A NEW DAY

Let this be the start of a new day

To hold our chins up come what may.

For it is time to make hay

And continue to keep evil at bay.

Though we know not the forces at play,

We can sweep our worries away.

If in the right place our hearts stay,

All our dues we will joyfully pay.

SECTION 377A - THE TOUGH QUESTIONS TO ASK
But, will there be honest answers from people who need to supply them?
https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/tough-questions-to-ask-about-section-377a

To resolve the issue of the viability of Section 377A, we all need to ask ourselves some hard questions and be honest with our answers.

First, should proponents of Section 377A continue to interfere in the private lives of others? In a secular society like Singapore, should they demand that others conform to their religious beliefs and moral codes? Should their objection to gay sex and the gay lifestyle be assisted by the law?

Second, should the opponents of Section 377A stop their repeal effort for the sake of not dividing the country? Should they bow down to the majority’s opinion and the strong emotional hostility from various religious groups? 

Or should they even bother as the Act is not being enforced anyway? 

Are they concerned only about social equality or are they planning to push further for a wider lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) agenda?

Third, does the Government think that keeping but not enforcing Section 377A is still tenable given the accusations of irrationality and contradiction? 

How should it respond to the fact that other former British colonies have already taken decisive action to repeal the same law? 

If the status quo is to be maintained, should all other forms of personal or private sexual, non-sexual, deviant and unconventional behaviour be also subjected to criminalisation without enforcement? 

Should its decision be dependent on the fear of incurring the wrath of religious or conservative people and the loss of their votes? Or should the priority be the restoration of rationality and respectability to our legal system by adhering to its original guiding principles and objectives?

And finally, as a repeal of 377A is not an endorsement or an encouragement of the LGBT lifestyle, all Singaporeans should ask themselves which option helps us to uphold the values of our society – to continue to criminalise gay sex as a sign of rejection of the LGBT lifestyle or to repeal Section 377A as a symbol of respect for an individual’s rights to privacy and personal autonomy?

Donald Trump on 9-11:
Inspiring words

“America will never ever submit to tyranny!”

“We will remember that free people will never be at the mercy of evil because our destiny is always in our hands!”

“America’s future is not written by our enemies. America’s future is written by our heroes!”

“... showed the whole world that no force on earth will ever conquer the American spirit.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k28jzRqz42w&feature=share

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE

Part 6

WHAT IS GOODNESS?

Goodness is a human quality solely invented to describe the most desirable and most positive attributes of the essence of being human, putting us above animals and making us distinct from all other earthly living organisms.

Human beings, or Homo sapiens as a species, are biologically mammals and part of the animal kingdom. Therefore, we have a basal animal nature which also governs much of our behaviour, especially those that are driven by physiological instincts of thirst, hunger and sex; psychological instincts of survival, self-defence and territory; more complex instincts like maternal and social instincts; and others that manifest as self-centred and dominant behaviours. On the other hand, moral and ethical codes are artificial human constructs that we impose on ourselves because our higher mental functions trigger a need for validation of our special status in the living world. That’s how the concept of goodness is invented as a foundation for our “human” nature, which is distinguished from our animal nature.

So, the perennial debate as to whether our human nature is good or evil remains unresolved because of a widespread misunderstanding of the nature of “human nature” itself. In reality, “human nature” is, by definition, “good” because that is how we as humans conceived ourselves to be. The opposite of goodness, whether we call it badness or evil, is the label that we should rightfully put on other behaviours including those governed by our animal nature. Thus, in each of us, we have both a human and a animal nature, the proportion of which varies from individual to individual which can evolve to a more predominant human nature or devolve to a more pronounced animal nature over time even in the same individual.

There is no need for a God or the Devil (or Satan) to be the champions or instigators of goodness or evil in us. Unlike animals who have no need for religion or the supernatural, our human arrogance has made us devise narratives to justify the unnatural concepts of goodness and evil.

The parallel concepts of right and wrong are simply the mirror images of goodness and evil when the system is used to evaluate human actions. So, the post-modern rejection of the unequivocal opposition between right and wrong may unwittingly be correct, but for very different reasons.

In conclusion, our complex brains and the resultant higher intelligence necessitate the advent of exclusively human concepts of goodness and evil in order to rationalize our complicated lives.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE 

Part 5

WHAT IS BEAUTY?

Beauty is the kind of idiosyncratic perfection that glorifies its own existence.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE 

Part 4

WHAT IS ART?

Art is a form of expression extolling particular responses to, modes of or interpretations of human experiences; seeking to provoke the physical senses and mental processes into further diverse and unpredictable secondary responses in an effort to enrich and enlarge the full totality of the human experience.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE

Part 3


WHAT IS LIFE?

