth the debate at such time?

This comes at the heels of Pritam’s response when he “admits now that he hadn’t examined these statements before declaring Mr Sa’at a “loving critic” and admonishing the Government for not heeding Mr Sa’at’s wisdom.””

Pritam, being the WP chief, has however assured Singapore and PAP that he reaffirms the opposition party’s commitment to Singapore’s sovereignty. But, Pritam is expected to go further than that. The hatchet is not yet buried. 

Law Minister Shanmugam also said “he “look forward to” Mr Singh’s response on whether the Aljunied GRC MP still believes that poet and playwright Alfian Sa’at’s views on Malaysia and Singapore merit his support.””

But the law minister is not pushing Pritam for an answer. He said: “He need not rush to examine those statements...but I hope to hear his views on them in good time.”

He also said: “And let me make clear - this is not about artistic freedom or licence, those are not being questioned. This is specifically about Mr Singh asking the Government to listen to specific individual.”

Lesson? Three. 

1) “This is not about artistic freedom or licence...(but) asking the Government to listen to specific individual.”

I guess since the day Pritam tabled Alfian in Parliament and praised him for being worthy of being heard, because he adopted the coinage attributed to Prof Tommy Koh, “loving critic”, he has made patriotism an issue, a live-wire issue. 

You can actually rephrase the term “loving critic” to “patriotic critic” and that is what this is essentially about. Bottomline, you can criticise, yes, but do you love Singapore enough to criticise? It thus boils down to authenticity, or whether Alfian is a hypocrite. 

And I know this is not about artistic freedom or licence, but our government has made it clear that there are OB markers that they will put their foot down, especially when it deals with the interest and welfare of Sinagaporeans. This, alas, can’t be faulted, but the concern here is that it may be perceived by some to be intimidating (at some subconscious level). 

This therefore leads me to my second lesson...

2) Government vs “Mr Sa’at”.

Why intimidating? Well, although this may not be their intention, what is however perceived is that the Government is asking Pritam (although there is no particular rush) to take a stand on what he had said in Parliament, which relates to the dubious/divided heart of an artist. 

At this juncture, can you blame someone if he should form the impression that if Pritam had thought it through, he ought to come around to the Government’s view? And should he not come around to their view, well, he is just not being objective enough about it? 

And mind you, all this comes in the wake of Alfian’s FB clarification, putting on record about how his poems and commentaries (save for the ones about LKY, which I differ) have been misread, misunderstood and misquoted. 

Somehow, Alfian seems to be the invisible antagonist here, though he is by default the subject matter, that is, the target of the debate. 

So, do we even care to take a gander at what he meant since he had clarified his position? Or do we just take a few screenshots of his past and then address it most vehemently in the present, and assume he will be of such proclivity in the future? Truly, a crab, however artistic, cannot walk straight? 

That is the perceived intimidating effect of it.

And...

3) Risk of associating Singapore with PAP.

We have been led by one party since the time of independence can remember. We sleep and wake up on the same political bed, with our white sheets cleaned, arranged and tucked in by one dominant party. Most of us today are born to this bed, and we snuggle in it with some relish and creature comfort. We are generally not an ungrateful people.

We are therefore proud of Singapore as a nation that has overcome great odds to be where we are today. People from all walks of life have made an enduring difference in this little red vibrant dot. 

The Pioneer, the Merdeka and the Millennials have all contributed and this is ongoing. Their sweat has become ours, and it is all ultimately a labour of love. 

When Alfian is questioned, “is he really a loving critic?”, it is also a question for us to think about. Will we die for Singapore when the time calls for sacrifice to keep our loved ones and nation alive? When such a crisis strikes, like covid, where is our unity and/or allegiance? Is such allegiance affiliated to some political party, notion or ideal, or is it one that is for all practical reasons largely relational? 

For me, needless to say, Singapore is the people. It is family. It is community. It is surviving and thriving, together, united; Not about a political party. This I guess we all can agree to. 

It is thus a home where we unite to overcome a common enemy, be it a virus or a threat. And this debate about who is truly loving risks turning the debate into who is really right. 

While I do not doubt the intention, either of Dr Tan’s, our law minister’s or Pritam’s, I am concerned that this (bordering on being jingoistic) tug of war (or sentiments) is not only divisive and polarising, but is also taking things a tad too far.

As such, I feel that Pritam is being cornered, and he has to take a stand, though no rush. I also feel that Alfian is being taken as a means to an end and what he has to say now is secondary to what he had done or said in the past. It is thus not enough just to let dead dogs lie, but there is a pressing need to flog it again and again. 

And this all adds up to give me this impression that if you criticise the party, or the way they handle territorial disputes (or any other issues concerning the people), you are criticising Singapore. 

The issue seems to me to have become one, like a marital union, and you had better be grateful and remember who tucks your bed at night and cleans your white sheets in the day.