TR EMERITUS

In the past one week, the Queen’s passing has somehow reignited debate about the relevance of the crown in our own heritage’s narrative and the legacy of colonialsim. While the Queen is a person with a likable personality, where her status as the head of a monarchy a platform for her public display of fondness, it is the symbol of the crown itself that became the lining for a truth reconciliation debate. It was not helped by the fact that former colonial countries such as Singapore observed her passing with state flag at half mast and a one minute silence in parliament. This performance directed by the dominant ruling party who has a history of white washing historial narrative, seemed to have suspiciously reveal the country’s adoration of colonial heritage further exacerbated by the fact that other figures even among the opposition party rank, paid tribute to colonialsm as having benefited Singapore. It’s clearly an act of moral transgression given how colonial ventures have dispossessed indigenous and native heritage, the adoption to the term inherit rather than incorporate, in reference to political and judiciary systems, at one go discount the historical realities where nations before colonialism have thrived with their own set of systems. We seemed to have been submerge fully with the falsification of history, such as the fishing village scenario, which was a rather successful incantation by colonial powers that contributed to the dispossession of native narratives and heritage, so powerful that it became a fully adopted mantra even after the country’s independence. The fact that the best elite school is named after the butcher of Batavia with his statue remaining as a synonymous icon of Singapore is quite unveiling of the country’s troubled inability to detach itself from “inherited” propaganda materials. Clearly, Singapore needs to have a stronger education culture where narratives and ideas are constantly challenged, in ensuring no single entity dominantly controls what is told. The continuing infatuation with colonial legacy shown by politicians from both spectrum in particular, is a testament that the imperialist mind remained seated in our mentality even after decades of independence. While we incorporated systems from colonial origins, we rather use the term inherit and manifest deliberately in our thoughts, the absence of working systems that had already existed in the land before colonialism. When we attribute historical journeys, we elevate colonial narratives, adopting the distorted fishing village scenario and ignored the already thriving sociopolitical environment that existed before people of plundering intent came and whitewash our heritage. Worse of all, the romanticism of colonialised experience is utterly disrespectful to indigenous and native people of that colonialised land, be it in Singapore or elsewhere. It shows the lack of mannerism in us when we discount indigenous experience against the backdrop of colonialism. In fact, it shows how we are still breathing neo-colonialist narratives as the union jack remains strongly perched in our inner brains. While Australia is now taking a truth-telling journey with a bigger aim at reconciling indigenous experience, we desire to hold celebrations of a “colonial founding”. It is commonly said, societies who fail to acknowledge its own history and heritage are bound to fail. If we ever need to question the dry and dead society that we are, we are more than welcome to slowly detach colonialist narratives and experience a refreshing lens.   Nazryn Azhar Samat * Article first appeared on Journal from the valley.      Read More →

I read with concerns about the commentary, “A greater care culture among ways to better tackle the suicide issue, especially among youth” (TODAY, Sep 9). It is reported that suicide is a serious issue in Singapore - a highly competitive commercialised and industrial cosmopolitan city. There is an upwards trend in recent years, with the rate of suicide for all demographics. It is especially the leading cause of death for those aged between 10 and 29 years old. There are various causes which resulted to our youths committing suicide. Stiff academic competitions among peers in schools and acute pressures and expectations from parents are perceived one of the common causes. Next, traditional social norm which labels scoring and attaining excellent academic qualifications is the only secured route towards ensuring job security and better future. This wrongful misconception has deeply rooted in the mindsets of many parents, and subsequently in the course of their children. In general, the entry academic requirements and salary scales for any types of jobs in our government agencies are mainly basing upon a candidate’s paper qualification besides the necessary rounds of interviews. This has further strengthened the emphasis and importance of paper qualification. Of course, this methodology of assessing potential candidates is outdated and need to be changed. Anyway, our modern society needs to create a greater care culture and a fundamental shift of perception, perspectives and mindset towards assessing a job applicant’s real capabilities which are not merely based upon the criteria of paper qualification. Hopefully, all employers should assess and recruit their potential employees basing upon broader criteria, such as skills, experience and traits (EQ, attitude, drive, integrity, resilience and tenacity, etc) instead of merely academic qualification. Parents and teachers should not exert unnecessary pressure on our young age children. Rather, they should inculcate right, meaningful life values and moral ethics into their learning and life journey. I believe, applying these inspirational life tactics will definitely help our youths to relieve their unnecessary mental stress in facing/encountering the dynamic challenges of learning and life.   Teo Kueh Liang (Mr)      Read More →