Life is the one-time ownership of time and space between birth and death, affording you the opportunity to figure out what it is all about, to decide what to do and to do it until you get it right.

NICE MOVIE - CRAZY RICH ASIANS

Let me give you the verdict at the outset - you will enjoy this movie because it is so full of fun. Despite the inevitable cliches, the exaggerated show of decadence and the deliberate silliness, it manages to introduce some freshness in weaving together the three threads of a familiar love story, an undisguised ridicule of the laughable pretentiousness and the mad antics of the so-called super-rich and a re-exploration of the conflict between Asian family values and the Western pursuit of individual happiness.

So, it is still worthwhile examining the three questions that occupy your mind when you stumble out at the exit as the closing credits roll:

(1) In this day and age, are the so-called Asian values of hierarchy, authority, seniority, tradition and family still relevant in the face of a globalised world built around individual autonomy, freedom of choice and the universal pursuit of happiness? If the predictable ending is to be believed, the answer seems to be a NO.

(2) Is it necessary to be rich, never mind super-rich, to live satisfying and fulfilling lives? If large parts of the movie mine laughter by laughing at the excess and superficiality that money buys, the movie seems to answer NO to that question too. But seriously, if true love and happiness on the one hand; and a life of wealth, comfort and power on the other; are mutually-exclusive choices, how would or should we choose? I think that really depends on you.

(3) And the last and a politically-charged question: is the possession of wealth an accurate measure of a man’s (or woman’s) talent, self-worth and especially his worthiness for respect and self-respect, never mind the secondary question of whether which has more merit - old money or new money? To be polite, let’s just say that it is unsafe to give a clear answer to that, though it is pretty clear in our minds! Since money and talent are two of the most sensitive and contentious issues in Singapore, an honest answer here will probably be an unwanted one.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE

Part 2

WHAT IS LOVE?

Many people think that love is an inexplicable and mysterious feeling that you have for another person. It seems that when you love him or her, you just know it; without knowing how or why.

I think a little differently. I think love is a spontaneous attraction or disposition towards a person whose mere presence makes you happy. I think love can be explained and can be recognized and understood, but it must be defined in the context of a relationship. Loving a thing or an object is diametrically different. So, in a loving relationship, you will find at least these seven features:

(1) You have a natural fondness for that person, a fondness not dependent on any specific quality or characteristic. 

(2) You accept him/her the way he/she is and you will never try to change him/her to fit your preference.

(3) You have genuine respect for his/her freedom and opinions and you will never try to dominate, override or disregard his/her free will and autonomy.

(4) You appreciate him/her as someone special and treasure him/her above everyone else.

(5) You are naturally kind and helpful towards him/her and you will do everything in your power to protect, satisfy and ensure his/her happiness.

(6) Loving someone does not entail possessing him/her.

(7) Your love for someone is not dependent or conditional on him/her loving you back.

If any one of these features are missing, it is possible that you don't really love him/her.

Lastly, must love be forever? ........... sadly, no! Love can fade. Love can be lost. Love can disappear. And, like everything else, love can die.

DEFINING THE UNDEFINABLE
This is a series that defines comprehensively and objectively difficult-to-define words and the concepts they represent.

Part 1

WHAT IS RELIGION?

Religions are emotional attempts to placate anxiety about human mortality or to provide existential consolation through a tenacious adherence or loyalty to a set of cultural beliefs, rituals and communal behaviour, to be defended at all costs. Their central ideas are focused either on an unalterable fundamental principle or varying concepts of a supreme supernatural being or beings that have absolute control over human destiny. Characteristically, such ideas are neither grounded in reason nor reality, so a scientific or logical evaluation of religion is not possible.

TRUMPKIM FEVER II

Whatever the colour of your shade,

Let your heart be free from hate.

Whatever palette you choose to use,

Never be deceitful or obtuse. 

TRUMPKIM FEVER I

Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com

Source: https://www.crossed-flag-pins.com

No one  seems to have noticed that both the American and North Korean national flags have the same basic colours of red, blue and white. Both parties should realise that there is much commonality in their national psyche! I hope this will put them on a more friendly frame of mind to bring their two countries together onto the path of peace and mutual prosperity.

THEY ARE NOT COUNTRY TRUMPKIMS

The Dems said he is Forrest Gump,

Yet Heaven dotes on Donald Trump.

We called Kim a mad Rocket Man,

But he is really a savvy statesman.

Now, on the twelve of June,

They are going to call the tune.

Watch how bigly they will score

In the lovely island of Singapore.

