Enduring truth vs transient lies.

 

When the going gets tough, the tough stays calm. This is the message by WP who have called for unity, empathy in Covid-19 video. It’s what we need at such time. 

Dennis Tan said: “We must pull together to plug the gaps and address any deficiency. We must work together to combat this difficult enemy. We have no room for complacency.”

Raeesah and Nicole call for an end to spousal and domestic abuse. “So, be considerate to your wives, mothers and sisters. They need all the support and help they can get,” Nicole said. 

I guess when it comes to being considerate at such uncertain times, sparing a thought for unity, empathy and charity, the recent TOC video posted on its Facebook is a most unfortunate deviation. 

It was uploaded online by Instagram user @nichology, and it showed the police officer reprimanding the woman (who has dementia) for not wearing a mask. Whatever the person’s intention was when he took the video, law minister Shanmugam has called it ”a cynical, unethical and malicious attack on the police, adding that TOC took advantage of an old woman with dementia.”

Not one to back down from a challenge, he said: “TOC attacks the Government with its team of Malaysian writers. That’s regular, but I would say keep your malice and venom to politics.” (now that’s what I call a preemptive strike from the media’s backdoor). 

“We can deal with it. Don’t bring that toxicity to attack police officers, spare them. They’re just doing their jobs.”

The SPF had their own body-worn camera footage, probably installed as a precaution against stirrer of public shit, and it showed them “engaging an elderly woman who was not wearing a mask in public.” The footage also showed one officer buying a packet of food from a nearby stall for her, and not taunting or reprimanding her.

The daughter of the woman, who declined being interviewed, said that she was “disappointed that TOC interviewed her mother and posted the video online without attempting to understand her condition.”

Mind you, negative news sell. Sensational ones go viral. And when it involves the arm of government, or the government itself, the perceived elitist establishment, such news have the Midas’ touch of turning even the most pedestrian events caught on camera to pure viral gold. 

Not surprisingly, the bandwagon of truth sets the bar high because seeking it requires patience, context and critical thinking. But the bandwagon of fake news is a hippie joy ride for the unthinking, unwitting and unsuspecting. It mindlessly takes the broad road, that is, one that glitters with juicy gossips, loose associations and half-baked truths. 

Its bar is therefore deliberately set low to readily welcome all and sundry who have an axe to grind against the object of their ire; even if such seething hatred has shallow roots. That is why it is said that “a lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

Like it or not, we are living in a world of compromised truth, where there is not just a pandemic that we are fighting against, but there is also an “epidemic of alternative facts” to guard against. 

It is a flighty reality supported by an echo chamber, blindly endorsed by a crowd whose mind has already made up. And we all know that to uproot one from his or her entrenched opinions would require a strong regular dose of self-awareness, self-checking, and at times, self-reproach. 

The truth is, many of us are pretending to look for objective evidence, when what we are really looking for is none other than corroboration - the more, the merrier. And the numbers often justify the cause, not its content or its objectivity. 

In a world where the endless repetition of something unfounded can reach some form of truth status with an inflammatory crowd, we must be wary of such repetition without cause or sound basis. We must, like WP said, come together to fight that which threatens our hard fought unity and diversity. 

I know it takes all kinds to make the world. But to destroy it, to divide it, it only takes one kind, the unthinking kind.

 

Vera and her amazing parents.

You can find meaning anywhere, in any life, if you choose to never give up. That’s the main lesson for me this morning. Read on to know why...

This lesson is bundled up for me in the life of Vera and her amazing parents who never gave up. 

Senior Writer Wong Kim Hoh wrote the story simply entitled “Her daughter’s every birthday is a triumph” and I read it with a clearer, sharper sense of what life ultimately means in the larger scheme of things.

Vera is 10 years old today, but when she was born, it was not a day of celebration, but one of confounding silence.

Vera’s mother, Ms Tham Yin May, recalled: “Giving birth is supposed to be a happy time but we were talking about death. It became the worst time of my life.”

Why death? Because doctors confirmed that baby Vera had an error in cell division on Chromosome 18. In layman's langauge, she had three copies of Chromosome 18 instead of the usual two.

In other words, Vera was born with Trisomy 18 and that additional division made all the difference medically and physically for her. It also changed the fate of her family.

FYI, “a Trisomy 18 error occurs in one out of every 2,500 pregnancies...and only 50 per cent of such babies carried to term will be born alive.” The risk of a stillborn birth is relatively high for such a condition.