She Knew how to Do Nothing with Style The death of Queen Elizabeth has stirred quite a few emotions. Many have talked about her devotion of duty and her work ethic and how she provided leadership that kept Britain Great throughout her rein. Then there were those who lambasted her for being part of an evil system that exploited people around the world and there were calls to return “stolen” items in the crown jewels. While I am sympathetic towards those who make the point that colonialism was an evil system that screwed the natives, the truth is the Queen personally had very little to do with the creation of colonialism. In fact, the Queen had very little to do with pretty much anything that went on in her 70-years on the throne. The “action” was done pretty much by her 15 Prime Ministers and the politicians in Whitehall. The role of the Queen is best summed up by her character in the Crown who says that it is to “Shut up and do nothing,” and “that is the hardest job in the world.” In 70-years, the Queen has had to read a speech written for her at the opening of parliament, inviting the politician who won an election to form a government and meeting the Prime Minister of the day for a tea on a weekly basis. I mention this not to denigrate the role of the British monarch but to make the point that the British monarch does pretty much what Singapore’s Presidents have done – nothing at all. Singapore’s Presidents like the British monarch are required to read a speech written for them by the government and to wave on National Day every year. Like the British Monarch, Singapore’s President’s are well remunerated. So, the question is given that the British Monarchs and Singapore’s Presidents do pretty much the same thing, why is it such that so many Britons feel the loss of their monarch, while Singaporeans seem so unsatisfied with their presidents? OK, in fairness, the British monarchy over a thousand years old whilst Singapore’s presidency is significantly younger. The British monarch’s role has evolved into what it is today whilst the Singaporean Presidency is still being tinkered with. Then there’s the fact that the monarchy unlike the presidency isn’t a job that you do for a certain period – it is a life. A King or Queen does not have a term but serves until he or she dies. Then there’s the fact that Elizabeth was Queen for over 70 years. Prime Ministers have come and gone but she has remained and while it is not her job to govern the country, all reports have stated that the Queen until the day she died read the red boxes sent to her by the government and knew exactly what was going on and all her living Prime Ministers have confirmed in public that she offered them invaluable advice. Elizabeth II made the monarchy hers in a way that no other holder of public office in the world could. Having said that, the question remains. How did the late English Queen generate so much emotion for effectively “doing nothing, whereas the fact that our presidents seem to p** off the general public for doing the same thing? Well, let’s start with the fact that the British monarch is supposed to do “nothing.” Monarchs do not get involved with politics or the grubby business of running the country because they are not elected and as the years have understood that they are not supposed to do anything. In her 70-years the Queen might have told her Prime Ministers if she thought they were f** up in private but she has signed everything they’ve presented to her. In her 70-years the Queen has only stepped in to make sure that there was a Prime Minister (A scene best portrayed in the Crown when she dresses down Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden for being on their sick beds at the same time without telling her.) As her Crown portrayal says, “My job is not governance but to ensure there is governance.” Elizabeth II “doing nothing” was not an act of laziness but an act of being “apolitical,” and nobody could accuse her of interfering or trying to change the “people’s choice.” As long as they stay away from “political” stuff that brings them in the political sphere, the royals have had the freedom to champion social causes, which was most effectively seen by the late Princess Dianna who hugged HIV positive patients in public and was seen in fields with landmines (admittedly she always looked glamorous when doing so). By contrast, our presidents have had the misfortune of being politicized even before they’ve set foot in the Istana and somehow, they never get the chance to make the office theirs. Let’s start with the fact that unlike the UK, the Head of State is not a constant. The constant is the PAP government. In our 57-year-old nation, it is only those who over 58 who have known Singapore to have a government that was not led by the PAP. Whilst the British monarch nominally invites the politicians to form a government, in Singapore it is the government who “selects” the president. This is not so much of an issue in itself in as much as plenty of other republics have “selected” presidents who are effectively paid to be expensive cutlery. India and Germany have presidents who nobody outside the respective nations have heard of. They are there for symbolism. However, Singapore’s president is supposed to be more than symbolic. Under the constitution the President is the only elected official chosen by every individual of voting age. While Singapore system does make the president a check on the government the way the US Congress checks the US President, the Singapore system does allow the President to say “Think about it,” in a public way. The idea was that Singapore would need someone who could tell a rogue government not to touch the reserves. However, practice has been different. Both our fifth and seventh presidents who fought elections ended up being hobbled. The fifth, Ong Teng Cheong called a press conference to say that there were “teething problems.” His reward was to be kicked into retirement and denied a state funeral. The seventh, Tony Tan fought a close election and the Prime Minister spent the inauguration subtly reminding him who was boss. The only thing he was allowed to do beyond the usual was to go on a state visit to the UK where he was photographed with William and Kate who towered over him and the British press called him the “Prime-Miniature” [LINK] So much for “democratic” legitimacy. Things got different for our sixth and eight presidents, who are both from ethnic minorities. In theory both were supposed to be “elected.” In reality, they were selected. In both cases, everyone else who thought of running against them was conveniently disqualified. In the case of the current president, an act of parliament was passed to ensure that only “Malays” could run and somehow the current president got selected even though it turns out that she is from the “Indian Muslim” rather than the Malay community (the minister of education proceeded to show off his “education” when he argued that “An Indian Muslim is a Malay.”) So, the sixth and eight presidents entered their terms tarred. These are the only presidents who have officially granted the government permission to draw on the reserves. What makes this tarring of these two characters before entering the Istana so sad is the fact that they were relatively popular with the people. People who have known SR Nathan, have described him as a warm and caring person (As a matter of disclosure, I have interacted with the late President, who was from that experience very warm). Former journalists have mentioned that Halimah Yacob is a lovely person and she was accessible until she got elevated to the Speakership (the stepping stone to the presidency) Both characters could have, if they were allowed to, won the office fairly. To be fair to SR Nathan, he did try to support charities and created the “Presidents Star Charity.” However, in the scope of things, he was never allowed to make the office his. What else could he or Madam Halimah do except collect the generous salary and not do anything that might jeopardise that? None of our presidents have been what you could call “radical.” Ong Teng Cheong and Tony Tan were deputy prime ministers. Halimah was the speaker of parliament and SR Nathan was a spy for the government. Yet each got hobbled. So, here’s the thing. If the government wants the presidency to be respected, it has to allow presidents to make the office their own. The presidency is not designed to do very much but its occupants can make it work for the nation if the government allows it. If the government really feels that it cannot live with a president with a democratic legitimacy to tell it to “think it over,” it might as well stop wasting tax payers’ money with the façade of presidential elections and return to “selecting” presidents.   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 →