Parti Liyani Saga Part III

Before the legal dust even settles on Parti’s case, controversy from a nearby front is brewing. 

Recall the acquittal of the maid accused of theft of stolen items from the wealthy household of the Liew family? And the questionable motive of the Liew family for sacking Parti, giving her just 2 hours to pack, which led to her 4 years legal ordeal? 

Well, the news today is about the recusal of the AG Lucien Wong from reviewing into Parti’s case. Hri Kumar Nair will now lead the review process. He is Deputy AG. 

The reason for Lucien’s recusal is that there is a back story (or history) between him and Liew Mun Leong, the current chairman of Changi Airport Group, who had lodged a police report against Parti. 

For a period of time, Lucien sat on the board of directors of CapitaLand “while Mr Liew was president and chief executive of the company.” So, at the very least, they knew each other, and were friends to some extent. 

Subsequently, Lucien stepped down from the board in January 2006. Eleven years later, he was appointed Attorney General in 2017.. Coincidentally, that was also when the investigation of Parti’s case started. 

Lucien was therefore AG for throughout the case, but he nevertheless came forward to clarify that he was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions in the case. Neither was Hri Kumar involved in the same. 

Honestly, without any further details on that statement as reported, it is difficult to understand the scope and depth of what prosecutorial decisions entail. The general public will not know what that means specifically. 

Does that mean that both of them had never given the green light to prefer the charges against Parti? Or, does that mean they did not review the case at crucial intervals, provide guidance and direction, and exercise the discretion in selecting the prosecutorial team to establish the 4 charges against Parti? Or, does that mean they were not consulted at all on the case along the way, especially the events leading up to the trial, the trial proper, and the appeal? 

I guess we have to take at face value what the office of the Attorney-General has said in their public statement, and rely on their good judgment.

But it doesn’t stop there. There is another part of the AG statement that reads: “A-G Lucien Wong and Mr Liew did not have a personal relationship, and this continues today.”

At this juncture, I really don’t know whether that is a preemptive measure by the AG to address some strong sentiments on the ground about the Parti’s case, especially regarding the break in the chain of evidence and the conduct of the prosecution in respect of the DVD player. 

Mind you, this DVD issue is no small issue. If you want to know the full context, and pardon me for the length, here is what transpired at the trial below in the cross examination of Parti -

“Q: So if you don’t know what is wrong with this player, how do you know that you’ll be able to get it fixed?

A: Because Mrs. Liew said this is spoiled so I just think it can be repaired.

Q: And you didn’t ask Mrs. Liew for further details?

A: No.

...

Q: Mrs. Liew has said in Court that the DVD player was working the last time she saw it. What do you have to say?

A: Disagree. ...”

At this point, the DPP asked for permission to connect DVD player to the monitor to play it. 

“Court: No, I don’t think you can turn it the other way but what’s--- what’s your point? You want to show what it works, is it?

[DPP]: Yes.

Q: Ms. Liyani, the---sorry, for the record, the DVD player is connected to the monitor at the---oh, sorry, at the Prosecution’s desk area. You---

...

Q: So you are able to see the picture on the screen, Ms. Liyani? 

A: Yes, I can see.

[DPP]: ... For the record we have connected P19 to the monitor via a HDMI cable and we have then powered on the DVD player and we pressed play and there were images which were shown on the monitor which came from this P19.

Balchandani: But where is it---what is playing?

Court: Okay, well, perhaps put it the other way. You didn’t insert anything into the DVD player before this, is that right?

[DPP]: No, Your Honour.

Court: Okay, right. Okay.

[DPP]: Alright---and Your Honour, I am---okay, so, okay.

Q: So, you agree---I mean, so you see that the DVD player is working, isn’t it?

A: Only now I realised, before that, I wouldn’t know.

Q: So I put it to you that you were lying that Mrs. Liew gave you this DVD player and told you that it was spoilt.

A: Disagree.

Q: I put it to you that you stole P19.

A: I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal. If I steal, I would have already brought it home, why is it still around?”

