The Convenient Racist

 

The big news on the international stage is the choice of Ms. Kamala Harris to be the Democratic Party’s choice for Vice-President. Ms. Harris, who is currently the junior senator from California will be the first “woman of colour” (her father is black Jamaican and her mother is Tamil) to be on any primary ticket. Of the four running for office this November, Ms. Harris stands out as something refreshing (the other three being crusty white men) and she’s helped electrify the campaign with Donald Trump calling her mean (she won’t sleep with him) and she’s made the elections interesting beyond America’s borders:

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53750619

While Ms. Harris has proved herself to be a capable politician in her own right, the truth is that she was chosen because of her gender and bi-racial roots. The Biden Campaign’s strategy in choosing a “woman of colour,” is obvious. If the Trump-Pence Campaign is all about getting old white men out to vote, the Biden-Harris campaign is going to be about getting women and “people of colour” to vote.

Ms. Harris isn’t the only politician in the world to be “helped” by her gender and race. Like it or not, the world is simply not colour blind and what you have between your legs counts when it comes to the polling booth. As much as we like to think of ourselves as “progressive” and being blind to colour and ethnicity, we’re not. It took America, the land that gave us a constitution based on individual happiness and liberty took more than two hundred years to elect a man who was slightly darker than pink (and let’s not forget his mother is white) and then promptly reversed that by electing his successor who decided that America needed to be more White than White and while it’s taken two hundred years to elect someone darker than pink, America has more famously never elected a woman to be president or vice-president (by contrast, the more “sexist” societies of the Muslim parts of South Asia have put four women into power).

People generally like people they are comfortable with. Unfortunately, comfort usually means people who are most like them and in a democratic society that happens to be ethnically and religiously homogeneous, leaders tend to look pretty much like the rest of the electorate. However, in diverse societies, the politics like business becomes a question of target markets. In American Presidential Campaigns, a presidential candidate looks for a running mate who can compliment him (most of them being men). The most striking example being the young and black Obama choosing an old white man called Joe Biden.    

If the divisions in a society are particularly deep, you might find a case of certain political offices being reserved for certain communities. In Lebanon it was understood that the President would always be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of Parliament being a Shia Muslim.

Singapore did have something similar in its presidency. Lee Kuan Yew states very clearly that he needed to show the government in KL that a Malay could rise up in Singapore and so he chose Yousof Ishak to be Yang De Pertuan Negara (Malay for Head of State, a title conferred on the Malaysian Sultans, though Ishak was to be a non-Royal head of state. The title was changed to President once we became an independent republic).

In our early days it was understood that the Presidency would be reserved for ethnic minorities as it was understood that as the Chinese were the majority, it was more than likely that the government and Prime Minister would be Chinese.

The rationale for reserving the presidency for ethnic minorities was clear. This was to preserve ethnic and religious harmony and it was a valuable symbol for ethnic minorities.

However, by 1985, it was obvious that the government felt that race was no longer a thorny issue and Mr. Wee Kim Wee (obviously ethnic Chinese) became our President. Then towards the end of Mr. Wee’s term, the Presidency moved from being about racial harmony to being about looking after our savings. The Presidency became an elected office in its own right (even if two Presidents have had their elections fixed).

The evolving nature of our presidency should be the story of our progress in race relations and this was a government that felt the need to reserve the head of state role for ethnic minorities. This is a government that is known to read the ground and plan carefully. So, when Mr. Wee Kim Wee was appointed to be President in 1985, they must have felt that it was no longer necessary to reserve the office for ethnic minorities because our race relations must have improved.

Singapore’s government also acts tough of “racist” or “acts that disrupt racial harmony.” I, like many Singaporeans grew up with the message drummed into our heads that racial harmony was something special.

Yet, while successive Singapore governments have done so many right things in the name of promoting racial harmony, they’ve also been playing the “race card” in a rather ingenious way.

The first step was to return the presidency to being about race and the rather clumsy attempt to arrange the winner (fix being an ugly word). The most embarrassing moment came from our Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr. Chan Chun Seng, who said “An Indian Muslim is a Malay,” which any half-educated Western Expatriate could tell you is not true. The nicest thing you could say about the Ministers comments is that our management of race relations must have been so successful that he couldn’t tell the difference between an Indian Muslim and a Malay.

One has to question why the government felt it was necessary to play the race card with the presidency when it had felt it was no longer necessary to do so back in 1985. Are we to say that race relations have worsened in this supposedly more “liberal” age and if the rights of ethnic minorities has become worse or at least so much so that you have to make the presidency about race again, what does that say about the government’s management of race relations since the 1980s?