Although Vera beat the odds, she was however born with “a lateral cleft palate and defects of the brain, heart, stomach, airway, spine, ears, fingers and feet.”

Doctors also told them the grim road map ahead caring for Vera. They listed 150 complications associated with Vera’s condition and most babies will not live beyond two years old.

Ms Tham recalled that she asked “what is the best case scenario was” and the reply? “They told us to take her home and enjoy our time with her."

Presently, Vera “wears pink-frame glasses and has a shock of black hair. She cannot talk, walk or swallow, and has to be fed through an opening in her stomach. She cannot see, hear or breathe well either. She can only move her left hand, often reaching out for a reassuring touch from her mother.”

Taking care of Vera is an “arduous and perilous” journey for Ms Tham and her husband.

Ms Tham said that they “almost lost her to a debilitating lung infection but she clawed her way back.”

And two years ago, the “developmental progress Vera made - including moving her legs vigorously and babbling - was lost...when she caught a respiratory syncytial infection that compromises the immune system and leads to breathing difficulties.”

Yet, Ms Tham and her husband never gave up.

Notwithstanding the average of “one long period of hospitalisation”, the breathing issues, the physical handicap, the serious developmental issues, the feeding tube, Ms Tham (who has a blog at http://mylittlevera.blogspot.sg) wrote these inspiring thoughts: -

“(Vera) was lots of joy. She would show that she knew we were trying to connect with her. I’ll never stop communicating with her like a normal child even if she doesn’t understand me. I’m her mummy even if she doesn’t know I’m her mummy. Ours is a bond beyond words.”

Lesson? Three.

My first lesson is how love can make the difference. Contrary to the saying that love is blind, when love is put to the test, it is anything but blind.

In fact, love has a vision that sees beyond the here-and-now to the triumphant and purposeful journey of all trials.

Where normal sight sees only defeat, love sees overcoming. Where normal sight sees only darkness, love sees light, a lone penetrating beam. And where normal sight sees only despondency, the death of hope, love sees otherwise. It sees life, the rise of hope.

Before her marriage, Ms Tham had “a great love for music, one which captured her to enter, and win, many singing and songwriting competitions.”

Journalist Wong wrote that “caring for Vera has taken Ms Tham back to music.” She has written a few songs for Vera.

She said: “I believe Vera hung on for a purpose. Hopefully, these songs about her journey will inspire others. I want to be her voice. I want people to know that children like Vera love and deserve love too.”

Ms Tham is giving most of the proceeds from the songs she has written to the Rare Disorder Society of Singapore, where she met other inspiring families with special children.

My second lesson is in the name.

Ms Tham chose the name Vera because “Vera comes from the (Latin) word “verus” which means true.” And she said that Vera has shown her what is true in life.

I too always wonder the exact same thing: “What is true in life?”

When the truth about Vera’s condition sunk in, Ms Tham had to “grapple with the shock”. She said: “I was breaking down and crying a lot. My husband said: “There will be time to cry when she’s gone.””

She said that her husband’s words “jolted her” and thereafter, they decided to “take it one day at a time and get her to the one-year mark.”

Alas, most times, the truth in life is standing before us and we often miss it.

There is in fact a saying that “men occasionally stumble upon the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.”

For me, there is no greater truth in life than to live our present to the fullest and make everyday counts. My wish to myself and others has always been this: “May we all live everyday of our life.”

This morning, I have learned that Vera’s journey was a long and hard one and her parents’ undying love kept every step they took alive with unwavering hope and meaning.

Recently, they celebrated Vera’s 10th birthday, and Ms Tham said: “She has surpassed all expectations. Every year now is a bonus; we cherish every moment with her.”

Now, my friends, that's what is true in life, that is, a life that not only never give up, but one that loves so unconditionally, so courageously and so compellingly.

My last lesson is shepherd-led by the words of Ms Tham, which moved me deeply: -

“I’ve realised life happens in opposites. The worst diagnosis can be the best outcome. In her weakness, Vera has shown so much strength. In her silence, she speaks volumes of her love. She has only one arm that’s active, but she uses it daily to hug us. With each bonus day of her life, she reminds me to live purposefully.”

Personally, I just can't add anything to that without first asking myself, "What is my problem? What is my complaint?" 