Well, Parti did have a point there. If she had stolen, why would she have packed it all up in three boxes, so conspicuously, and then asked Karl Liew to ship it back for her? 

But the point of the cross-examination is to demonstrate that the DVD player was not in any way “spoilt”. So, there was no reason to discard it. That was the casual link to the charge against Parti for theft, that is, “no spoil, no throw” and if so, you stole. 

But that incomplete demonstration tripped Parti, and that accounted for what she had said in defence: “I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal.”

But, why incomplete demonstration? 

Well, upon appeal, the High Court judge allowed Anil to demonstrate the DVD player and “when the DVD player was switched to the “DVD player mode” with a DVD inserted into the DVD player, the error message “could not initialise disc” was displayed.”” 

The judge then remarked that a DVD player that is unable to play DVD “can be reasonably described as “spoilt””.

And here is what the prosecution had to say: -

“On appeal, the Prosecution conceded and agreed with the Defence that during the trial below, there were already difficulties with the functionality of the Pioneer DVD player in playing the DVD disc but not in playing the recorded clip in the hard drive of the DVD player.”

The High Court Judge then said that “the fact that the said Pioneer DVD player was only partially functioning (ie, it was able to play videos from the hard disk component, but not able to play a DVD) was not disclosed or clarified by the Prosecution during their cross-examination of Parti at the trial below.”

This incomplete demonstration was clearly unfair to Parti. You must imagine that it was her against the Goliath-like prosecutorial machination, and she only had a pro bono lawyer to fight it out at trial, and appeal.

So, to put it mildly, the “incomplete demonstration” caught her by surprise, as Mrs Liew had previously told her that the DVD player was not working. 

This led the High Court judge to opine this: “In the judgment (below), the Judge did not address the veracity of Mr Anil’s allegations against the Prosecution’s “sleight-of-hand” technique to demonstrate in court that the Pioneer DVD player was working.”

So, going back to the statement that Lucien and Liew “did not have a personal relationship, and this continues today,” it unfortunately leaves one wondering, what does “personal relationship” mean? 

As a layman, I would have wish for more information on that. Were they even friends? How impersonal or arm’s length was their relationship? 

For, mind you, they did sit on the same board, and surely there should have been some interaction, right? Exchange of ideas? 

He was also a well-known and competent lawyer, who specialisd in banking, corporate and financial services work. And Liew’s business in CapitaLand ought to have some dealings in the financial and banking areas too? 

So, did Liew consult Lucien during the latter’s stint in the board, and/or after he stepped down, when he - as LHY puts it - became LHL’s personal lawyer in Oxley affair? 

While I can understand Lucien’s decision to recuse himself from the review due to his past board dealing with Liew, because fairness/justice has to be seen to be done, I nevertheless felt that since Lucien is appointing his deputy to review the department under his charge, wouldn’t it be wiser to set up a separate independent inquiry so that it removes all doubts or suspicion, if any, as this case requires not only accountability (as the Law Minister puts it) of what Justice Chan had said about “improper motive”, but it also requires the public to be assured and persuaded that it is done above board (pun unintended)?

That is just my view. Cheerz.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part II

Law minister Shanmugam cautioned the public that we should not be defensive, “it should not be a witch hunt.” He said there has got to be a fair process. We have to find out what happened, why it happened, and then deal with it. And be accountable.” 

Well, to answer the Law Minister’s query, here is what happened: for about 4 years, the maid of Chairman of Changi Airport Group, Ms Parti Liyani (46), had to undergo a traumatic criminal prosecution, being accused of four charges over stealing about $34,000 worth of items from the Liew’s household, who lives in a private estate.

Parti had no one on her side, except for HOME and her pro bono lawyer, Anil, who believed in her innocence to the end until justice completed her tireless work in the stellar hands of Justice Chan. 

Mind you, at first instance, the court convicted her of four charges stating that she found Liew’s son, Karl, credible, believable and reliable. The district judge convicted Parti on the testimony of the Liew household. But Justice Chan, after reviewing the evidence, wrote a 100-page ground of decision that found the lower court judge according due weight to the testimony of Karl and the other witnesses of suspect and unsafe to rely on.