A nuclear peace for the human race

Will put all detractors in their place.

Neither a simple country TrumpKim,

They’ll win Nobel prizes in a whim.

THE REAL CAUSES OF POLITICAL MANICHAEISM
AND THEIR REMEDY

https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/graciousness-charity-vital-for-healthy-debates

"I hope that we in Singapore can do better by being committed to respectful, reasonable and robust discourse with one another," says Straits Times Forum contributor Zhang Jieqiang. 

That I certainly agree, but I do not think that the lack of charity or grace is the reason why debates often degenerate into mutual demonization, ad hominem attacks, name-calling and accusations of bad motives. There are three main reasons why such degeneration occur:

First, people get into debates with the wrong frame of mind. They think that debates are about winning and losing, so they will do or say anything, however ridiculous or unreasonable, to maintain indefensible statements at all costs. Sometimes, in a mistaken effort to save face or to appear to have a superficially amicable outcome, they would suggest having a very unsatisfactory and pointless "agreement to disagree".  In reality, debates are about exploring ideas from both sides so that each side can benefit from a clarification and enrichment of their own thinking and learn new ideas from others.

Second, people engage in debates with the wrong ends in mind. They want their own views to prevail and therefore, all their inputs into any debate are designed to support their own original stand. Ideally, they should present their views in the hope of receiving a contrarian rebuttal with the aim of re-evaluating their own stand. Perspectives and views don't "belong" to anyone and people should be able to adopt and abandon views at will depending on how a debate proceeds.

Third, people in some societies or cultures wrongly think that a debate is a quarrel or an adversarial conflict that is best avoided. This is because of the basic assumption that people are incapable of changing their minds or their views. They expect everyone to be afflicted with an irreversible and highly tenacious dogmatism. On the contrary, the whole point of debate is to seek to change one's own mind for the better, with the help of your debating partner(s).

In short, you go into a debate not to win, but to learn; not to prevail, but to explore; not to change the mind of the other, but to see whether your own mind should be changed in the light of arguments from others.

So, political or social Manichaeism is not the outcome of a lack of charity or grace. Rather, whether in America or Singapore, it is because people got into debates without knowing what debates are all about! Until and only if political and social discourses are informed by an enlightened understanding of the true nature and spirit of "debate", they are destined to be both frustrating and counter-productive everywhere.

Opinion

HAS MALAYSIA STOLEN SINGAPORE’S THUNDER?

Can Singapore respond by re-inventing itself into a truly blind meritocracy?

Malaysia’s new enlightened political leadership will abolish its GST from 1 June 2018. Despite potentially crippling losses and huge debts arising from the 1MDB corruption scandal of its previous Government under Najib, Mahathir the old-new Malaysian leader has stayed calm and has reassured his people that he is confident of recovering most of the lost money and that he will be able to boost his country’s stock market and its economy. He had also worked fast - restoring business confidence, hastening investigations into the wrongdoings of the previous administration, removing the allegedly corrupted leaders of his civil service and releasing the much-wronged Anwar Ibrahim within days of his election victory. One can’t help but stand back in admiration.

Meanwhile in contrast, for its more celebrated neighbour across the Causeway, the star of Singapore seems to be dimming. It looks increasingly jaded and seems to be immersed in a political and social malaise and stagnation. It appears to be doing the opposite - it is increasing its GST from 7 to 9 % some time between 2021-2025. Its politics, politicians, civil service and Government policies have all stayed almost unchanged since the heyday of Lee Kuan Yew. The much anticipated emergence of its 4th generation political leaders seems to be facing a prolonged gestation and the longer this delay goes on, the more people will wonder if there is a lack of political talent in the PAP itself. Usually, a true natural leader will select himself and announce himself through his sheer presence, charisma and moral and intellectual authority. To date, no one’s light is shining through. Worse, there is no evidence of political competition among the party’s stalwarts. Every contender sounds the same and says the same things and they never contradict party policy or each other. None of them has his own political character or personality. All they show is a monotonous conformity. Is this a symptom of the party’s lack of real fresh blood, ideas and vitality? If so, it is particularly worrisome for the future of Singapore. If not, let’s hope this is just part of Singapore’s unique culture.

Its superstar, the late Lee Kuan Yew, modernised Singapore and brought it from the 3rd to the 1st world within one generation. He was able to do so because he dared to change Singapore’s society from its backwater in the 50’s into a modern society in the 90s. But a seeming lack of confidence had caused the country to misinterpret his legacy by trying to preserve his policies as far as it can, in form, in substance and in spirit. That, I think, is the exact opposite of what Lee Kuan Yew’s legacy really is! 