Instead of having a candidate that could appeal to all (Malay, Muslim Lady), what we got was a presidency that lost its legitimacy before it even began.

The other point of convenient racism came when the party kept insisting that “Singapore is not ready for a Chinese Prime Minister.” This is despite the fact that the most popular member of government happens to be from an ethnic minority. While, Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has said that he’s not interested in the job, one has to ask which part of Singapore is not ready for an ethnic minority to be Prime Minister when the Senior Minister is considered a “dream candidate” for so many.

To make matters worse, the newly appointed “Leader of the Opposition” or leader of the only other party to win seats happens to be an Indian. If the electorate is willing to support “non-Chinese” party leaders, where does the government get the idea that the nation is not ready to be led by a non-Chinese? Is the government still stuck in the politics of the 1960s while the electorate has moved on?

A government that has worked so hard to create a society that is “regardless of race” has to understand that it cannot no longer micromanage race relations or impose yesterday’s fears on today’s population. Talk to many local Chinese and you may find that they’re more comfortable with their Tamil and Malay buddies than they are mixing with Mainland Chinese. You need to address current issues rather than dig up old wounds. When the incident with Ramesh Erramalli broke out, Singapore’s Tamil population sided with an old Chinese security guard rather than with their “own kind.”

When the electorate gives a party led by an Indian more seats after you’ve said that they’re not ready for a “Non-Chinese” Prime Minister, the message is clear – Stay Out of Race Politics.”

Nobody Notices when you are Bald – Everyone Notices when you Comb Over

One of the earliest bits of advice when I started losing my hair in my late teens came from my Dad. He said, “Whatever you do, NEVER comb over and NEVER get a hair transplant. Somehow nobody notices when you are bald but everyone notices you when you comb over or have a hair transplant.”

My Dad was right. As I got older, I realised that nobody really gave two hoots about bald men. If anything, being bald can be a fashion statement. Just look at Andre Agassi who was a teenage sex symbol known for his long bushy mane (apparently it was a wig). Later on he shaved bald and his status as a sex symbol strengthened. On the other hand, everyone notices the guys who comb over. The most prominent comb over was Dr Cheong Choon Kong, former CEO of SIA and currently the Chairman of Overseas Chinese Banking Corporation. Dr Cheong’s comb over was so prominent that it provided a little but of comic relief during the tragedy of SQ Flight 006, which crashed in Taiwan.

Like it or not, baldness is not an uncommon trait for men. As such, we, the folliclely challenged, either learn to live with it or we try to hide it. Despite the fact that hiding it usually draws more attention to it, there are men who persist in doing things like combing over the growing bald spot with the few strands of hair that they have.

I have recently discovered another version of the comb over. This new breed does not have to worry about follicles on the head. Instead, this new breed deals with things like money or the lack of it. Let’s call this breed the story teller.

Being broke is a little like being bald – more of us are broke than we care to admit to. Like being bald, many of us feel that being broke is a little embarrassing and so, the temptation to hide being broke is quite strong. It’s generally easier to hide being broke than it is to hide being bald. However, the efforts to hide being broke sometimes reach proportions that can be compared to the valiant effort to hide a growing bald spot.

One of the silliest examples of an effort to hide being broke is “Oooppss, I forgot my wallet at home.” This is apparently a very handy excuse when you happen to be meeting people for the very first time and don’t have the finances to cover a round of drinks. Unfortunately, this is also the type of story that reveals that you’re not being entirely honest – who in this day and age forgets their wallet when they go out for drinks?

The efforts to cover up the fact that you are broke can be quite amusing. However, there comes a point when telling stories can reveal plenty about your character or rather lack of it. Story tellers like comb overs have an insecure streak that borders on dishonesty. Like the comb over, the sad thing about the story teller is usually most dishonest with him or herself.

Young Muslim Politicians serving National Service from the comfort of the bed room (Thumbi Pundeks) are especially prone to telling stories to cover up for their inadequacies.

This young PAP cadre who is currently living off his father and the tax payer believes that he is an important person and he’s very rich. Somehow, somewhere in his gene pool and education, he’s been told that he’s entitled to spend other people’s money on ipads and expensive prostitutes. Thanks to his father and the Singapore tax payer, the Young PAP cadre believes that anyone who cannot spend money such items is only one level above shit.