Justice Chan went further to cite, among other things, that there was “improper motive behind the allegations of some family members.” He added: “There is reason to believe that the Liew family, upon realising her unhappiness, took the pre-emptive first step to terminate her employment suddenly without giving her sufficient time for her to pack, in the hope that Parti would not use the time to make a complaint to MOM.”

So, in answering the Law Minister’s question about “what happened?”, well, that’s about sums up what happened. It was an acquittal, in full. There were reasonable grounds to believe “improper motive” against Parti due to her threat to report to MOM for being forced to clean two houses and Karl’s office in breach of MOM rule. For the latter, I understand that the Liew household has been given an advisory by the authorities. 

As to his query about “why it happened?”, well, Parti has always maintained her innocence. She based it on four explanation. First, some of the things are purchased by her. Second, some are given. Third, some are discarded items by the Liew household. She merely kept what the Liew did not want. And fourth, some items might have been mixed into the charged items due to a break in the evidential chain. 

But for the Liew, that’s not why it happened. To them, it was simple case of theft in a dwelling house, or mansion, motivated by greed and dishonesty. It’s misappropriation with intent. 

Yet, that allegation by the Liews does not fully answer “why it happened?” because it seems more layered and complicated than that. Recall Justice Chan cited “improper motive” leading to a preemptive strike to prevent Parti from proceeding with her threat? That “why” is more than meets the eye.

In fact, at one point, the judgment reads: -

“Parti demanded for a reason for her termination. However, Karl simply reiterated that she had to go home without giving any reasons. Parti pleaded with Karl and said, “if you do not want me, don’t send me home”. Parti got upset with Karl and allegedly accused him of being a very bad person and said that God would punish him. Karl informed her that she had two hours to pack up her things.””

Alas, for 9 long years of service, being made to clean two houses and an office for a period of time, despite her protest, Parti was made to pack her things in 2 hours. Her plead indeed went unheeded. 

Let me just clarify that this is not to add drama to the saga, but to address what the Law Minister had said was a “witch hunt”. It seems to me for 4 years since the 2-hour dismissal, and the charge, trial, appeal and acquittal, Parti has gone through her own hell and back. 

And based strictly on the acquittal, and what Justice Chan said was “improper motive”, and what the Law Minister said was a case about “the class and status differences between Ms Parti and the Liews”, I felt that this case smacks of some sort of a “witch hunt” started by the Liews and ended with the team of Parti and Anil. That’s just my view. 

So, in the light of the above, I hope I have answered the Law Minister’s question about the “what” and the “why” - to some extent. At the very least, the “what” can be rounded up as follows: a breach of MOM rule, a plead that has fallen on deaf ear, a motive stained/triggered by a threat, and a 4-year ordeal that ended with one’s innocence in tact. 

And most of that should have been relatively clear by now, because all of it has been put to the rigorously grind through the fair process of the law, with a thorough examination of the witnesses and evidence by Justice Chan. 

In other words, with all that, it should have been concluded with some clarity as to who is wrong, and who has been wronged, right? 

And on top of that, the Law Minister also said that “the best way to build trust with the public and in the system is to allow for a fair process.” He said that the parties and the system should “be accountable”.

Well, Parti was held “accountable” (so to speak) and she nevertheless came out of the legal furnace cleared of all charges. The initiative now should therefore befall on the parties on the other side right? In other words, there should be some goodwill action and apology from the Liews for that which can’t be denied, at least. 

At this point, I know what some may be thinking. Yes, Ho Ching may be right to defend Liew by saying this: “I remember Liew Mun Leong saying the mission of CapitaLand is to build people to build for people. That was why he was chosen to be the founding CEO of CapitaLand.”

That is of course Liew’s good track record. He is nevertheless handsomely rewarded for his contribution to Singapore and her people. Many will invariably appreciate his effort and dedication. 

