Calling the young to embrace the crucible of adversity.

Never say die. It’s not all gloom and doom. Group solidarity. Play our part. Don’t just rely on Government. And the best way to predict the future is to create it.

How about that? Minister Lawrence Wong has spoken. It was at the NTU’s student union forum. His theme? Embrace difficult times as crucibles that forge character. 

He borrowed the adage of “how one could deal with adversity by letting it define, destroy or strengthen one.” How do you argue with that? You know the good minister is right, right? Inspired? Well, you have to be there to soak in the esprit de corps. 

He also said: “The Goverment will do our part to support you, and partner you in this exciting journey ahead.” I think that has always been our nation’s philosophy, from independence to the 4G leadership. It’s about adversity, agency and autonomy. That is, you do your part, we do ours. 

Mind you, the gap is not bridged by one party at one extreme. It is bridged by two parties meeting somewhere in the middle, or center left/right. But still, you have to take that first step, and be consistent in spirit and mind about wanting to embrace adversity, making a positive change and making it count until you reach your goal.

And talking about agency and autonomy, I am reminded about the resource curse. Over the decades, stats have shown that those “blessed” with natural resources like oil and minerals are always struggling to stand on their own two feet as a society or nation. 

Their society is so pampered, they suffer the consequences of fragility and inflexibility. More insidious is complacency and the prevalence of internal strife, where what comes too easy from mother nature tends to corrupt what is inherent in our human nature.

So, adversity can define you. It can transform or destroy you. That is why it is only half truth when they say that you give a man a fish and you feed him a day. But you teach him how to fish, well, you feed him a lifetime. That much resonated with me, especially the second part. Yet, after you teach him (or her), the next step is to go out there to fish. Fish don’t come to you, or throw themselves onto dry ground for you. 

And when you do go out there, don’t expect calm waters all day long. At times, things are beyond your control; like storms, they can wreck your day or catch. What-chew gonna do then?

That is the greatest struggle for anyone, at any age, right? And to be consistent about it, pushing through it with grit and determination, well, that can’t exactly be taught. That was what Lawrence meant when he said: “the bottom line is that all Singaporeans have to play their part and not just rely on the government measures and policies.” Each doing their part. 

Yet, between giving someone a fish, teaching to catch fish and rowing out there to haul in the catch (you can see how the transition subtly makes the giver or tutor unnecessary over time), there are many seasonal gaps that the young have to bridge. And it can be a real struggle too.

Yes, those upper class families will have it easier, but not those languishing at the lower rungs of society. That is in fact the mother of all gaps, and for some societies, especially the developed ones, with very high wealth and social inequalities, it’s really never the twain shall meet. The struggle for them is even harder. 

That alone is a major factor contributing to our age of disillusionment, especially for the young.

Sometimes, when I do sit down at some of these conferences, when they do speak about positivity and encouraging pick-me-ups, I always feel something is missing. In other words, that gap between the speaker and the listeners is just visceral, raw and real. 

Well, I am not giving excuses for procrastination or not breaking the inertia when self-mastery and self-responsibility are called for, but the young today are facing very different existential challenges from the young of past generations before them.

In a timely article today, entitled “Young graduates: Could economic and political setbacks radicalise a generation?”, a group of writers came forward to spell out a very different zeitgeist our younger generation are living in (or confronting). 

Apart from the wealth gap, they are struggling with their disillusionment with politics, as in the division and often juvenile antics of various political parties and leaders. They essentially felt “abandoned” by politicians. And the jobless rate has changed too, not on the rosy side though. For those under-25s, it rose from 11.5% to 12.95% (between Feb last year and this June, according to OECD countries). 

“In Britain, people aged under 30 are now four times as likely to rent than they were two generations ago”. And a Cambridge University study in 2020 shows that “faith in the democratic system had already experienced its steepest fall even amongst those aged 18 to 34 in the eve of the pandemic”. 

In one of the litany of lamentations, a technical analyst Niharika Singh, who emigrated to the US from India at age two, said: “My parents have literally said that they don’t want me and my sister to settle down here with our families eventually. This country has not lived up to the expectations we had, which is so jarring.”