He had shown us a pioneering spirit of going where no man would or could, by following his own intuition of “what works”. He showed loyalty to neither doctrine nor principle. If something worked, he carried on; if something doesn’t, he changed course. What brought Singapore success was not an LKY formula, but an innovative spirit to seek the best way of doing something and to always change for the better. He did not stand for doing the same things in the same way over and over again.

The country seems anxious about the uncertainties of its future. Yet it is averse to and fearful of change. Part of the reason for the decline in Singapore’s stature seems to be a lack of political competition and a diminishment of intellectual vigour in Singapore. There is no real contest of ideas in its society and the all-encompassing PAP seems intent on discouraging political participation by its people. 

I see no spark in Singapore society except for them to continue on this plateau. Perhaps, the only way for it to jump onto a new rising curve is for the PAP to re-examine its priorities. Should they stop thinking about preserving their own dominance and start thinking about reforming the politics of this country for the national good? Should they counterintuitively work to reduce that dominance by levelling the political playing field and truly liberalising the country’s political system in the hope of harvesting the best political talents wherever they may arise, not for PAP, but for Singapore? 

Right now, the Singapore Government has identified as its urgent task the fight against social and economic inequalities in the country. In my opinion, the pre-requisite for fighting such inequalities is to introduce a truly blind meritocracy into its political system - blind to party allegiance or political ideology, blind to race, language and religion, blind to gender, blind to educational credentials, blind to social class, background and connections and blind to past prejudices. A blind meritocracy in the political sphere will promote a culture of  blind meritocracy in all other areas of life here.

Only then can we hope to catch up with the political and social maturity of our now glittering neighbour, Malaysia, and re-light our own beacon.

         RIP! APRIL FOOLS’ DAY        

There is nothing left, not a single trick,       

Because to one truth we’ll have to stick.    
Not even the odd lie or a funny prank         

Can stop us from being honest and frank.

Any news that is found to be fake                 

Will no longer be a joke we can take.           

Sadly, that’s all that I’m allowed to say        

On the quiet death of April Fools’ Day.        

UNDERSTANDING SINGAPORE’S POLITICAL SYSTEM

Amidst all the recriminations after the Sylvia Lim “test balloons” saga, let all parties take one step back and listen to what the late great LKY said on 12 April 2006 in a CNA special forum “Why My Vote Matters - A Dialogue With Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew”. In it, I want everyone to take note of 2 important points:

(1) He admitted that he deliberately created an unlevel playing-field in Singapore in favour of the PAP. His intention was to ensure that Singapore is governed by good leaders that he had handpicked, but he never attempted to suppress debate in Parliament or sabotage its function;

(2) He told us why he had created such an unfair political system as he concluded the interview: “I hope I have enlightened you on why we do what we do. It is not for the fun of it. It’s for a very serious purpose - to ensure a good government for Singapore and an opposition when it gets in will be equally good!” In other words, he didn’t care who ruled Singapore in the future as long as its rulers are good and strong.

So, let all sides be reminded that Singapore’s unique political system does not conform to the ideals of classic Parliamentary democracy, not because the incumbent politicians are supposed to hold on to power at all costs, but it is designed to ensure that whoever governs Singapore in the future must be good leaders who are not only able to win the votes of the people but (on the part of the opposition) must also prove that they are strong enough to overcome the high bar of the great odds placed against them to get there.

The opposition cannot blame the PAP for their poor performance over the last 53 years. They only have themselves to blame for not being good enough to overcome the unfair hurdles of the system. That’s because LKY himself, when he was in the opposition, proved that he could overcome such hurdles to build from his single seat and 2 or 3 others to what is today a party that is invincible since 1965. The 70% are not fools, but they vote the way they do for a good reason.

THE PERSISTENT CULTURE OF MESSY PUBLIC TABLES

Background: To tackle the difficult problem of persuading people to return their trays at hawker centres in Singapore, two hawker centres implemented a system of customers having to pay a small deposit of 50 cents to a dollar which they get back when they return their trays.

Why are customers of hawker centres so determined; nay, in fact, so hell-bent on leaving a mess behind at the dining tables after finishing their meals? You can almost imagine them walking away with a smirk on their faces, as if saying triumphantly to themselves: “You wanna use my table next? Ha, not so easy! You jolly well clean up my mess for me first!” That appears to be the only possible explanation for such adamant refusal to do their minimum duty of cleaning up after themselves, a basic human habit they should have mastered at pre-school, if not at their mothers’ knees. Patho-psychologists would have a field day if they were to come to Singapore from all corners of the Earth to study this unique phenomenon here for their next thesis. 

