THE TEMASEK REVIEW

If you are wondering why the Brotherhood Press has not written anything about AWARE for the last week, it may have something to do with timing – the dust first needs to settle; people need to calm down only then can they be expected to take stock of reason.

 

You could say this is the time not for finger pointing, but deep reflection and the goal is to ask ourselves: was there a better way to resolve the AWARE impasse.

 

In this medley of medley’s; who may be right or wrong, justified or lacking is not the main purpose of this essay – as I said, the goal is to try to derive some meaningful lessons – in my view whether such an event as AWARE will happen again is a certainty, the question is when and in what guise will it make its appearance again – the great hope as with all lessons is it will hopefully provide us a reliable roadmap to help us make sense of where and how we want to go about resolving it next time(or in my case pretend to be so)

 

To begin this process of rediscovery (for lack of a better word), we may begin anywhere from who threw the first stone to what may have been written in page 73 – but to appraise the matter before, during and after accurately, we may have to begin from the starting line the AWARE saga was not a victory for civil society as it remains the sum of our shattered dreams of what could have been but was instead squandered– we can point to many instances of lost opportunities here; the brutishness, incivility, invasion of privacy and plain old mud slinging are just a few to mention.

 

As far as accounts go; some of you may already know; I don’t buy into the contrived marketing manifesto of Botak head Siews or even Dana Lam’s glowing account that, “good has won over evil.” Neither do I feel at one with the version forwarded by Cherian George and Balji who have described the AWARE saga as some renaissance or great awakening where our collective consciousness has somehow managed to climb out from the primordial soup where it can be considered mature.

 

One reason accounting for my pessimism stems from the realization although conflict in general is endemic to the human condition, civility despite its limits still remains mankind’s best way of managing conflict.

 

No man I am reminded is an island.

 

At this juncture, it’s important for me to stress to the perceptive reader this essay is not a crie de couer for etiquette, politeness or even congenial rituals to treat others with consideration in the vein of a school masters appeal. To be honest with you trial combat could do the job just as well. 

 

Rather my preoccupation is singularly focussed on the question of “how can we resolve our differences effectively without burning down the house?” Here even if one grants the realist view certain values and beliefs will always be mutually irreconcilable, and no clear answers may even resolve some dilemmas – this should never be a justification to decamp from pursuing civility as a way to resolving our differences –  many motiffs can be thrown out here, “constructive engagment” – “soft power” but for the purposes of this essay let us try to keep things simple.

 

My point is it pays to be civil, if the goal is to make meaningful progress. For example no one claims the UN is represents the gold standard of conflict of resolution; for one its riven with partisan gerrymandering, underhanded manipulation and even the manipulative intrigues that puts the 15th courtiers in Versailles to shame – but my point is despite the UN’s limitations it remains mankinds only hope at crafting a better world for millions of people.

 

Kant once argued,

 

“Civility is to human nature what warmth is to wax.”

 

Here the couplet remains incomplete as even he recognized the limits of civility - we all saw this only too clearly in the AWARE saga; instead of compromise which civility would have fostered and respect for the intrinsic value of the individual and the rights of people different from themselves – what emerged has to be nauseating litany that tries to past itself off as something enlightened, momentous and breathtaking despite these gaps – rather, what we are left with is a decay of a sorts that makes a mockery of civil society – a breakdown of mutual tolerance and respect that only widen the fissure between those who won and loss. Here it may serve the greater interest of the old guard and their adherents to consider whether they may have awakened the sleeping giant in many who may have once preferred to stay side lined but now do not see any choice but to join in the fray  and attempt to put things rights- since their voice has been effectively cut off.

 

 

As what many may have failed to realize (judging from the number of e-mails, I have received) even the likes of Josie et al along with the feminist mental may infact represent a significant segment of society who still need a platform to voice their concerns about the trajectory of AWARE.

 

What is regrettable in this AWARE saga is this remains the undiscussed narrative that may very well come back as a multi headed hydra to mire the legitimacy of AWARE.

  

And this leads me to my most contentious point: how should we ideally reach resolution and bury the hatchet between the old and new exco? – this is a question, I don’t wish to broach due to its comatose inducing length. But what I do know is a happy solution can never emerge from the likes of NMP Botak head Siew – who even saw it fit to take a position in favor of the old guard and this leads us to consider: what did he really add to the whole idea of creating a neutral ground for reconciliation between these two factions? Granted this could never have been an easy task under any circumstances as there can never be an off the shelve solution to facilitate mutual understanding given the complexity of the tussle. To exacerbate matters the enormity of the task has to be daunting as many of these intrinsically ideological, social and cultural divides can never be successfully harmonized.