I know Niharika is talking about America, that is, the nation’s social safety net is too narrow, but in Singapore, there is some parallel when it comes to the high cost of living, the income and social gaps, the struggles of the poor, and the hidden merit-fueled society, which outwardly embraces those less credentialed, yet inwardly conveniently shifts one’s prejudices, but not jettison it all out of his/her system. 

Alas, discrimination still exists, whether it is by merit, by age and/or by class. I won’t be surprised if some Singaporean parents offer the same advice Niharika’s parents gave to her - “don’t settle down here”. 

Well, our ministers can sit in an air-conditioned hall to encourage, and that is no doubt necessary and timely. But, the reality for many can be too discouraging for a seasonal pat-on-the-back speech. Good intention aside, it is the bleak ground condition that drowns out the positive, celebratory cheers by the side. 

What’s more, with the decline in religious faith amongst the young, and the climate emergency and random flooding, akan datang to a flat land near you, well, you sometimes have to squint real hard to find the silver lining in the gathering storm. 

Let me nevertheless end with what one graduate of anthropology in London, Hannah Tasker, said. ““I’ve learnt that “political” doesn’t have to mean political parties”...It means whether there is justice, whether the country and economy and society are working for everyone.”” Hannah however said, “it is not.”

That’s true. It still leaves much to be desired. Imperfect, screwed-up, world right? And Hannah and the many voices of disillusionment have all got a point. 

But, after all’s said, and when the rubber of self-mastery meets the plain hard road, I can’t say Lawrence is wrong. 

For who can argue with saying that “it’s not all gloom and doom”? Or, who can dispute the adage that “one could deal with adversity by letting it define, destroy or strengthen one”? Isn’t it true that we have come so far because we have not allowed adversity to destroy us, but strengthen us? 

They say people who are experiencing sadness, see the world more realistically and clearly. I guess that is why it is said, “blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Truly, out of the ashes, one eventually rises. 

So, at every crossroad or intersection of one’s life, we have to challenge ourselves, and pick up the broken pieces to start all over. Every step counts, every step to our own recovery. 

And yes, the best way to predict the future is to create it. But you have to want to see or imagine it first. More importantly, there must be a future in the first place where all people of all races, classes and cultures can have a fair stake in it. No one wants to labour in vain, without hope. 

I guess, we will just have to work together, because what doesn’t kill us indeed makes us stronger. And we have to decide to persist to make it work for all, and for all our future generations, in one group solidarity, towards vision and hope.

 

M Ravi vs AGC

 

M Ravi is in trouble again. It is the battle of apologies. This time, with the AGC. Not his first though. 

He had asked for an apology for his client’s acquittal on a capital charge, and AGC is in turn asking from an apology from him for, amongst other things more substantial, asking for an apology from them. The recriminations came in rather swift, and here is the report by Rei Kurohi in ST this morning. 

On Monday, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision to convict Ravi’s client, Gobi Avedian, on a capital charge. After that Ravi wasted no time to tell TOC that the prosecutors had been “overzealous” in prosecuting Gobi, which had “led to the death sentence” for Gobi. 

He also said that ““it was troubling” that the prosecution ran different cases before the High Court and the Court of Appeal.”” (Well, you have to read the case to decipher that).

Ravi called upon AGC to apologise to Gobi for the trauma he had to go through with the thought that he might lose his life over the serious charge. He even called into question “the fairness of the administration of justice in Gobi’s case by the prosecution.” 

But the response came in fast and furious like a lightning bolt on a carpark drift. AGC would have none of that. The honourable chambers sent a stern letter to Ravi demanding an apology and also demanding that Ravi “unconditionally retract the allegations he had made.” 

To be fair, I do not know what further things Ravi had said, but here’s AGC’s rejoinder: -

“These are serious allegations that the Public Prosecutor has acted in bad faith or maliciously in the prosecution of the applicant (Gobi).”

“They are false and highly inflammatory. It is highly improper and entirely contrary to Mr Ravi’s obligations as an officer of the court for him to make these unfounded, baseless and misleading allegations.”

AGC made it clear that CA “made no adverse findings against the Public Prosecutor or the prosecution of Gobi.” In fact, AGC stressed that CA said the AGC’s initial decision to convict the applicant was “correct at the time (it was) made.”