However, this façade that he’s valiantly trying to pursue has its limits. Money, like other resources has a way of running out and when you don’t have money, it’s rather hard to pretend that you have pots of the stuff.

The Young Pariah has discovered a way of dealing with it. It’s called – talking shit. He’ll announce to you that he’s dying to “treat you.” Then you go out with him, he’ll order food without looking at the price tag. Just before the bill comes, he’ll then ask if it’s OK if you put it on your credit card and he’ll draw cash from you later on. One would suggest to anyone agreeing to such a deal that you march him to the ATM immediately after you have finished – because his understanding of later can be rather elastic. Of course, you’ll have to deal with him trying to bargain with you and when you point out to him that he was supposed to treat you – he’ll look indignant and tell you, “But I just spent $400 on an new cover for my phone, you don’t expect me to have money do you?”

Another variation of the scam that this Young PAP Cadre from Pasir Ris GRC will try pull is this – “I’ll treat you, let’s go somewhere classy.” He’ll then tell you that he only has $30 on him once you’ve sat down for a meal. He’ll gladly except it if you pass him an extra $10 to cover the unmentioned cost like GST and service charge. Suddenly, when the bill comes, you’ll find that he gets change of over $15. You check the bill and find that you’ve ordered less than $30 bucks worth and he’s paid $50 of cash, excluding your $10. When you ask him about it, he returns $10. I suppose you could say he has a point – he said he’d treat you but he didn’t say he’d pay GST or service charge.

Young Pariah’s are a bit like bald men trying to cover up their bald spots. However, unlike the bald men trying to cover up the bald spot with their remaining three strands of hair, the Young Pariah has been allowed to enter politics and is sometimes portrayed as a person that the Deputy Prime Minister might want to associate himself with.

If you were to believe that the ruling party tolerates characters with such a high sense of self-esteem and integrity, you might be wanting to ask yourself if the ruling party is trying to hide something too?

Bless the Fools

In a day and age where everyone wants to be known as exceedingly intelligent, it’s hard to appreciate fools. Everyone is trying so hard to be clever that even those who are not, are forced to be or at least appear to be so. One of the ladies in my life said it best – “I don’t mind you being poor but I expect you to be clever.”

With so much pressure to be clever, we are left underestimating the value of fools.
Being “Foolish” is considered a mortal sin that is as bad as say, picking your nose in public. This is a pity because being a fool or being silly is actually a valuable skill.

Let’s start with the obvious; being really stupid actually requires some sort of intelligence. Some of the world’s greatest clowns happened to be highly qualified. Look at Sacha Baron Cohen who brought us Bruno, Borat and Ali G or the Monty Python team who composed a range of movies and songs, which one can only describe as being totally silly. These men who made their name and living by silly, all came from that bastion of silliness’ – Cambridge University. The illustrious rival for silliness, “Oxford University,” (I don’t mean Oxford Brooks), gave us Rowan Atkinson, the man who gave us Mr Bean.

People who are brilliantly stupid can do wonders. Simpletons can be the most effective communicators who reduce things to their most basic. They can be understood in a way that clever and eloquent people cannot be.

Take one of the most interesting US Administrations in recent years – The Regan Administration. Ronald Regan was not known for intellect. The joke in Hollywood was that Bonzo the Chimp was much smarter than he was. Yet, despite all of that, the Regan Administration brought the Cold War to an end without firing a shot. The economy buzzed. How did this “idiot” do it? Well, he framed two key ideas simply – he called the Soviet Union “The Evil Empire” and he told stories about the “evil welfare queen who drove a Cadillac.” These two messages allowed the administration to slash spending on welfare and lower taxes while rising spending on defence to levels that the USSR could not match.

When Mr Regan got into trouble during the Iran-Contra Scandal in 1986, the clever people in the administration proceeded to take the blame for him. As one British commentator at the time pointed out, “His behaviour was beyond normal satire.” Despite the obvious corruption in the incident, the American people forgave Regan in ways that they did not forgive the cleverer Mr Nixon and to a lesser degree the very clever Mr Clinton.

Fools are not only effective communicators. They can produce gems of wisdom. I refer to the movie “Bean.” Mr Bean is sent to American by the National Portrait Gallery in Britain. His American host thinks Bean is a high powered art historian. He’s asked, “What have you written?” Bean replies, “I look at the pictures.” The host is impressed – “Wow, that’s profound; I wish other academics would just look at the pictures.”