In my weakness, what do I look for? Do I see strength rising even more to meet it? In times of silent self-doubt, what preoccupies me? Do I count my blessings or mourn over my inadequacy or lack? And with two working arms, both equally active, do I use them to build up, touch lives, encourage souls, make a difference, or do I use them to tear myself and others down? 

Alas, do I treasure each day of my life as a bonus and allow it to inspire others to live purposefully? What then do I represent to myself and others, my loved ones, my friends? What story have I written to live each day with purpose? 

And if Vera and her parents and all those around her who love ceaselessly are grateful for each day of life given to them, what excuses do I have to not live mine in that same uncompromising and empowering way? 

Thanks Vera, I may not know you, but in your silence, in your fight for life, you have shown me that the greatest blessing in life is not wealth, fame or power, but the privilege to live everyday of my life. Cheerz. 

Charles vs. Tham: The Fake News Saga.

Is this an Oxford conspiracy? Is Dr Thum (as Charles Chong puts it) guilty of engineering academic support for his politically motivated cause? 

The backdrop of this has to do with 284 signatories worldwide "some of whom were academics - voicing concerns about a lack of academic freedom here."

And it goes even further back when Dr Thum was intensely questioned by our Law Minister Shanmugam for 6 hours with one brief toilet break during the Select Committee session on deliberate online falsehoods.

Mr Chong, its chairman, is now turning the turret on Dr Thum with today's caption: "Historian suspected of engineering academic support for himself?"

It is said that the best defence is a good offence and Mr Chong is mounting a quick offence against Dr Thum by hinting to his "possible involvement in "a coordinated attempt, with foreign actors involved, to try to influence and subvert" Singapore's parliamentary processes.""

I think the hot trail is quite undeniable (from a reasonable bystander's perspective). Hear me out here. 

Dr Thum has an alternative narrative about Operation Coldstore 1963 and Operation Spectrum 1987, which the ruling party take umbrage at. 

He wrote extensively about it and even submitted his "inflammatory" version to the Select Committee alleging that our founding father was involved in a political coverup. 

In addition, the company that he and Kristen Han set up is currently being investigated for their link to American billionaire George Soros, whose organization funds politically driven operations in sovereign states. 

Then, there is the New Narratif which encourages "active participants, rather than treated as passive consumers" and espouses "openness and transparency" that "are core parts of (its) ethos, providing (its) members with opportunities to engage not only with (its) team, but with one another."

And now, according to preliminary evidence gathered by Mr Chong, Dr Thum and his Friend Dr Philip Kreager (from Oxford Institute of Human Science) had kept "continuous contact" to draft the open letter in order to secure the 284 signatures in support; amongst them are a large number of well known academic, both locally and aboard.

You see, it's a fine thin line between disseminating one's research for purely academic purposes and evangelising the same to win converts to one's side to covertly challenge state politics. 

If Dr Thum had been a biologist publishing works on reversing cancerous cells' mutation or an ecologist spreading the word on how to save the environment, he would not be so easily seen as harbouring a political agenda. 

But he is a historian, writing about something extremely politically sensitive concerning a past event that is highly controversial, and frown upon by the ruling party because it is one part of our national narrative that we are scarce to want to revisit. 

The truth is, each of the above evidence standing alone could be perceived in either direction - the dice is still spinning. 

But when you put them all together, in their proper context, you tend to be able to connect the political dots, can you? 

So, in all good sense, I can't deny that Dr Thum would have been perceived to have a political agenda. And whether he had intended so, well, if the glove fits right? 

In any event, I'll leave that to his own conscience. 

But the aim of this post is not so much about Dr Thum and his alleged political ambition. It is more about our government and their political miscalculation. 

Let me start by punctuating every elaboration below - just for effect - with this theme: "They just don't get it." 

Here goes.

...they just don't get it. 

Mr Chong referred to the 6-hour questioning of Dr Thum in the papers today, and in the same breath, he wrote, "we must protect our independence and our institution of Parliament". 

Yes, I agree, protect you must, but at what cost? In other words, is the 6-hour questioning necessary? (Like what HFK wrote earlier last month, wouldn't it risk being perceived as a political platform as well?).

Yes, fight the good fight all you want for our independence and parliamentary institution, our freedom and democracy, and we will salute you, but do it with grace, wisdom and humility. 

Alas, I feel that our government missed the point about the 6-hour grilling. 

Every minister who came out in support of the Select Committee after the Shan-Thum exchange were largely acting as "echo chambers" bouncing off the groupish script that our government has the right to defend their position. 