But building people cannot be just reduced to a statistics right? Here I recall Jesus once said that even if one amongst hundred leaves the flock, he will pursue that one lost sheep to the end. 

Alas, it is quite unfortunate that for this case, it seems to be the reverse, where, for 4 years, Parti was being pursued in what seems to me like a “witch hunt” (with reference to what Justice Chan said was reasonable grounds to believe “improper motive”). 

Let me end by saying that a man or woman of integrity is one who is of integrity in and for all circumstances, whether he is building people or he has, through a momentary folly or misjudgment, tripped some of them. 

That kind of integrity shines through in good deeds and bad ones, because none of us is perfect. 

And such integrity calls for, like what our Law Minister said, one to “be accountable” at least for the wrong admitted or already established. 

For that is how you build trust, and build people in the long run - with enduring integrity that takes the first bullet for others’ misstep, and also heals another’s wound for one’s misfire.

 

Parti Liyani Saga Part I

 

Hell seems to have no fury like a rich man being threatened. 

In the news is an acquittal of a domestic worker, Ms Parti Liyani, who had worked for the family of the chairman of the Changi Airport Group, Mr Liew Mum Leong, for about 9 years. This is thanks to her pro bono defence lawyer, Anil Balachandani, whose dedication to the case quite singlehandedly unravelled the loose threads of a highly suspicious charge of theft.

Now, Parti still has one more charge pending, “which is the possession of items, including wallets and ez-link cards, which are suspected to have been fraudulently obtained”. We will just have to leave that to the courts and the prosecution to deal with. 

However, the point of this post is about how something so trivial can snowball into something so sensational, occupying one full page in The Straits Times. 

From employer, they became the accusers, and after a trial that took weeks to complete, they became the accused, and that is based on these words by the High Judge: “There is reason to believe that the Liew family, upon realising her unhappiness, took the pre-emptive first step to terminate her employment suddenly without giving her sufficient time for her to pack, in the hope that Parti would not use the time to make a complaint to MOM.”

What complaint? 

Well, Parti had worked for the Liew family since 2007, and sometime in March 2016, when Liew junior (young master Karl Liew) moved out of the Chancery Lane family home to a house nearby, frequent clashes started between Karl and Parti. 

The clashes were centred on Karl demanding that Parti also tidy his home and his office. 

According to Parti, she had to clean his office once a week for about a year. Although she was paid for the extra work, which was alleged to be $20 on each occasion, Parti however asserted that she was only paid $10 “for two to three days of work, and the payment was not regular.”

The last straw was when Parti was asked to clean Karl’s home toilet. That led Parti to threaten to report the Liew family to MOM. It was that flake of snow that eventually snowballed into a court hearing that led to this appeal to the High Court, and a successful acquittal. 

This is what the High Court has to say about the judgment below: “I find that the judge’s eventual finding that the prosecution’s witnesses (which include Karl Liew) were largely credible with clear, compelling and consistent evidence, is simply unjustified and is, in my judgment, against the weight of the evidence.”

“Karl’s dishonesty on the stand was plainly evident from his testimony...The fact that Karl lied about particular items in the second amended charge does not only taint his credibility as a witness, but also affects the convictions for the items in the second charge that are premised on Karl’s testimony alone.”

What dishonesty?

Well, the theft charge was about stolen items from the Liew family home. But, to cut the long charge short, the judge noted that many of the items showed “some form of dysfunctionality.” 

By this, he meant that the alleged stolen items were discarded items by the Liews, and were discarded when Karl and his family moved out of the family home. “I do not get any impression that the Liew family would have the habit of keeping old, unwanted or spoilt items in the house and not discard them.”

However, the Liews turned that around to lodge a police report claiming that Parti had stolen from them, which the High Court Judge found hard to believe. 

As the trial revealed, many items like a DVD player, two watches, a Prada bag (worth $1000), a pair of Gucci sunglasses (worth $500), and some earrings, to name just a few, were in fact discarded items Parti picked out from the family trash bin. 