This scene is a laugh in that Mr Bean really looks at the pictures –he’s a security guard and yet the Americans are setting up as something deep and profound. We laugh at Americans for their child like innocence. However, the fool has a point…I remember James Curan one of my lecturers at Goldsmith’s telling us the secret to sure first – answer the question. Most of us clever people think of exams are an opportunity to show off how clever we are. As such, we end up missing the question and we write a lot but never answer the question and so we don’t get the marks for it. The fool might actually answer the question and get the points.

Fools are also the only people who can tell the powers that be the truth. Medieval Europe survived as long as it did because of fools. The fool could satirize the kings mistakes without getting his head lopped off. It’s such a pity nobody has been able to check with Kings of that age on how many bad decisions they’ve reversed thanks to their fools.

Literature is also full of examples of how fools were used to get points across. The most famous example is in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen. The best critic of inheritance laws (which were blatantly in favour of men) was Mrs Bennet, Matriarch of the Bennet clan and the silliest character in the novel. Thanks to Mrs Bennet, Ms Austen could take a swipe at the law without being labelled a dangerous reactionary.

Fools have succeeded where cleverer men have failed in as much as they’ve never taken themselves so seriously that they lose touch with reality. For all her faults, Margaret Thatcher had enough of a sense of humour to appear on “Yes Prime Minister,” one of the best loved political satires of all times. I suspect that sense of humour allowed Mrs Thatcher to stay close enough to the ground to get her policies through. The end result, Mrs Thatcher was actually beneficial to Britain.

If you ask me, Western society gets by because politicians expect to have the piss taken out of them. I think of Spitting Image puppets and how they’ve succeeded in ensuring that the public will never treat a politician or celebrity so seriously that the said politician or celebrity develops a God complex.

I look closer to home. Up North, in Malaysia, politicians are constantly lampooned by cartoonist like Lat. Here in Singapore, you simply do not make fun of politicians. On a shallow level you might be able to understand that. My Malaysian friends will point out that Malaysia in many ways lags behind Singapore. It’s mired in corruption while Singapore is squeaky clean and hyper efficient.

However, let’s take things into perspective. Singapore is small red dot mainly populated by Chinese migrants who will happily let you rule with an iron fist as long as you ensure that they can do business and get rich. The place is small enough for you to quickly snuff out decent and yes, Singapore’s politicians do deserve a pat on the back for a job well done.

Malaysia by contrast is a huge place with a diverse population. The majority belong to a culture that does not chase the material. Getting Malaysia to move one step is more challenging than getting Singapore to leap.
So, when you look at things this way, the Malaysian politicians like Mahathir have actually done a pretty good job. Things could be better, especially when you compare it to Singapore but then again, when you take the challenges that Malaysia faces, you have to take your hat off to the Malaysian system for getting things done despite everything.

Malaysians laugh at their politicians and rightly so. For all that the Malaysians complain about how awful their politicians are, the ability to laugh at them has helped both sides. The politicians know that they’re not God. The people also realise that they got to depend on themselves rather than on super competent Gods in the civil service to get things done. As a result, Malaysians can travel and succeed outside Malaysia without the aid of the government.

Singaporeans by contrast do not make fun of their politicians. In fact they are expected to worship them, even when the politicians goof. Look at what happened during Mas Selamat’s escape. Limping terrorist walks out of a secure facility and the government rushed to defend the virtue and competence of the Minister, so much so that during the recently concluded election they got a shock when people used the issue to hit them.

Perhaps it’s time for Singapore’s politicians to take a leaf from their counterparts over the Causeway and learn to laugh at themselves a little. It would definitely help us connect better.

The People That You Mentor?

In a move that surprised everyone, Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew decided that he would retire for the cabinet. Mr Lee has been positioned as modern Singapore’s “Founding Father,” and even Mr Lee’s harshest critics have found it hard to think of Singapore without Mr Lee’s presence in the cabinet.

As well as being Singapore’s “Founding Father,” Mr Lee has also been something of a “Rock Star.” He is the one political leader that Singapore has produced that seems to be recognised by everyone else. Both West and East laud him for taking the sleepy crime-infested tropical swamp and turning it into a modern metropolis within a generation. Let’s face it, Singapore is a young nation that actually compares quite well with many developed countries in terms of its physical and dare I say, legal infrastructure.

So, Mr Lee is rightfully lauded for his achievements. If you look at his record, he’s proven right on more than one occasion and on more than one issue. You could say that he’s the right person to have as a mentor.