 

Despite these seemingly impossible challenges; my feel is the greater cause would have been better served for both parties (old and new exco) if we had a kind of Nixon in China moment – where instead of Botak head Siew plumbing to take on the cause of one side; he should have remained neutral and if possible strategically position himself above the fray as a peacemaker rather than adopting a partisan position by ONLY lending support to one faction – as a neutral peacemaker not only could the liberals and conservatives fashion a new Archimedean lens to see how best they could co-exist and bring AWARE to new heights. But the cause of civility would have been considerably better serve as it holds out infinite ways to reach a compromise.

 

What transpired instead was something akin to adding fuel to fire - as not only was the divide heightened and sharpened when Botak Siew decided to take sides – but it could even be said it would have been wholly impossible for either side to reach an agreement on how to define and describe their objects of interest when so much of their energy was directed to defending individual rights instead of concertrating on changing majority opinion?

 

Again, the nub of my argument is not who is right or wrong (this has to be firmly fixed in your mind, otherwise all will be lost); rather the main focus is on: how can we bring people to the table and hammer out a way where they may even be able to agree to disagree without imperiling the stability and legitimacy of the system

 

To the perceptive reader it is all too easy to buy into the idea Botak head Siew involvement with the old guard looks legitimate and even comes across as humanitarian - it doesn’t take alot of imagination to play to the public gallery; for one it appeals to our humanitarian instincts – but what’s telling is the gap between the action and the results produced leaves a lot to be desired – as when one considers how so much of Botak head Siew’s justification revolves around petty sand box politics rather than the cogent; not only does he come across as oddly naïve – but he also demonstrates a lack of scale and perspective that can only be described as disturbing - for instance: he writes as though it is an urgent matter to understand why the mike is switch on or off;  or who once said this or that; but he never ever once did he ever stop to consider the broader implication of how he may have served the greater cause by asking :what must first be obtained if the divide between to this people is to be bridged? – to paraphrase, instead of dedicating himself to the role of a peacemaker, he derogated his role to nothing more than a glorified agent de provocatuer (inciter).

 

It has to stand as an indictment as never once did Botak Siew consider the broader implications of how both sides may each even harbored genuine and legitimate competing claims that deserves equal and unbiased treatment – truth: whether we like it or not gays and lesbians do not have a monopoly on “rights,” that condition could only hold water if all moral standards derive from a single timeless and universal principle – even Botak head Siew’s resolute support of the old guard stands at odds with prevailing logic as the mere fact that certain practices are sanctioned and even considered “right” by a particular community is not enough to make them universally acceptable to all –  I cant help feeling a great opportunity at reconciliation had not only been squandered as the question that vexes me no end is why should Botak head Siew even feature at all in the whole equation of AWARE? For one NMPs aren’t even elected; as a consequence, they represent no one and who might they even be accountable too? Again ditto. Yet they are given rights in Parliament to speak, ask questions and even color the social narrative by bringing up issues which makes them de facto politicians.

 

And this raises the thorny question; why should someone who is not even public elected be allowed to lend direct support to the old guard of AWARE?

 

Here policy makers may do well to revisit the rationale of what is the original role of NMP’s. Or whether the very idea is a diservice to the community rather than one that is able to produce good and facilitate deep spirited understanding. But one thing remains patently clear the current system fails miserably to sustain cosmopolitan ethics; instead it gives free and unlimited range to those who may wish to give free expression to their views without regard to the collective good; in short it seriously needs to be revised to ensure NMP’s dedicate themselves ONLY to the cogent instead of simply playing to the public gallery.  

 

As for the trite line NMP’s function to give ordinary people a means of voice out their opinion in Parliament and even the MSM – again, I don’t buy that contrived line as that myth only holds currency if you can believe there is ONLY one right way for all humans beings to live; and that all differences must be in the details – one thing remains clear the AWARE saga has demonstrate what can and did go so very wrong when NMP’s such as Botak head Siew decide to take sides instead of remaining neutral – that may seem innocuous to many but what is disturbing and conspicuously absent is not only does this demonstrate process not objective and fair, but at a philosophical level it raises the multi headed hydra question of  “whose voice is really being represented and supported here?” –  and why should the vagaries of an outcome be even colored by someone who is not even elected? 

 

Here I concede whole idea of sustaining the NMP system may be in principle a good idea, but where there is considerable room for disagreement is whether this is an effective way to give voice to all or maybe only one quadrant of society whilst subverting others who may not be able to be represented by a NMP of equal standing? This I leave you all to consider. 

