TR EMERITUS

on 27 Jun 2020, Thomson Tng (Senior Project Manager), a fellow Keppel scholar, posted the following on his FaceBook, standing by Ivan Lim. [LINK] Looks can be deceiving. There is a thin line between snobbish and no nonsense person and many times it is easy to misunderstand the latter. I worked closely with him on several occasions and he works extremely hard. You can be assured that he will always have your back if you strive hard and not skive. Ivan Lim Shaw Chuan 林绍权 embrace those comments be it good or bad with an open heart and prove them wrong with your ability. #istandbyivanlim Should we trust Ivan Lim with our votes, and ignore the naysayers?   Trish Suan   * Editor’s note: Ivan Lim has resigned from the PAP and will no longer be fielded by the party in the upcoming pandemic GE 2020.      Read More →

Click to enlarge I usually don’t have much to say about Singapore Elections. The results, like any libel trial involving our senior political leaders, is a forgone conclusion. The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) is an expert at using the vast powers and resources of incumbency to its advantage and our opposition remains fragmented and too filled with different egos to focus on the main prize. Furthermore, if you work on the principle that elections are not won by opposition but lost by governments, the PAP government, while having made some serious mistakes, has yet to do enough to lose the election. Having said that, it’s been unfortunate that a member of the ruling party has decided to put display a very disturbing attitude towards ethnic minorities. The background is as simple. Dr. Tan Wu Meng, a member of parliament (MP) for the ruling party took issue with the playwright, Alfian Sa’at. I must admit that I’ve never read Alfian Sa’at’s works. However, from what I’ve heard of him, he’s by no means a violent revolutionary nor has he ever suggested that he’d support any damage to Singapore. What he has been is critical of certain government policies and certain members of high society. In short, Mr. Sa’at is not much different from the rest of us when it comes to discussing politics. He is merely more vocal. He was described by Professor Tommy Koh, one of our most respected diplomats as a “loving critic” of Singapore. Dr. Tan, however, decided that Mr. Sa’at was not a loving critic but a dangerous “anti-Singaporean” and when Mr. Pritam Singh, leader of the Workers Party (the only opposition party with seats in parliament), defended Mr. Sa’at in parliament, Dr. Tan decided to go for the proverbial jugular and in doing so, put on display one of the worst displays of “Chinese Privilege” ever seen: Dr. Tan’s point is this simple – he, as part of the ethnic Malay minority in Singapore was ungrateful for the fact that Chinese majority Singapore had given him an education and allowed him to make a living. The argument was simple, had he been born as an ethnic minority elsewhere, he wouldn’t live the life he lives or even been allowed to live. Nobody denies that ethnic minorities don't have it easy. In Southeast Asia, the ethnic Chinese minorities, particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia have had to live with, at best legal discrimination or been at the wrong end of a violent mob, as happened to Indonesia’s Chinese back in 1998. While Singapore’s ethnic Malays have not been on the wrong end of violent clashes, Dr. Tan misses the point. Just because ethnic minorities get it worse elsewhere, it doesn’t make treatment of our own ethnic minorities right nor does it make Dr. Tan’s attitude correct. For a start, the attitude of “You the ethnic minority are lucky” goes against the ethos of what Singapore is supposed to be. I cannot stress enough that the ruling party, which Dr. Tan is a part of wrote our national pledge as “Regardless of Race, Language or Religion.” Our national pledge is based on us being “Singaporean” first rather than our ethnicity or faith. Sure, racial prejudice does exist on a personal level and you can’t expect these prejudices to vanish overnight. There is no doubt that ethnic minorities will have to deal with personal prejudices on a personal basis. However, you’d expect that elected representatives of the people would have a duty to combat such prejudices in the public sphere rather than to use the fact that ethnic minorities are just that and to use that as a threat. Mr. Sa’at was educated in Singapore and makes a living here. Isn’t that the right of every citizen of Singapore? Why is that even an issue? I am sure that there are plenty of issues that one can take up with Mr. Sa’at but the fact that he’s an ethnic minority that had the good fortune of being able to receive an education and make a living in Singapore should not be one of them. The leader of the ruling party should demonstrate that we are serious about being “regardless of race, language or religion” and make Dr. Tan pay with his seat in Parliament. There should be no room for politicians to use the race card in a progressive society.   Tang Li *Although I’ve been based mainly in Singapore for nearly two decades, I’ve had the privilege of being able meet people who have crossed borders and cultures. I’ve befriended ministers and ambassadors and worked on projects involving a former head of state. Yet, at the same time, I’ve had the privilege of befriending migrant labourers and former convicts. All of them have a story to tell. All of them add to the fabric of life. I hope to express the stories that inspire us to create life as it should be.      Read More →

Ivan Lim If this is the best defence that Mr Ivan Lim can offer to the accusation that he is arrogant, self-centred and elitist, then his response is completely unimpressive and he should gracefully withdraw, or be withdrawn by the PAP. As things stand - he is a clear liability to the party on the issue of character - which the PAP has long emphasized as a fundamental part of its ethos. Why do I say this? 1. Mr Lim took three whole days to put out a reply to the press in writing. If he had a robust defence, he should have called an immediate public conference, addressed his critics and looked all the people of Singapore squarely in the eye and stood up for his own good name, and found people (colleagues, men etc.) willing to stand up for him. 2. Second, his press release brings in his mother - playing the sympathy card. Why drag his own mother into a criticism of himself? 3. He opens with a denial that he was involved in the bribery in Brazil. This is distraction because the essential heart of the accusation against Mr Lim is not corruption but defect of character. 4. He has not denied the basic factual foundation of what has been alleged against him (i.e. he hasn't said that the incidents were false and made up). 5. His response to the army incidents only deals with the matter of asking men to book in by 2200 hours. This is the easiest claim to respond to. He didn't for example respond to why an acting Bn RSM in his own unit described him as arrogant and elitist towards the officers and NCOs entering a Bn tentage - saying in effect to his officers and men of lower rank that you don't belong in my command post. He didn't respond to the allegation that he regularly flaunted his achievements and flashy car. He didn't respond to allegations that he kept his whole unit back when he went for drinks only to return to dismiss them half-sloshed. He didn't respond to the allegation that he called a turn-out in particular because it was his last duty (i.e. suggesting that he did it to show the "power" that he had to do so). He didn't respond to the claim that he looked constantly to find fault with and charge his men for minor infractions. 6. More generally, if you are the Commanding Officer of a unit, this is a senior position. Mr Lim should have been able to come out *strongly* and say : look, I care about my men, their interests come first to me, I look to build a bond of trust and respect with them so vital for a commander. I have upheld these values throughout my military service. He did not make any strong statement in his own defence of his own character as a senior commander, let alone bring forth men willing to stand up for him. 7. His defence of his record at Keppel seemed equally vague and lame. Basically, all he has said is that the shipping industry is tough and that some people have done well and been promoted under him. Totally general. He didn't respond at all to the claim of a colleague who said that he resigned and broke a bond because of Mr Lim, and had attended numerous exit interviews (including with named persons). Conclusion - hopeless defence. Mr Lim should go. Given Mr Lim's response, the PAP must ask itself - is this the kind of man you want to be your standard bearer? Do you want to bring him in under the coat-tails of a respected senior Minister?   Lian Chuan Yeoh   * Editor's note: Ivan Lim has resigned from the PAP and will no longer be fielded by the party in the upcoming pandemic GE 2020.      Read More →