I really have no answer for this. Why would 50 to 90% of customers choose to carry hot bowls of soups and food with their bare hands just to escape using a tray; or to just return the trays but leaving their leftovers, bones, utensils and crockery still strewn on the tables? Just to beat the system? What does society owe them to make them want to take such revenge? I wonder.

POLITICAL SUCCESSION IN SINGAPORE
Who will be the next Prime Minister?

In view of Singapore's traditionally orderly and non-contentious political succession process, it is interesting to note that the contenders Mr Heng Swee Keat, Mr Chan Chun Sing and Mr Ong Ye Kung have been introduced early to the public this time, as if PAP is trying to gauge the public's response to each of the candidates.

Mr Ong Ye Kung

Already, there had been early endorsements from respected voices. Popular public intellectual, Professor Tommy Koh described Mr Ong: "I would describe him as intellectually brilliant, capable of thinking out of the box and coming up with creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. He has both high IQ and EQ. He is charismatic and an eloquent speaker. He has good leadership qualities and is very likeable. He is a man of integrity." With such glowing praises, Mr Ong seems to have qualities to tick every box. Another commented: "Our next PM, hopefully."

Mr Ong is also my favoured candidate for the same reasons as eloquently listed by Professor Koh.  Some say that he is too inexperienced, having in Parliament for only 3 years. Also, he lost in his maiden election in 2011 as part of the PAP's GRC team in Aljunied GRC and he could only enter Parliament by being switched to Sembawang GRC in 2015. To me, paradoxically, that is further endorsement of his qualities. It means that he is able to overcome such early handicaps and rise in his political fortunes so startlingly fast. If we believe that a leader is born, not made, then Mr Ong is definitely "The One"! It's also about time that we have a leader with fresh ideas and fresh approaches to meet the challenges of modern times.

Mr Heng Swee Keat

Former Senior Minister of State For Foreign Affairs Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed seems to favour Mr Heng Swee Keat. He even publicly asked Mr Heng in a public dialogue session whether he was "ready to be Singapore's fourth Prime Minister" and voiced his disappointment when Mr Heng sidestepped the question. 

To me, Mr Heng is a safe candidate as he gives the impression that he is a team player, a moderate voice, a rational person without any controversy and a competent minister with good experience in public office even before entering politics. Unfortunately, he collapsed in May 2016 during a cabinet meeting and was later found to have suffered a haemorrhagic stroke needing immediate neurosurgery caused by a ruptured aneurysm. He could only return to work in December 2016 and he had to be assisted by National Development Minister Mr Lawrence Wong who had to be given the additional responsibility of Second Minister of Finance. Now, does anyone have any lingering doubts about the completeness of Mr Heng's mental, intellectual and physical recovery?

Mr Chan Chun Sing

So far, no prominent figure has praised Mr Chan Chun Sing in public, but one would recall that he was labelled as a future Prime Minister when he first entered Parliament. Interestingly, Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed spoke cryptically when he said: "I trust the PAP will not choose its leader based on popularity alone, but choose a leader who is the best man who can bring progress and unite people, not necessarily someone who is likeable." Does he already know PAP's choice and is not telling? But, how can a disliked politician unite Singaporeans and how does that make him the best man?

Unfortunately for Mr Chan, after six years as an MP, one is hard-pressed to remember anything remarkable about him except for his early habit of playfully asking his listeners to "Ki Chiu" (a hokkien phrase for putting up your hand to respond or ask a question), and his gaffe of a "Freudian slip" of referring to Mdm Halimah Yacob twice in Parliament as "Madam President" when she was still the Speaker of the House in February 2017, seven months before her inauguration as President in September 2017 after a walkover. He therefore suffers the disadvantage of being remembered as associated with public dissatisfaction about the conduct and result of the Presidential Election. Nevertheless, Mr Zainul's hint seems to indicate that Mr Chan is the establishment choice for some reason.

Perhaps, the best way to judge them is to look at their body language because it is a reflection of what they truly believe about themselves:

Mr Ong Ye Kung - serious, upright, confident and has the looks of a leader.

Mr Heng Swee Keat - friendly, moderate, trustworthy and acceptable to all.

Mr Chan Chun Sing - earnest, intelligent, predictable and ready to take the post.

May Singapore make the right choice!

LONG WALKS, SHORT TRYST

Long walks,

Nobody talks.

Cool breeze,

Inhibitions freeze.

Silent glances,

Romantic chances.

Knowing smile,

Bodies tactile.

Park bench,

Limbs clench.

Lovers’ delight,

Scarlet moonlight.