 

My feel is the AWARE saga has raised a jugular question that goes right into the marrow of the whole idea of representation – policy makers need to set clear guidelines on what NMP’s can and cannot do – politics, I am reminded is serious business, though, I am only a gamer who may perhaps rule over an imaginary domain some 498 million times the size of Singapore, but even I am mindful the dangers of pandering to the crowd to exact a short term benefit; the temptation here is always to relent to the capricious and to concede to short term vagaries at the expense of what must be done for the greater good that may not even be apparent in the short term –here I am always mindful the role of politics demands wisdom, coherency and sometimes even to stay the course despite the slings and arrows  – my feel is no good can come from “the blow with the wind” type of populist getai politics that we so often see from the likes of Botak head Siew – he is in my opinion a political parvenu weaned on fulfilling the flavor of the month to serve his own agenda to the greater detriment of building a better society.

 

If history points the way to lead us all from this hall of mirrors, she informs us there is no profit in playing to the public gallery; the fractious divide that once scissored through  the communities in Northern Ireland, South Africa, Yugoslavia, Darfur and Iraq should serve as a sobering reminder, great endeavors can only emerge from doing what is right and needful and not what is popular – there are no short cuts and the only reliable means of bringing people to the table will always be challenging, stormy and divergent. But one thing is clear, no good can possibly emerge from the homily sugary ideal of what Botak head Siew holds out in paying to the public gallery – if anything his roadmap doesn’t offer us salvation, its in effect the road to perdition that we should all reject.

 

As If we are really serious about the whole idea of civil society, then we need to shift from the cosy insiderism of only lending support to those who may seem popular an challenge even those who may hold a diametrically opposite views from us  – but this can only be accomplished when NMP’s remain neutral and above the fray (why do you think we sited ourselves in wayang think!).

 

If the truth be known, all boundaries have to be facile and borders are arbitrary man-made devices that serve only to confect legitimacy. Most boundaries have the effect of creating divisions by including those on the inside of the boundary and excluding those on the outside.

 

We in the brotherhood know this only too well as who is the most disaffected and marginalized? It is us – this condition of the damned compels us to ask why? All too often or positions are based on a form of exclusion, of “us” vs. “them”. If you don’t believe me then go and type ‘brotherhood’ press in the theonlinecitizen – it will never appear – why remains a matter best left to conjecture – only understand this the parochial and narrow can even hide in the seemingly benign and right – and that should underscore the importance of why Botak head Siew should have maintained a neutral position.

 

My point is simply this, there are no rights or wrongs; not even the ultimately, marginalization and exclusion breed resentment, hostility, anger and aggression. Humanity has a need for justice and fairness, and we all resist being treated as less than equals. But for most of our history we have been seduced into thinking in terms of arbitrary boundaries (I suspect this is very much a part of social scripting in Singapore). Is it such a wonder our care and concern can only extend up to those boundaries we are familiar with but not beyond the discomfort zone. What remains ironical is though it is not uncommon for our care to extend to the boundary of family, friends, culture, nationality or citizenship. Why is it that we perceive those on the other side of the boundary as “not our concern?”

 

Our challenge is to shift this perspective, but this can only be accomplished in a neutral and not a partisan setting. Peace can only take root when we recognize all individuals as citizens deserving of inclusion, respect, dignity, choice and justice, and when all are given opportunities for contribution.

 

Remember, this botak Siew, I am not a nobody – I am darkness, the leader of the brotherhood – if you want to play the numbers game, I will play with you and you will lose. Dont believe me poll it, I dare you!

 

Let me just share with you what I am going to do: I have already erased all my incriminating photos in my computer with a few of my lady friends; even told them to go marry a fat rich man and forget about me. I even bought a pair of horn rimmed glasses like Wong Kan Seng to make me look like an undertaker taken to wearing white shirts. I may even trade in my swooped up V8 Mercedez coupe complete with fur dice and settle for a sedentary MPV with a roof rack. My only problem is now how do I make my hair look like Weetabix like LSL - after lunch - this is what I am going to do Botak Siew. I am going to drop by into the PAP shop fill up an application form, then the first order of business is I am going to put an end to this NMP nonsense. Yes Botak Siew, I am joining PAP to right a wrong; and why am I doing this?

 

Because not a single one of you useless MP’s even saw fit to ‘right’ a ‘wrong.’ You all sucked your thumb and sat in one corner and kept silent - so now you see why it all has to come down to only me and my motley crew!

 

Yes, I have decided, I am going to change the system! And it wouldn’t be too hard either; you see, this is how I figure it, it cant be so different from playing a game and I am the best there is.

 

Darkness 2009

 

I wrote this fast there could be spelling mistakes, please correct yourself. I have no time.

 

You are reading the brotherhood press 2009

 

 

 

21 Responses to “Should Botak Siew have been “neutral” instead of taking sides in AWARE?”