Singapore votes today for it’s next President.  Speaking to several friends, I sense uncertainty and trepidation.  This arises from the fact that there is a choice of four candidates which span the breadth of the political spectrum, and no certainty as to which candidate will get ahead because of vote cannibalisation between those candidates which are similar in political outlook.

Friends have even expressed that the election of candidates as President will result in the collapse of the country, whether from economic failure or a neglect of the underprivileged.

While reflecting on whether the future would be as bleak as some of my friends would make it out to be, if our preferred candidate(s) is not elected, I find consolation in the "even if" passage of Habakkuk 3. 

Habakkuk’s country at that time face a very real prospect of invasion by the Babylonians (the Babylonians eventually did), and he questioned God why events were unfolding this way.  The book ends with his resolution to put his faith in God, even if things did not go the way he wanted it to, and even though he did not understand why this was so. 

It reminds me that God is larger than the political situation, and that joy may be found in God, even if things do not turn out the way I wish or expect it to.

Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls, 
yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior

The Sovereign LORD is my strength;
he makes my feet like the feet of a deer,
he enables me to tread on the heights.

- Habakkuk 3 : 17 - 19

So Presidential candidate Tan Kin Lian has, according to Yahoo! News and The Straits Times, raised the possibility of using the President’s veto as a way to force the Government of the day to redesign economic policies to his liking. 

In other words, Tan Kin Lian is prepared to engage in the kind of irresponsible brinkmanship which recently brought America to the brink of economic collapse, and which resulted in the unprecedented downgrade in America’s S&P credit rating from AAA to AA+.

I had mentioned before that this was how the President’s veto could be misused -

"One way in which a confrontational President can "check" the Government is to exercise his veto power (or threaten to exercise his veto power) on matters which he may validly exercise this power, unless the Government redesigns the policy in question to his liking. For example, back in 2009 when Singapore drew on her reserves for the first time in history, the President could have vetoed the budget on the basis that the Jobs Credit Scheme did not go far enough, thereby forcing the Government to either redesign the policy to the President’s satisfaction, or to override the veto by a two-third Parliamentary resolution."

I am personally not convinced that a confrontational President is good for the country.

One of the expectations that we have of our elected representatives to Parliament (a "member of Parliament" or "MP") is that the MP should be able to empathise with the man in the street (ie. us), and represent our interests before Parliament which enacts laws and before faceless Government bureaucrats who implement laws and policies.

However, in recent days, many people have expressed doubts as to whether their MPs are capable of doing so.  This is because the MPs are nowadays typically drawn from an upper middle class background : never having had to struggle with or encountered issues which the man in the street struggles with prior to entering politics, some of these issues being the affordability of public housing, providing for the family, healthcare, public transport and job security.

It therefore comes as no surprise that in the upcoming Presidential Elections, offers by candidates to stand as a "moral authority" or "conscience of the nation" against an impersonal Government appear to have resonated with the electorate.  Hopes are pinned on the Elected President as a High Priest to represent the common man before the the Government god, because people feel that they can no longer fully trust their MPs to do so.

The same charge may be brought against the institution of religion, in which religious adherents are told to follow rules and rituals demanded by a distant and impersonal god(s), who does not seem to care or make very much of our human struggles. 

In this backdrop of government and religion, we see a departure from the norm in the person of Jesus Christ.  The Bible in Hebrews 2 : 14 - 18 states that Jesus "too shared in [ our ] humanity … in order that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God … because He himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted". 

Very briefly, the Bible is saying that it is not the case that God does not care or understand or is unable to identify with our struggles.  Jesus Christ has experienced the full spectrum of our humanity, and understands and identifies with our struggles and weaknesses :

1. In financial poverty, because He was not born and raised in a rich family, but to a humble carpenter father who could barely afford to make the lowliest gift to the temple at that time as thanksgiving for His birth (Luke 2 : 24).