But that's not the point. That's not what the people in general are aggrieved about. If you discern the majority's sentiments online, it is about how it was done and not why it should be done. 

Most of us know the "why" but it was the "how" that we felt was the wrong forum, that is, inappropriate and unnecessary, even embarrassing. 

I think I speak for the silent majority when I say that in the 6-hour questioning, our Law Minister acted more like a lawyer cross-examing a suspect with yes/no answers rather than as a moderator trying to understand the issue in its proper context. 

The bravado demonstrated in the SC session is simply glaring and jarring. 

...they just don't get it.

Mr Chong wrote that the email exchanges between Dr Thum and Dr Kreager show that Dr Kreager is ""actively campaigning for Dr Thum" by circulating the Oxford statement and asking for signatures to the open letter.""

And so, Mr Chong concluded that the "support" seems to have been primarily engineered by Dr Thum himself...in close concert with Dr Kreager.""

Well, Dr Thum may be the galviniser of his own cause, because he felt unjustly treated or he may have an axe to grind, but that does not detract from the fact that the open letter was supported by 284 signatories, some of whom were historians and history professors both here and abroad. 

Surely, Mr Chong is not saying that they had signed blindly right? Surely he is not implying that Dr Thum had somehow tricked them into signing right? 

Alas, there is no smoke without fire and no fall without desire. Likewise, the larger picture at hand is the content of the open letter, that is, why they had penned their signatures in support. 

Most of them see it as a bully tactic by our government and that is the real issue. This time it is the "why" they signed the open letter that is most relevant, and not the "how" it came about. 

I know we don't play the number game, (isn't democracy about numbers?), but if one or two people call you a donkey, you may ignore him. But if more than 200 of them, and most are highly learned, shouldn't one start looking for the saddle?

Dr Thum may have a hand in it, but that doesn't change the fact that the hands that signed it agreed with what was written in it. 

Sometimes, we miss the elephant in the room to nitpick over the creased carpet caused by the elephant in the room.

...and finally, they just don't get it.

Is Dr Thum a historian? Is he qualified? Is he trustworthy? Is he really from Oxford, affiliated to Oxford, lecturing in Oxford, or just an Oxford wannabe?

Mr Chong is flogging the dead horse again when he wrote in the papers that "it is still not clear what Dr Thum's precise academic affiliation to Oxford University is, adding that his titles given to the Select Committee thus far have been "inaccurate, non-existent or misleading.""

Note to myself: The elephant in the room just farted, loud and visible with smoke arising from its rear end, and yet, we are accusing each other of breaking wind...

Back to the point, I thought Oxford University had recently clarified all that. 

Dr Thum is a research associate with the University's Anthropology and Museum Ethnigraphy. And yes, he has a doctorate in history in 2011, and he is a Visiting Fellow of the Fertility and Reproduction Studies Group within the school, and therefore an affiliate of the school.

Yes, Dr Thum may have misrepresented his full credentials or was not clear about it to the Select Committee. But the fog would have been sufficiently cleared with that Oxford University's clarification right? 

The disconcerting question here is this, where is Mr Chong going with that? 

Bottomline? Dr Thum is a historian, there's no doubt about that. He is affiliated to Oxford, it's open and shut. And he has submitted a piece critical of Singapore's history to the Select Committee, there's all established. 

So, let's deal with the issue that truly concerns Singaporeans. 

Let's open the unredacted archive up and let us be the judge of what really happened during the Coldstore and Spectrum operations (if we are going for the truth and nothing but the truth). Let's earn our respect and admiration for being candid and forthright with us. 

Let's treat us as independent adults in a nation we are born and have grown up in for the last 52 years. Let's not pretend that the government is protecting our interests, security and unity by self-appointing themselves as the sole custodian of the nation's truth, past, present and future.

If the 4G leaders are calling for openness and transparency with the people, then let's walk the talk and talk the walk, and talk and walk together and in step with the people they took an oath to protect, guide and provide. 

And I believe one of the many goals of the Select Committee on Deliberate Online Falsehoods is to fight obfuscation and avoid engaging in shadow boxing without causing a real dent to the edifice of falsehoods.

I think that goal is applicable to both sides, the government and her people. Cheerz.

Happy New Year 2017.

Happy New Year to all. I greet you from my heart. More importantly, I greet you - my beloved readers - with a heavy heart. It is a flawed heart, troubled, fallible, yet tireless in seeking the truth in all my writings here.

