TR EMERITUS

Tharman for president. Building solidarity and resilience from ground up. That is his vision. It is a vision to nurture a prevailing culture of empathy and mutual respect amongst Singaporeans. He had gathered eight assenters to support his run for the presidency. They cover many fields and expertises, illuminaries in their right. In the line up is a former head of the civil service, a film director, a professor of NUS, a general manager of a charity, a special advisor to an interfaith non-profit organisation, an established enterpreneur/philanthropist, and so on. Tharman is a force to reckon, and the unspoken reality is that he is the preferred choice. The establishment naturally favours him. The poll of the silent majority quietly leans in his way. And the two candidates, George and Kok Song, know very well that they will be running against a formidable candidate, well liked, well received and well ahead. In fact, Tharman is the only one whom we all know qualifies, hands down. While George and Kok Song are fighting to get their number tag to pin on their chest, Tharman already has his neatly aligned, and is doing warming-up exercises at the starting line. He doesn’t need to worry about qualification. Instead, he just have to keep calm, keep the focus, and keep the trust of the people intact. He is the one who came up with, or is remembered most for, coining the metaphor of “moving escalator” and “social trampoline” to address the most challenging intertwined issues of society: social mobility and social inequality. Now, he is moving up to the highest office of the land, and is building a trampoline from ground up to lift all to a level of security, dignity and prosperity. I guess if all things remains equal, his challengers’ trump card against him is his independence, or the lack of it. How will he rule when he had been a stalwart of the ruling party for decades? Can a leopard change its spots or put on stripes? Well, Tharman is unapologetic about it. He said it made him who he is today. “I have no regrets at all of having been in PAP and serving as a politician for 22 years, both in the Cabinet as well as on the ground. I have no regrets being part of that team - it is what has enriched me.” On this, Tharman daringly picked Ong Teng Cheong as an example. OTC’s vein bleeds PAP, so to speak, being its chairman for 12 years. He was also LKY’s third choice for PM (after GCT, with TT as first choice). That combination have made OTC the darling beholder to the dominant all-white party. But we know the checkered history. He served one term, and was called recalcitrant in the way he hung up dirty linens in public in an interview, claiming that the Govt had stonewalled him when he requested for more info on the reserves. The conflict and frustration were palpable, and he had clearly ruffled more than the feathers of his former boss and all his colleagues. But, OTC was rather exceptional in his impartiality. To him, it was about the job, not the ties. In the interview, he said: “At the first opening of parliament after I was elected, I was given a speech prepared by the government.” “I read the speech carefully. Besides ceremonial functions, it said that I’m supposed to safeguard the reserves and to help society become more compassionate and gracious.” “So I decided that, well, if that is what is said in the speech, then that’s going to be my job. And I am going to do it. That’s what I tried to do. In fact, during the six years I was president, I was very busy.” OTC exemplified what Ho Kwon Ping said about independence. It is not a standalone. Kwon Ping said: “Independence by itself is overrated (as it) simply means nobody can tell me what to do.” He said the president must also possess moral integrity, a sense of purpose, and the consistent worldview and proven capability to get things done. As the people’s president, and for many, the first elected president, OTC embodied all that when he stood firm against the establishment to do his job. He knew what needed to be done, and with no fear or favour, he persevered, even standing alone at times. Tharman picked the right example. But it is no less a tall order. Independence is therefore a cornerstone virtue, because that is what a man with moral integrity and character would do, competence and proven capability aside. When the president represents the people, rich or poor, strong or weak, able or differently abled, he stands in the gap no matter the cost, time and effort required to get the job done. It is a discipline of the heart, for the heart of the people. And if he does it to win favours, to get on someone’s good side, all the proven capabilities he possesses are just a means to that end. The people would be none the wiser. Yes, you need two hands to clap. But it’s the disciplined heart that anchors a man’s appetites and grounds his pride. The heart is the handmaiden of both character and competence. For one has to be firm with grace and focused with hope. And Tharman has thus far shown that his heart is at the right place. It is anyone’s guess whether at the crossroad, where it really counts, will he be a “recalcitrant” president or conforming head of state. Let’s hope we have learned enough from OTC to avoid that showdown. But if it comes down to that, let’s hope that whoever wins will do right by, for and with the people.   Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.      Read More →