Ravi thus has until noon tomorrow to respond. But Ravi’s turret of unapologetic sense of justice is not standing down. It has in fact gone ballistic. 

He posted the letter from AGC in his Facebook and mentioned that he had taken his client’s instructions to “start proceedings against the Attorney-General Lucien Wong, Deputy A-G Hri Kumar Nair and Senior Counsel Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir, an AGC deputy chief prosecutor who led the prosecution’s case.” Those are big names in public prosecution. 

Ravi declared: “I will file the writ of Summons in the next few days, both personally against all three of the above government lawyers and also against their offices in which they hold public appointment. They have to be accountable to Gobi and his family in court and be subject to rigorous cross examination and scrutiny of their conduct of Gobi’s case.”

I guess at this moment Ravi was demonstrating with the exchange of correspondence whose gun is bigger. And here comes my commentary.

 

Alas, one request for apology begets another request for apology, and in this battle for apologies, I suspect no one will walk away fully vindicated, because apology is a tricky thing and the silent majority is not tone-deaf to the fifty shades of justice on a larger scheme of things. Let me explain. 

At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism”, let me just say that in the public eye, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander too (and I will deal with “whataboutism” later). 

While it may or may not be “highly improper and entirely contrary to Mr Ravi’s obligations as an officer of the court for him to make these unfounded, baseless and misleading allegations”, subjecting that to a proper fact-finding exercise, we must not forget these words by CA on the recent Dr Wee’s controversial case. 

“Prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors. They are “ministers of justice” assisting in the administration of justice (see R v Banks [1916] 2 KB 621 at 623). As a “minister of justice”, the duty of the prosecutor is to assist the court to arrive at the correct decision. It is neither the prosecutor’s duty to secure a conviction at all costs nor to “timorously discontinue proceedings the instant some weakness is found in their case””.

Now, let me be undoubtedly clear lest I myself ends up at the receiving end of a letter. This remark pertains to the nondisclosure of two important reports, which resulted in prejudice to Dr Wee’s charge and the way he would have conducted the trial/appeal - though the prejudice could be corrected. It has therefore nothing to do with Gobi’s case. With that cleared, here is the second part to CA’s admonishment of the prosecutor. 

“Before concluding this judgment, we take this opportunity to reiterate the Prosecution’s overarching duty of fairness. The Prosecution owes a duty to the court and the public to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. Arising from this, the Prosecution is obliged to disclose relevant material that can assist the court in its determination of the truth.”

That is one. Here’s another. 

It is the case of Parti Liyana. She laboured for 4 years to pursue justice to the end. And she had recently decided to proceed with her complaint against the conduct of the prosecution in her case. 

In the appeal, the judge remarked that the conduct of the police and prosecutors in dealing with the evidence in its custody and at trial were highly prejudicial to Parti. The possible contamination of the custody of evidence at Liew’s mansion and the nondisclosure of a video player that is essentially spoilt at trial was a “sleight of hand” by the prosecution in what seems like a selective presentation of the evidence. 

So, with the two recent cases in mind, where it was clear to me that there were some compromise on procedure and integrity, where’s the apology? 

Is it because the investigation is still ongoing? Are we waiting for our Law Minister to clear the air? 

But then, with the CA’s admonishment in Dr Wee’s case and the appeal judge’s remarks about some sleight of hand in Parti’s case, isn’t it clear that at least an apology is in order to Ms Parti Liyani? 

Mind you, she was a lone maid who was and is still separated from her loved ones because of some miscarriage of justice whereby the powers-that-be had a part to play. Why is an apology then kept at bay? 

(Doesn’t need to be an apology admitting guilt, but one to show one’s regret for the pain she had to go thru. For great leaders of other countries have done just that). 

And if “prosecutors are more than advocates and solicitors...they are “ministers of justice””, then justice is equally about prosecuting a fault as it is about admitting to one 

(now I also have to bear in mind at this juncture that no one is perfect, and the AGC had on its own accord appealed on behalf of convicted accused to lower sentences and fines, and even acquittal. Kudos for that). 

But, going back to the issue, you may ask, mike, what about “whataboutism”? Shouldn’t you just deal with the issue, the relevant issue? Ravi’s remarks have nothing to do with Dr Wee’s and Parti’s case right? Yes, they are different cases with different facts. 