2. In temptation to do what is morally wrong or to disobey God (Luke 4, Luke 22 : 39 - 44)

3. In guilt and shame, because the sin of the world was laid on Him on the cross (Isaiah 53 : 4 - 6, Mark 15 : 34)

4. In physical disease and pain, because He was tortured both before on during the crucifixion (Mark 15 : 15 - 37)

5. In rejection and emotional pain, because He was rejected and betrayed.

Through the above, Christians have confidence that all of our struggles are being represented by Jesus Christ to God, confidence that God will intervene at appropriate times to rescue us from difficulty, and the assurance that at all other times, God walks with us in our challenges.

Isaiah 53

2 [ Jesus ] grew up before him like a tender shoot,
   and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
   nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
   a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
   he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
 4 Surely he took up our pain
   and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
   stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
   he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
   and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
   each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
   the iniquity of us all.
 7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
   yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
   and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
   so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
   Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
   for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
   and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
   nor was any deceit in his mouth.
 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
   and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin,
…
12 …
For he bore the sin of many,
   and made intercession for the transgressors.

Excerpts of an intellectual discussion on between me and two friends on the upcoming Presidential Elections today on Blackberry Messenger.  Everything is true hor (though I will not tell you which lines were contributed by me).  None of the candidates were hurt in this process, though some egos might get bruised.

A : Hv u rec’ed your voting papers?  my voting plc is the pri sch just outside my home gate.  Literally I open the gate and walk 5 steps.

B : So who are u voting? I think tony tan and his wife will look best on the wall.

A : Well I don’t know but prob TT.  Hubby thinks TJS’ wife looks weird.  TKL doesn’t look trustworthy.

C : I thot the wives all look better than the hubbies.  Tony Tan has bad skin.  He needs to zap all those red spots on the face. Then will look good on the wall.

A : Actually TCB looks like he got the gravitas but he seems to hv been away fr public for so long, that I don’t feet connection leh.

C : TCB shorter than me.

A : Can photoshop.

C : You can’t photoshop height though haha. TCB comes across as sincere.

A : They are not hangg full length pics mah.

C : Tonys answers are legally correct but politically unpopular.  We are looking for a president that speaks nonsense but makes us feel good.

A : I am lookg for someone who doesn’t embarass SG.  I don’t need him to solve the economy prob becos that’s the cabinet job.  I don’t need him to be the voice of the pple.  He only one person, how to be voice ?

C : Haha. You are a rational voter.  Like me.  

C : Dunno which "conscience" of the nation TJS says he will represent.  But he say he can so he must be right. Bcos all the other candidates go no balls to claim to be the conscience.

A : Hahaha. Words easy to say. I don’t agree with his econ policies. But I tink he may get some votes becos he is more credible then TKL.

Hilarious real life conversations.  Today and yesterday.

—–

I just applied for a passport for Jed.  Today I received a call from the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority.  The caller asked for "Jed Lim XX XX", to which I said I was the father.

"What is your name ?"

"Melvyn Lim."

"Are you the real father ?"*

"Yes", I said.

"Then who is Lim XX XX ?"

"That’s my father - his grandfather - he’s dead."

"Who is Tan XX XX ?"

"That’s his grandmother - my mother - she’s alive."

"OK I will check and call you back."

* Note : A colleague said my reply should have been "that’s what my wife told me".

—–

A colleague said after lunch yesterday that he had to rush off to cash in his insurance policy.  To which another colleague remarked "did you just kill your wife ?".

Laundry list of what I hope to see (and not see) in the next President.  I don’t promise that every item will be high brow; some will sound quite petty.  Not in any order of priority -

1. The President must look good in a batik shirt with orchid prints (or she, when we get to the day that a woman runs for President, must look good in a cheong sum with orchid prints). 

2. The President must speak good English.  He doesn’t need to sound like the Queen of England, but he must sound coherent and must definitely not sound like an ah beng.

3. The President must not look too short vis-a-vis his foreign counterparts (which rules me out as a candidate for President, so please no aspirant whether today or in the future should feel threatened by me).

4. The President should have a keen knowledge of how the civil service operates.

5. The President should have a keen knowledge of foreign affairs and of Singapore’s strategic interests.  While he will certainly be briefed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before meeting foreign officials, he must have sufficient knowledge and experience to speak on issues which may arise unexpectedly during meetings.