Other items like bed linen and bed sheets were purchased by Parti from Ikea. The High Court judge “found that (Karl) had fabricated his testimony about having purchased the bedsheet from Habitat in Britain.”

Still other items like kitchenware were also purchased by Parti, and she could give details of their prices and origins. “Karl’s testimony at trial was internally inconsistent and insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the utensils and kitchenware were purchased by Karl in the manner he had described,” the judge said. 

Lesson? Here’s the thing...if you read the news, you get a feel that it smacks of a gang-up of a wealthy family against their helpless domestic helper. 

Based on the contextual evidence, her threat to complain to MOM led them to fire her. The firing was to preempt her from reporting to MOM, for that would have brought disrepute to the family. 

Parti was given only two hours to pack, and no more. Parti was then sent back (to Indonesia). Before that, after she packed 3 boxes of her personal stuff, she requested her former employer to send the boxes back to her. Although Karl agreed to ship it back to her, he nevertheless opened the boxes and found all those allegedly stolen items. That was when they lodged the police report. 

The question is, did they really bother about the stuff in her boxes? Did they really care about it? That is, the watches, the clothes, the earrings, the bed linens and the DVD player? I suspect it is more likely a case where they, especially Karl, had allowed their personal vindictive feelings to carry things too far. Mind you, even to the extent of being dishonest in court by distorting/concealing facts just to ensure the innocent is punished. 

At every step of the way, before the police report, the Liew family could have given the matter more thought and mend fences or damage control, but they had missed the opportunity. Instead of being peacemaker, they unwittingly became peace-breaker. 

You see, what may have been done is done, that is, demanding that Parti clean Karl’s home and office, even his toilet, and paying her a meagre sum for it, but if they had just stuck to their promise to ship her things back, and let matter rest, this public fiasco might have all been avoided altogether. 

And it may even be the case that upon receipt of her boxes of things, Parti may just let bygones be bygones. For isn’t it better to let dead dogs lie than to stir the hornet’s nest?

In any event, no matter what, she had taken care of your home and family for about 9 years, and that should count for something. As an employer, from such a wealthy background, one should have taken Proverbs 19:11 to heart: “Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is to one’s virtue to overlook an offense.” 

Alas, the road less travelled is often one that is travelled light, free from personal grudges and bitterness, and every step of the journey is towards a heart of generosity that overlooks petty offenses. And it is well to bear in mind that just because one is wealthy and respected in society doesn’t mean that one can’t be wrong. 

Indeed, in a society sorted by wealth, power and fame, the temptation is always greater at the top to dehumanise those at the bottom, and to view them as a functional means to one’s dysfunctional ends. 

Anyway, my most important takeaway from this whole saga is that when you make a mountain out of a molehill, what is often exposed is your own foolishness, or worst, your embittered heart, and it becomes even more glaring each time you pile up on the heap

 

RIP - Wakanda Forever

 

King #Wakandaforever. 

In today’s paper, Adrian Matejka wrote this about Chadwick Aaron Boseman: “In lead roles, (he) mostly played the outlier: the one with conviction, the one with enough crust and wherewithal to understand that everybody from the high steppers to the low downs is made of antiquity, sunlight and iron.”

Talking about sunlight, Chadwick, 43, who tweeted a photo of him announcing his passing and an earlier diagnosis of colon cancer, has gone viral. It has “more than 6.2 million likes and three million retweets.” 

God rest his good soul. A soul that has given hope and inspired many in their own struggles to overcome their own demons. He will always be a cinematic hero in our mind. 

FYI, Chadwick’s tweet tops the tweets of all time, to relegate Obama’s tweet to second place. Obama’s tweet was in Aug 2017 in the wake of the Charlottesville, Virginia, “car attack in which a man drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters who had been protesting against white supremacists.” 

This is Obama’s tweet, quoting the late Nelson Mandela: “No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin or his background or his religion.”

I feel that in the wake of so many hate crimes, riots, pillages, shootings, and how divided our world is, the Mandela’s quote is a good reminder for us to think about the hate that has consumed the world. 