Yet, returning to what I first said earlier about “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”, that is what the public perception of justice and reputational integrity is all about when it comes to one party demanding an apology from another. You see, if justice should not only be done, but need to be seen to be done, then protecting or upholding one’s reputation, especially that of a public office, works the same way right?

 

You want an apology from one, do you then give out an apology to another? In other words, in the face of an error, whether it is non-disclosure, a sleight of hand or a procedural laxity, shouldn’t the head takes the bullet, or responsibility? And metaphorically speaking, if the fish rots from the head, shouldn’t the head fights its own rot first before pointing out other people’s rot? 

(This basically goes back to what Jesus said about the log in your eye and the splinter in another’s).

So, that is how I address “whataboutism”. That is, yes, we should always stick to the issue, and deal with the issue, not the person, yet, like what Jesus said about the pharisees, “they tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.” 

Mind you, the load that many accused of capital charges and theft have to bear are really heavy. A conviction is all in a day’s work for the prosecutors, and they can go on with other cases, rewarded with promotions and bonuses, and they no doubt deserve it, but an acquittal for an accused, in the case of Parti, is a life destroyed and she may even never recover from it. 

So, asking for an apology (as a form of acknowledgement of that) is not asking too much right? 

Alas, in the battle of apologies, you will find no full vindication because the log in some people’s eye are always behind them, out of sight, out of mind, but the splinter in others’ is just in front, and it just happens to be glaringly obvious.

 

CS Lewis - Joy forevermore.

Yesterday, I received news from a friend, sharing that someone he knows and treasures deeply has a cancer relapse.

It was a painful news since his friend has been fighting it for so long, and at one time, seemed to have overcome it. They have also been praying for her, and though his friend was delivered then, it now seems like the affliction has returned.

My friend thus questioned his faith. He asked me, “where is God in all this? Is he there?”

This morning, I thought about him and the noted apologist CS Lewis. He too fought for his dearest wife, Joy, for five years. She had bone cancer. She succumbed to it after a long battle. 

Considered a giant of the Christian faith, one who wrote scores of books about it, even inspiring many who have become great apologist of the faith, CS Lewis was himself tormented to the core. 

He once said that "death of a beloved is an amputation." He did not say "like an amputation". It's neither a metaphor or analogy - its viscerally real to him. He was not mincing his words here. It is not armchair philosophizing. It’s real. It’s pain. It’s amputation.

Ever the effervescent author, CS Lewis wrote a book about it entitled A Grief Observed. He had to disguise the authorship for fear that people might be shaken by the unravelling and brutal honesty in the book. 

CS Lewis felt deeply that the book challenged all his preconceived and idealistic pronouncements about the faith. And for a moment, in the eye of the storm, CS Lewis lost his apologetic mantle, resilience and persuasiveness (at least it seems that way), which he had excelled so well in with the books he had written about defending the faith. 

Here is what made it so painful: CS Lewis loved Joy. He wrote that she completed him. Notwithstanding her previous marriage and 2 sons, he found in her a love that stands closest to the love he has found and experienced in God. They were in fact inseparable. Two peas in a love pod. She encouraged him, inspired him and transformed him. Joy was joy indispensable to CS Lewis. 

After her passing, CS Lewis took her two sons in. He treated them as his very own. He also kept his faith, yet at one point of the book, he blamed God for misleading him up the garden path of hope and then, squashing it with one cancer diagnosis after another. Can you blame him?

However, coming to grip, he wrote this, "We were promised sufferings. They were part of the program. We were even told, "Blessed are they that mourn," and I accept it. I've got nothing that I hadn't bargained for. Of course it is different when the thing happens to oneself, not to others, and in reality, not imagination."

I myself saw the same mortal reality in the eyes of my loved ones when they stood beside the bed of another before he breathed his last breath. When my brother-in-law finally let go after more than 7-year battle with cancer in October 2016, the collective souls in the room collapsed. For that moment, our collective faith was silenced, as we witnessed the passing of a life. Indeed, for those years before, we all trekked up the garden path of hope, but it was not meant to be a long tenure in a place of healing. 