6. The President should preferably have contacts from a broad spectrum within the civil service, civil society and the business community, people he can speak to informally to get a sense of how proposed social or economic policies might impact the country.

7. Some Singaporeans expect the President to be a vocal critic (think Tan Kin Lian’s comment about the President not being "dumb") of Government, or otherwise being somewhat confrontational in order to function as a "check" against the PAP Government (quote attributable to Tan Jee Say).  I am not enamoured with the idea of confronational politics, open or otherwise.  I would prefer a President who can play the role of counsellor, to advise the Government against imprudent policies, and who can play the role of mediator, to facilitate the reconciliation of differences between public sentiment and unpopular but necessary policies for long-term national good.  Just as I had reservations about the reappointment of Siew Kum Hong as NMP because he was a divisive figure, I would have reservations if the President is a person who polarises, instead of pulls different views together : see Postscript below.

8. Some Singaporeans expect the President to be the "conscience of the nation" (quote attributable to Tan Jee Say).  I like that idea, provided that the Presidential aspirant is able to tell me what the "conscience of the nation" is, and I agree that that is the conscience of the nation.  Certain policies would be obviously wrong, like if the Government were to pursue a policy of genocide or crimes against humanity (genocide is criminalised under the Penal Code).  In regard to the issue of casinos — the example raised by Tan Jee Say — it is obvious from previous debate that many Singaporeans had reservations about the set up of casinos in Singapore, and he could easily say in speaking up against casinos that he would be speaking as the "conscience of the nation".  But what about other issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, organ donation by unrelated donors, weekend off days for domestic helpers, abuse of foreign workers, abuse of pets, environmental protection, section 377A of the Penal Code, caning for certain offences (an arguably "cruel and unusual punishment" by human rights standards) and the death penalty for offences ranging from drug trafficking to kidnapping to murder ?  What about international treaties which Singapore has yet (I think with reasonable basis) to sign, such as the Rome Treaty on the International Criminal Court or the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Convention ?  Where does the "conscience of the nation" lie on such matters ?  (Finally, even if the President knows what the "conscience of the nation" is at the beginning of his Presidency, would he still be as aware of what it is after a year in the Instana ?)

— Postscript —

One way in which a confrontational President can "check" the Government is to exercise his veto power (or threaten to exercise his veto power) on matters which he may validly exercise this power, unless the Government redesigns the policy in question to his liking.  For example, back in 2009 when Singapore drew on her reserves for the first time in history, the President could have vetoed the budget on the basis that the Jobs Credit Scheme did not go far enough, thereby forcing the Government to either redesign the policy to the President’s satisfaction, or to override the veto by a two-third Parliamentary resolution.  In reality the Government is likely to consult the President and get his in-principle consent before introducing any measures which would draw on the reserves, but there is no assurance that the President and Parliament would not engage in brinkmanship (as did the US Congress recently) in order to score political points.  If the President and the Parliament do not get along, then it would be only natural for the respective parties to try and look good before the electorate at the expense of the other party, in the hope that the other party will be voted out of office at the next elections. 

David Cay Johnston, Reuters columnist and 2001 Pulitzer Prize winner, recently wrote what appears to be a scathing article on "Singapore Tax Myths".  I won’t dare to claim even half his brilliance, but I think some of the sweeping statements and conclusions in his article leave much to be desired.  Examples :

1. He claims that "Government builds… 85% of housing here, giving it vast influence over housing prices", but doesn’t explain how Government controls or otherwise influences prices of resale HDB apartments.

2. He refers to MediaCorp, SingTel and Singapore Airlines as "profitable local monopolies whose profits help hold down income tax rates. But would competitive, independent companies charge less and deliver more".  Perhaps I’m ignorant, but are SingTel and Singapore Airlines monopolies ?  (What then are StarHub and M1,  the 80+ airlines serving Changi International Airport, and Singapore’s open skies policy ?)  And if MediaCorp did not recieve Government funding, would we have free to air TV with some semblance of quality ? (And who would be the poorer as a result of a lack of free to air TV, other than the poor who cannot afford cable TV ?)