For me, every new year is really just another day - no different from a Monday or a Friday, from a weekday or a weekend. It is still a 24-hour day to be filled by us with choices we make and have to live with - in peace or regret.

But the difference is our heart, our resolve, our will to change in the new year, amidst all our failures and successes. The reality is that we live in a world where truth is increasingly fungible, and lies are taking the lead in popularity, plausibility and durability.

It is said that "a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its trousers on."  In other words, a lie or deception travels in light-speed in this digital age, while the truth is a clumsy campaigner trying her utter best to catch the first bus in the morning.  And trust me, the bus is always late.

So, this new year, I'm going for the jugular. I am going for the heart. And I take my lead from what a man once said: "I am the way and the truth and the life." And these words were uttered in reply to this: "...we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

In this postmodern, post-truth and post-faktisch (post-fact) world, many will say that this man is 2000 years too old (or irrelevant). He was living in a world so different from ours today. He didn't have the printing press, the industrial and scientific revolutions, the internet, the digital economy, and the biological and genetic breakthroughs that we have in our most enlightened age.

His world then was one of absolute truth, but our world is now about relative ones (all thanks or misattributed to e=mc² and G=T). His teachings or philosophies are therefore outmoded and redundant today.

I beg to differ. I beg for them to listen. I beg for all to discern. Jesus came not to transform this world. When Pilate questioned him about ruler-ship, he said his kingdom is not of this world. He never came to be popular, rich or powerful. In other words, he never came to change this world by becoming the world.

His revolution is not to reorder or redesign this world. His revolution however speaks to the heart - that world for him is much bigger than the world the eyes can see. That world is what endures, transforms and impacts. That world is what makes all the difference. The world of the heart is therefore the reality we all confront and overcome everyday. 

So, Jesus was relevant yesterday as he is still relevant today - if not more so. The world can change or advance in scope, depth and knowledge, but Jesus came to address the one issue that has not changed since time can remember. That is, the world within. And this is the same man who once said: "I am the way and the truth and the life."

To me, he is definitely on to something, something momentous, because what he said, how he said it, how he lived what he said, and why he said it (and died for what he'd said) are all still relevant today - if not more urgent in our post-truth-and-fact world.

Let me end or start the new year with these three statements - two from formidable believers and another from a highly respected and learned late historian - that speak volume about this crucified Savior.

Here is the first.

"Jesus combines high majesty with the greatest humility, he joins the strongest commitment to justice with astonishing mercy and grace, and he reveals a transcendent self-sufficiency and yet entire trust in and reliance upon his heavenly Father. We are surprised to see tenderness without weakness, boldness without harshness, humility without any uncertainty, indeed, accompanied by a towering confidence. Readers can discover for themselves his unbending convictions but complete approachability, his insistence on truth but always bathed in love, his power without insensitivity, integrity without rigidity, passion without prejudice." (Pastor Tim Keller, "Making Sense of God").

Here is the second statement from the late Will Durant, who was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom and spent more than fifty years writing his critically acclaimed eleven-volume series, The Story of Civilization.

"If I could live another life, endowed with my present mind and mood, I would not write history or philosophy, but would devote myself to establishing an association of men and women free to have any tolerant theology or no theology at all, but pledged to follow as far as possible the ethics of Christ, including chastity before marriage, fidelity within it, extensive charity, and peaceful opposition to any but the most clearly defensive war. I can imagine what fun the wits of the world could have with this paragraph, and I know how unpopular and precarious my proposed fellowship of semi-saints would be; but I would rather contribute a microscopic mite to improving the conduct of men and statesmen than write the one hundred best books."

Somehow, you can detect a hint of resignation in the above statement - if not irony. But what is undeniable is the ennobled desire above all earthly ambitions to make an enduring difference in the lives of fellow men and women. And Jesus had undeniably done just that. His life and teachings endured through the worst of time to speak to us. Most relevantly, it speaks to us from his heart to our heart.

And here is the third statement to bring us home this new year. It's from CS Lewis.

"Others said, "This is the truth about the universe. This is the way you ought to go." He said, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life." He said, "No man can reach absolute reality except through me. Try to retain your own life, and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away, and you will be saved...Finally, do not be afraid. I have overcome the whole universe."

Now that's bankable truth worth a serious pause, gander and reflection. It is the truth that has beaten a way as exemplified in a life. Have a blessed New Year. Cheerz.