This was the argument that Singapore’s Prime Minister, Mr Lee Hsien Loong, had used when he retained his father in the cabinet some seven years ago. Mr Lee Kuan Yew was given the title of “Minister Mentor,” and as the title implied, he was supposed to “Mentor” the cabinet with his years of experience as a leader and international statesman.

However, how much of a “Mentor” was Mr Lee? Well, in the end, it turned out that Mr Lee wasn’t much of a mentor but a senile uncle who left the Ministers he was supposed to mentor, scrambling to cover for him. It started with his comments about Muslims needing to “integrate” better by being less serious about their religion. This was compounded by his prediction that the Group Representation Constituency the PAP was about to lose would have five years to “Repent,” for voting in the opposition. His comments left the Prime Minister in the unique position of having to call a press conference to distance himself from his father.

So how did this wise man that did so much to make the PAP and Singapore, end up looking like a fool of the highest order?

I think part of the problem lay in the fact that Mr Lee forgot that his title was to “Mentor,” rather than to take charge. As mentor, ones role is to provide advice but to accept that ultimately the responsibility for any action lies with the person who receives your advice. At best, mentors work in different organisations and their advice comes from a private capacity. This was never the case with Mr Lee. Apart from announcement that he was “No longer in charge,” Mr Lee took a very active role in running things. When he felt Members of Parliament needed a dressing down, he would do it personally. When foreign dignitaries wanted to visit someone, he would make sure he was an important port of call. Mr Lee travelled extensively, brining Ministers on his trips so that he could “open” up markets. Mr Lee even went as far as to make his importance visible on a symbolic level. At the last National Day, Mr Lee got himself driven into the arena, a privilege previously held by the Head of Government and Head of State.

Then there’s the question of experience. What exactly are the experiences that Mr Lee brings to the cabinet? Well, I suppose it’s always good to have someone else to give you “experience” or the “benefit of their wisdom.” Both experience and wisdom usually come with age – a case of learning through hard knocks, which comes with time. In this aspect, Mr Lee was a font of wisdom for those who consulted him.

However, most mentors are known for certain strengths and most of us have forgotten where Mr Lee’s strengths lay. Generations of Singaporeans have grown up believing Mr Lee’s strengths lay in governance. In fairness to this assumption, Mr Lee led a team of brilliant ministers. Mr Lee had the foresight and security of character to allow the likes to Dr Goh Keng Swee and S.Rajartnam to do certain jobs. Once they convinced him of a certain course of action, he supported them all the way and ensured that they had what they needed to get the job done.

However, Mr Lee, himself was not an administrator himself. His real strengths lay in political street fights. He was the campaign orator, the man who knew how to mobilise union leaders and he knew when to lock them up. He was the one who shrewdly read political sentiments in the UK and Malaysia and how to use them to the advantage of Singapore. Mr Lee has always been a pragmatist who knew how to sell ideals to idealist. He was the English Educated lawyer who learnt Mandarin and Hokkien in the span of six-months so that he could make the masses move.

If you read his biography, his genius was not in being an all wise and all knowing statesman, even though he’s been known as one. His real genius came when he was the underdog – the leader of the minority English educated taking over a party dominated by Chinese educated populist, the leader of an untried and untested party against colonial administration and so on.

Ironically, the person who seems to have best understood this aspect of Mr Lee appears to be Mr Low Thia Khiang, Secretary-General of the opposition Worker’s Party. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low is fully aware that he’s fighting against massive odds and he relishes it.

Mr Low, like Mr Lee understands the value of getting the people’s support. While the ruling has often chided Mr Low for not doing much in proposing alternative policy, Mr Low has realised that his success lies in ensuring his constituents are looked after. Like Mr Lee in his younger days, Mr Low works hard to ensure that the people remember him – he attends every birth, wake and funeral in his constituency. The PAP has spent 19-years trying to unseat him and each time they’ve tried, he’s been returned to office with a stronger majority.

Like Mr Lee, Mr Low is not afraid of having highly intelligent people by his side. In his early days, Mr Lee had the likes of Goh Keng Swee and Rajaratnam. Today, Mr Low has Sylvia Lim (Polytechnic Lecturer), Chen Mao Mao (Lawyer with international regard) and Pritam Singh (Academic). Mr Low may not speak the Queen’s English but he’s smart enough to surround himself with the people who can work it.

So, the irony of Mr Lee’s spell as a “Minister MENTOR,” is that he actually may have mentored someone, even if it was the last person he would have wanted to tell the world he had mentored.