Indeed, none of us are born to hate. And if sunlight represents the good in us, iron represents the resolve in us, and antiquity represents the change in us, from our past to the present, then the hope is that we can be our own superhero, the princes (or princesses) of our world, holding the torch with resolve, to change the world from within before we take on the world we see. 

Alas, I like to believe that our birthright has never changed, for we have always been the overcomer of hate, and the embracer of love. 

My sister-in-law had recently given birth to a beautiful baby girl, Joelle, and when I carried her in my arms, what I see in her eyes is the soul to mingle, to discover and to connect. There was complete trust, complete abandonment, on both sides. 

I trust this is the same for anyone who carries her, whether kins or friends, or whether the one who cradles her is from a different race, religion or background. 

I always wonder when did the colour of our skin become the blackness in our heart? Or, for that matter, when did the innocence of our youth give way to the hatred in our soul? 

I think it goes without saying that along the way, Joelle will grow up to witness for herself the world that we live in. She will come in contact with people who love her unconditionally. She will also come to discover that there are people out there who befriends her with conditions. 

The beauty of humanity will soon unravel and Joelle will come to know the raw reality of that Mandela’s quote, where hatred is born from a soul that conscientiously nurtures it.

That is the thing about hate, we need to feed it. We give it life as we give it attention. It responds to how we respond to it. It grows as we grow. At some point, it grows from a child to adolescence, under our watch, and from adolescence to adulthood, under our torch. 

And because the nature of hate is to hate, the world it sees conditions the world we see. It in turns feeds us from its perspective, the lenses of what it sees. 

At some point, it becomes our adviser, our tutor. And we unwittingly allow it to because it promises us tantalising power. For to hate is to turn someone into an object, a target, with us holding the trigger. That power at some point is absolute. 

Indeed, a child embraces the world and all the beauty in it. The first sight most of them see is the face of their parents. Love always takes first priority, first sight, first connection. So in my arms is a newborn that will grow up to be who she wants to be. Her future is secure in the good hands of those who love her, unceasingly. 

Yes, Joelle will know about hate too, that is unavoidable. She will come in contact with people who will judge her by colour, race or religion. But as the late King T’Challa once said to the UN assembly: “"In times of crisis, the wise build bridges while the foolish build barriers."

I thus believe with all my heart that Joelle and many others her generation and beyond will lead the way here to be bridge builders, peacemaker and heart healers. 

For hate narrows everything. Paths cannot be shared. Happiness is only to those at the top. Scarcity abounds. Division like plague multiplies. And the world is constricted. But with love, with hope, with resolve, guided by the sunlight, we can all be cinematic heroes in the minds of other people. The world thus opens up, it becomes boundless, with our imagination as her architect. 

This I believe is the legacy people like Chadwick Aaron Boseman has left behind for all of us, especially for our children.

 

HK - the cry for democracy.

It is heartening to read the polling results. Some say it was a de facto referendum. The voice of the HK people is finally registered and heard.

At this juncture, it is tempting to say that the democracy’s bugle has been sounded with this report: -

“Pro-democracy politicians won 388 of the 452 district council seats in Sunday’s district elections, compared with 59 for the pro-establishment camp. The remaining five seats went to independents.”

Carrie Lam said that her government will listen to the views of the public with an open mind and reflect. ”There are many analyses and interpretations which say the results reflect the public’s dissatisfaction with the current state of things and the deep-seated problems in society,” Carrie said. 

Well, I can’t say that she is wrong about that public’s dissatisfaction part. Six months of nationwide protests, resulting in untold damages with 4,400 people arrested, one police shooting and another elderly man being set aflame, calling it “public’s dissatisfaction“ is already putting it mildly and discreetly.

Yet, will the district council poll make any difference? Will Beijing relent? Will the government give in to the five demands of the HK protestors? Will the “one country, two systems” be adapted to “two countries, two systems”? 