3. He claims in regard to the Central Provident Fund that "people do not get a high degree of clarity in disclosure statements because the mandatory savings scheme is not just for retirement, but also for medical care and for the most part housing"  Is there a lack of clarity ? My CPF statement tells me how much goes into which account, for medical care, retirement and ordinary savings (which can be used for housing).

So what is David Cay Johnson’s objection to Singapore, such that he has to make such sweeping and inaccurate statements ?  It is that he — as an American — distrusts big government and taxes. He admits in the final paragraph that he doesn’t like the "idea of government as omnipresent investor [ with ] implicit taxes like those that feed the Singapore government".

Interestingly, he points out that "one indicator of the size of government is the small share of the economy attributable to consumption. In America it is around 70 percent and in much of Asia 60 percent. In Singapore it is around 40 percent with government finance explaining much of the difference".  This means that if the Government of Singapore were not as heavily invested in the local economy, whether as a direct employer of civil servants or indirectly through its company shareholdings, a significant portion of 60% of the Singapore economy could be wiped out or held by foreign investors.  That does not sound very palatable to me.

To the best of my recollection, this (or something like this) is what I said at the Alpha opening at my workplace today -

"Hi.  It’s me again.  I’ve been asked to say something about myself, which while boring, I hope will not be too irrelevant - and it’s true !

But before that, I’d like to ask all of us, if we know why we’re here - in this place - today.  Earlier today I was talking to one of my colleagues (an organiser) who said that she received a number of phone calls yesterday asking about the Alpha session today and if they could come. If you’re here today you obviously know why you’re here.

But for some of us our reason for being here is a bit more random.  If you were me I’d probably be here because a colleague caught hold of me while I was about to sneak off for lunch.

Hold this question - why am I here - at the back of your mind now, while I take you back to my boring life.

I think I’m quite naive.  I believe that so long as I’m reasonably diligent in life, reasonably honest and nice, things tend to fall in the right places. 

I’m not the kind of person who would say I’d want to make my first million when I hit 30 years old, and to drive a porsche when I reach 35.

This is not a formula for getting rich, but I think you can still be happy this way.

This was how I lived the first 18 years of my life, and it worked.  With the exception of my Mandarin exams, I did pretty well as school this way.

So it came as a shock when in National Service — compulsory military service for males in Singapore — and in my first job, I encountered bosses who didn’t appreciate my work even though I did a reasonable job.  Bosses who were difficult, because they were difficult.

In school I read about Hitler and Stalin during history lessons.  I never believed that such people existed till I met these bosses.

The lowest point in my working life was when, just two years into my first job, my boss called in into his room and said "I think you’re insubordinate.  I don’t think we can work together anymore."

That was a huge disappointment, having to stop work on an area of law which I was really interested in.  I was moved to another department shortly afterwards.  In all these disappointments, I found myself asking "Why me ?  Why this ?  What is the purpose in this ?".

On hindsight, all that happened turned out to be a blessing.  The disappointments in National Service prepared me for the rejection I faced in my first job.  If I was not forcibly moved out of my first job, I would have had no experience in civil and commercial law — laws which did not interest me when I graduated — which allowed me to move on to a more challenging second job, which in turn brought me to where I am today.

Looking back, I would say that everything that happened, happened for a purpose, and that purpose was good.  It was not just random bad luck.  As a Christian, I believed that there was a purpose to all that was happening - even if I could not see it then — and held onto the belief that God would work things out.  That, as promised in the Bible, God’s quot;boundary lines for me have fallen in pleasant places" (Psalms 16 : 6).

Going back to the original question — why am I here — I hope that you will believe with me that there is a purpose for you to be here today.  That this is not just another random ocurrence in life, that the sandwich you eat today will end up as waste tomorrow and that’s all there is to it. We’re going to be here, every Wednesday for the next few weeks, and I hope that you — whatever your stage in life, whether or not you believe in God — would come again, with an open mind, until you find your purpose, why you are here."