'Singapore cannot allow doubts or erosion of public trust of institutions to take root'- Edwin Tong (ET). That was the crux of what ET said at the opening keynote address of this year's CNA Leadership Summit. That man, ET, true to his legal training was totally at ease at uttering politically correct stuff but when I ponder about what have happened to the pap and some of their key people of late, I cannot help but feel so disappointed and disgusted even. This commentary is about trust and the abuse, erosion and/or the absence of trust. When lhl presented what was essentially a family quarrel among him and his siblings in Parliament which comprised mainly his subordinates instead of our courts and the other party was not able to access the same opportunity to rebut him, to me, trust in our system had taken a big knock. When ET lamented to Goh CT that his junior ministerial salary is too low and he has to support his in-laws lalala... again, trust in our system under the pap was under assault. When lhl first knew of the monkey business that was going on between Tan Chuan Jin (TCJ) and Cheng Li Hui (CLH) as early as 2020 and still allowed him and CLH to continue in their parliamentary roles over the years, again, trust and confidence in him as an effective Prime Minister to do the right things to uphold morality and standards was dragged through the mud. And last but not least, although aware of TCJ's extra marital adventure, still lhl didn't stop TCJ from chairing the Raeesah Khan's case parliamentary committee hearing. In fact of all the people in the committee, he was clearly the most unqualified but the most senior one. I can still go on about how Trust was abused and trampled by the pap government itself. I choose to observe and ponder about things and developments in my country. I refuse to enjoy blind sucking although it is more fun, more blissful, less strenuous and lesser headache. I choose to be right and not merely blind sucking politically correct stuff spew by big titled people. Think.   Simon Lim      Read More →

MPs losing their seat due to affairs makes you think more deeply about what marriage means in a world whose values and views about it have been shifting. Divorce rates have increased. Breaking up percentage is close to 40% in some conservative countries, some even 50/50. On the average, marriages meant to last a lifetime don’t last a lifetime. They have become more seasonal. When the going gets tough, temptation, personal trials and all, we tend to give up and move on to greener pastures. It’s just another season of our life, so we console ourselves, and life is made up of many of these seasons of necessary changes. Marriage may be the crucible of where our love and commitment are openly and seriously tested, but the test is getting harder and harder to pass. It seems like we are taking the test on a daily basis and the marks are slipping. If a metaphor helps, the dish before us always seems to be colder than the hot dish next door. The world is flatter, and worldly lures via technology are therefore more transparent to all. We get distracted easily, and lust as the secret mistress of passion is quietly elevated to rival love as the covenantal head of the household. And we justify our indiscretions with a thousand reasons just to keep our conscience in a state of quiet assent. God’s aversion to or detest of divorce doesn’t stop men from devising ways to embrace it as a means to an unbridled and enlightened self, and as an expression of one’s freedom of choice. As an excuse for a change of heart, we tell ourselves that the marital vows is a bondage that stymies the ultimate goal of personal growth and flourishing. When the kitchen gets too hot, just get out instead of sticking around to drowse the fire. Choose the road of least resistance. Why fight it? Why go all the way when you may be selling yourself short where there is someone out there who can give you lasting happiness, right? What good is a marriage for me if I am not happy? Maybe the serpent with good intention is just figuring out a better way for me when he invites me to bite into that juicy and fresh forbidden fruit. He has my interest and happiness at heart all along. Isn’t he the most misunderstood character throughout history? Well, it is always a struggle to set lust apart from love. In the throes of our own swirling appetites, we may just mistake them for twins. But lust always starts out in the dark. We do not want to be publicly associated with it. Love is in the light. It is publicly celebrated. Lust is transactional. It’s also transient. Love is relational. It’s transforming. Lust is me-first. It is driven by pleasure. Love is others-centred. It is driven by the joy of sacrifice. And marriage is that joy, one that is deeply rooted in self-sacrificing love, both enduring and transforming. When lust takes over, a marriage becomes transactional, and a conscience nourished by love is soon held captive by the capriciousness of lust. It becomes pleasure-driven, and everything’s permissible, but not beneficial. A society built on this lust, that is, the lust of the flesh and eye, the lust for power and fame, and covetousness, stands on sinking sand, whose foundation is shaky and values are flexible. Nothing is timeless anymore. All is seasonal, until blandness sets in, and your heart goes hunting for the next new thing to satisfy your appetite. Let me end with what the late rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote about marriage, which, in his view, holds the society together: - “More generally, marriage is fundamental to the moral enterprise because it is the supreme example of the transformation of two “I’s” into a collective “We”. It is the consecration of a commitment to care for an Other. It is the formalisatuon of love, not as a passing passion but as a moral bond. To see what is at stake we need to understand the difference between two things that look and sound alike but actually are not, namely, contracts and covenants.” “In a contract, two or more individuals, each pursuing their own interest, come together to make an exchange for mutual benefit…A covenant is something different. In a covenant, two or more individuals, each respecting the dignity and integrity of the other, come together in a bond of love and trust, to share their interests, sometimes even to share their lives, by pledging their faithfulness to one another, to do together what neither can achieve alone.” “A contract is a transaction. A covenant is a relationship.”   Michael Han * The author is a Director at Hoh Law Corporation and blogs on Facebook.      Read More →