However, after all the pain CS wrote that “God has not been trying an experiment on my faith or love in order to find out their quality. He knew it already. It was I who didn’t. In this trial He makes us occupy the dock, the witness box, and the bench all at once. He always knew that my temple was a house of cards. His only way of making me realize the fact was to know it down.”

Alas, CS Lewis grew stronger in the faith and understanding after Joy's departure. You can say that he lived out the dark, cold bowels of his writings, every vowel of it. And he passed away soon after his beloved's demise, but his belief stood firm (and inspired many, till today).

He was better for it (so to speak) because he confronted (unavoidable) pain, consorted with it for a while due to the fragility of humanity, but broke away from it for the unsurpassed eternity that lies before him. It is one eternal desire he wished never to extinguish.

This was the endearing apologist’s own words: “You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you. It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong and sound as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice. Wouldn’t you then first discover how much you really trust it?”

Indeed, CS Lewis tested his rope. And it stood the test of time, pain, grief, trials and even death. 

So I return to my friend’s plea for a miracle in the life of another. It is a young life full of promises, full of hope. I too join him in prayer, pinning for a turnaround, that is, a much longer tenure in the garden of hope and overcoming. 

In a life, there is always hope. And we cling on to it, resting on the knowledge that the hand, upon which a life emerges, is also the same hand that offers life both in abundance and for eternity.

 

I have learned that no matter how bad things are...

I have learned that no matter how bad things are, you can always make things worse. 

If pain is inevitable, then misery is optional. Pain like suffering comes unbidden. 

But they often do not stay for long. Once the bad news is announced, or the bad event comes, they - like messengers - take their leave. 

They bid you farewell. They have done their part. Their work is complete. The rest is up to you. In their departure, what is often left behind is either misery or hope, helplessness or resilience, resignation or resolution. 

I believe a time is given for mourning. A time for reflection. A time for grieve. After that, it's time for recovery. You can either make it better or make it worse. 

You can ruminate until it hurts. You can sleep all day and refuse to move a muscle. You can mope and sulk to attract pity. You can play the victim and soak up the attention. You can make it worse by refusing to make it better. 

Your choice counts. Your response is invaluable. Your resolve matters.

When you have hit rock bottom, it is often said that the only way to go is up. But many are forgetting that rock bottom is a breeding ground for false comforts too. 

Many will seek solace in staying down instead of drawing hope in standing up. 

To many, wallowing in "rock bottom" is a form of negative rejuvenation where hopelessness and helplessness take turn to demoralize the victim down a vicious spiral of restless desolation. 

So, if the mother of invention is necessity, then the mother of overcoming is proactivity. We take control of the messiness in our life and set things right once again. 

It is a tough undertaking no doubt but every step forward is nevertheless a step that deeply empowers. Falling flat or falling forward is still our choice. 

What makes the crucial difference is a choice that is invested to change our life for the better. The changes may be small, seemingly insignificant, but the circumstantial forces rallied around that one act of proactivity contain the power to break down many walls that conspire to cage us in. 

Never underestimate the power of positive chain reaction. 

Viktor Frankl, a survivor of the Nazi occupation, in his bestseller "Man's Search for Meaning" made this observation:- 

"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in numbers, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances - to choose one's own way." 

So, yes, times can indeed be bad, no sweat. You are there to make it better. 

Let me end with this reminder. 

There is a crack in everything that God has made. The crack is to allow His light to enter; or else, we would be in a very dark place. 

This light seeks to lead us to the rock that is "higher than I" where we can stand above the trouble waters. It is a place of hope, a place of faith, a place of blessed assurance. 

But the journey to the rock starts with a crack. It starts with our surrender. It starts with letting go and not holding on. It starts when we return to the innocence of a child and not become entrenched in the arrogance of a religious scribe.

As T.S Eliot puts it in "East Coker":-

"In order to arrive at what you do not know

You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.

In order to possess what you do not possess

You must go by the way of dispossession.

In order to arrive at what you are not

You must go through the way in which you are not.

And what you do not know is the only thing you know

And what you own is what you do not own

And where you are is where you are not."

To me, that is faith. Not arrived faith, but journey faith. Not righteousness declaring, but imperfection overcoming. And not riches in appearance, but riches in the eternal hope of His reappearance. Amen. Cheerz.