Well, I can’t also say that Beijing didn’t see this coming. If HK election (to choose her city’s leader after Carrie’s term ends in 2022) is anything like the coming 2020 American elections, or our local election possibly next year, you can rest assured that HK’s parliament will be flooded with pro-democracy leaders (instead of pro-establishment, pro-Beijing ones). 

But democracy in HK is like a snake with her fangs pulled out. You must know that the 388 (pro-democracy) district councillors have no say (or little say) in government policies. The results may be a repudiation of Carrie Lam’s administration, but it doesn’t come close to repudiating Beijing’s agenda of claiming HK as her own. 

At best, the district councillors hold some influence over the make-up of an election committee that chooses HK’s leader. But you need to know the proportions. 

Out of the 1200-member election committee, with the power to select HK’s next leader in 2022, only about 117 of them are district councillors. That’s not going to shift the goalpost for HK democracy. 

Symbolically, it was a resounding win. And although one should never underestimate the power of symbolism and mythologies in politics, the ironclad grip of the Chinese establishment and the way they have tweaked the system are such that this battle between the people and the government will go on for a longer period than expected. 

Foreign Minister Wang Yi has already made it clear that “Hong Kong is a part of China no matter what happens.” 

Even though Taiwan is eagerly watching the development in HK, asserting that “the election fully demonstrates Hong Kong people’s absolute will to pursue freedom and democracy”, China is digging in her heels with a return serve, claiming that “China’s central government resolutely supports Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s leadership of the Special Administrative Region government.”

So, never the twain shall meet then. And this is bad for the country. Her wounds will only bleed even more.

Lesson? Mm...

Well, there is nothing much to say here. The one-country-two-systems has resulted in one country under endless siege and the two systems helplessly split with one side clamouring for freedom, equality and reforms and the other side making it clear that she will never give in or give up to enforce and assert her sovereignty at all costs. 

This can only end up with a Mexican standoff, with one side fighting to the other side’s demise. 

If I may wax political philosophy here, I am tempted to say that Rousseau was right when he said that democracy is a form of government suited only to gods, not mere mortals. 

In fact, democracy was never fully endorsed in Athens, her birthplace. It was quite chaotically implemented with so much flaws that it looked more like the government of privileged aristocrats than the common folks. 

As David Runciman astutely observes: - 

“The problem was that democracy pandered to desire. It gave people what they wanted day to day, but it did nothing to make sure they wanted the right things. It had no capacity for wisdom, for difficult decisions, or for hard truths. Democracies were founded on flattery and lies. Democratic politicians told the people what they wanted to believe, not what they needed to hear. As Plato put it, they took their failings and dressed them up as though they were virtues.”

Yet, say what you like, there is no system of government that the people idolises more than democracy. It is like a spouse in an occasionally abusive marital union. But the scars and wounds over the decades do not cause the victim to leave the union. 

Somehow, the democratic ideal of participatory government cannot be faulted, yet, admittedly, its application leaves much to be desired. 

And while democracy may result in populist overspill that causes a demagogue to be elected like Trump, Putin or even Kim, its redeeming quality is that it gives enduring hope to the people that they still have some control over who leads, or ironically, who lords over them.

This hope may be delusional at times, but in some cases, it is a matter of degree depending on the ethical standing and benevolence of the elected leader. 

And you can rest assured that there will always be a struggle of monolithic proportions when it comes to a democratic uprising like the one experiencing in HK, because it is about the monopoly of power. 

The one who holds it will never trust the ones who want it back. And because the ones who want it back have lost complete trust in the one who holds it, this power struggle is the main cause of an often bloody rebellion or transition that can lasts for years. 

So, in the end, democracy is all that the people have to give them a sense of participation, stewardship and control over those who lead them. But, as the late political guru Samuel Huntington said: “Men may have order without liberty, but they cannot have liberty without order. Authority has to exist before it can be limited.”

And it is hope that on both sides of the HK divide, they will understand this basic principle of government. That is, on the government side, what is the use of order when freedom is wanting. And on the people side, what is the use of freedom when order is lacking.

Alas, the right balance of the two is what I wish for HK now, more than ever.