This post first appeared on the Facebook Page of Ong Ying Ping ESQ on June 21, 2017. You can view the post here.
If lifting the whip in the personal privacy of the home is kinky, it’s alright to do it in Parliament?
In Part 2, we discussed how the interests of the “majority” or “greater good” was not as obviously aligned as the politicians are saying (Singaporeans are tired of the allegations after barely 6 days?, only to be greeted by an apology to the nation, followed by a “whip free” Parliamentary session ). The follow up was that even if the “greater good” was clearly identifiable, bullying the minority or trampling on fundamental rights is unacceptable.
In the upcoming installment, elected lawmakers will not be passing legislation but pronouncing on the legitimacy of the clearly stated wish by LKY to NOT make a monument of his family’s place of refuge. Further, the Party Whip will not be applied to the process, which is to pass judgment on which of the 3 siblings is in the right.
Does any of these make sense? Would this reinforce the feeling that previously, the PAP MPs felt constrained to vote according to the dictates of the Party’s Central Executive Committee rather than what was for the greater good? Are we seeing the beginning of the end?
This feature article is the last of a three part series, as Mr Ong Ying Ping shares his thoughts over the recent dispute over 38 Oxley Road. If you have missed the previous parts, you can read the first part here, and the second part here.
This post first appeared on the Facebook Page of Ong Ying Ping ESQ on June 20, 2017. You can view the post here.
Only the family of LKY can make philosophy a pulsating thriller.
At our last post, we saw how LKY’s Singapore straddle the Rule of Law and Rule of the Sage by deploying utilitarianism: when the greatest benefit goes to the greatest number , the harshest criticism of the loss of basic human rights to a small minority of dissidents simply dissipate if not disappear altogether.
Alas, this time around, the “monumental” impact of 38 Oxley Rd and the indomitable will (pun truly not intended) of LKY cut across the cracks in our utilitarian armor.
First, no dominant group can wear the “greatest good to the greatest number” tag. Few Singaporeans can claim the privilege or heritage associated with being brought up in the rarefied atmosphere of the compound of the family house of the Lees.
Nor can the next group, the innermost circle of Ministers. As commented in part 1, the selected members of the Ministerial Committee now debating the “permissibility” of demolition did not appear to have prevailed on LKY (another monumental achievement) since he publicly announced his wishes (and that of the late Mrs Lee Nee Kwa Geok Choo) that even LKY’s wishes must be subordinate to the wishes of fellow Singaporeans.
Naturally, one can well expeat the pragmatic Singaporean to say “LKY’s wishes and that of the ordinary Singaporean are one “. Such is the standing of the man Colossus that’s LKY by his lifelong deeds and habits that the protests of his junior PAP colleagues (had they tried this stunt) would likely have wilted in the glare bearing down on them if they suggested Sir, the rule of law means we, not you, decide if your wish to demolish can be granted.
Even the rich corporations seeking to capitalise on the surrounding neighbourhood if demolition goes ahead and planning guidelines now favour more high rise buildings in that neck of Oxley Road can hardly claim to be Utilitarian Sim’s darling especially as Singapore has yet to emerge from the property slump of recent years.
To bring up the crop of keyboard warriors as the beneficiaries of preserving 38 Oxley Rd is simply raising a point only to dismiss its worth.
Second, destroying the sanctity of LKY’s right to allow only members and descendants of the Lee family to enjoy the rights of access to the family home just seems too monstrous to contemplate trampling on the rights of any individual citizen, let alone the Man who came to symbolise our nation’s claim to unsurpassed greatness. In other words, any philosophy student can argue that trampling on individual rights is just wrong, no matter how many others may benefit in the process. Hence, JS Mills, the foremost follower of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, took care to temper the extreme harshness of utilitarianism towards minorities by introducing fundamental liberties. In this case, making a will regarding the Lee family home is, with due respect, an inalienable right, with all due respect to the Cabinet.
This feature article is the second of a three part series, as Mr Ong Ying Ping shares his thoughts over the recent dispute over 38 Oxley Road. You can continue reading part three here. If you have missed out on Part One of this article, you may wish to read it here.
This post first appeared on the Facebook Page of Ong Ying Ping ESQ on June 18, 2017. You can view the post here.
The LKY – Singapore development story has exemplified the best of 2 worlds: the English notions behind the Rule of Law and the (largely) Confucian precept of the Sage(philosopher) king.
To a scientist, the 2 ideas are diametrically opposed, or even mutually exclusive. Either enduring principles prevail (Rule of Law) or the word of the Wise man (Rule of Sage/Rule of Man).
Not so for LKY, and the pragmatic Singaporeans who voted his party to power repeatedly.
Thus, Singapore hewed to the conviction that you must exert tremendous effort to find – and then retain – capable and dedicated persons to lead the country, even if additional privileges or patronage if necessary to secure their services. The accounts of civil service mandarins like Goh Keng Swee, Sim Kee Boon, Michael Fam, Philip Yeo and JY Pillay abound with instances of how much powers were vested without accounting to oversight committees speak volumes.
Such measures were deemed necessary for the future of Singapore, in as much as western institutions of accountability were held up to demonstrate PAP’s legitimacy to rule the country.
Ultimately, at an instinctively human level, what is wrong with having Sage rulers wielding just laws? After all, laws are meant to curb the excesses of lawbreakers, right? Singapore is utilitarian: if it yields the greatest good for the greatest number, trampling over a small minority is acceptable loss.
Thus, the Internal Security Act(ISA) and Criminal Law Temporary Provisions Act (CLTPA), draconian laws suspending a citizen’s democratic rights remained very much in force unchanged for scores of years. More remarkably, they retained the apparent admiration of conservative supporters of the status quo who believed that “whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him. Or give it up.” More plainly, who can forget the quote about knuckle dusters needed to “govern a Chinese society”?
“We have to lock up people, without trial, whether they are communistic, whether they are language chauvinists, whether they are religious extremists. If you don’t do that, the country would be in ruins.”
Another pithy quote: “I am often accused of interfering in the private lives of citizens…we wouldn’t be here…would not have made economic progress, if we had not intervened on very personal matters – who your neighbour is, how you live, the noise you make, how you spit, oe what language you use. We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think” (Straits Times, 20 April 1987).
At the heart of it, these are the “Asian values” which justified overriding or suspending “western liberal traditions” (a less salutary aspect of the Rule of Law).
How does this relate to 38 Oxley Road?
The late epitome of the modern Sage Ruler himself explicitly said that he did not wish monuments to be made for him. “Remember Ozymandias”, grandson Li Sheng Wu’s poignant eulogy said. Directly with reference to the house at 38 Oxley Road, LKY said in an interview for the book, Hard Truths to keep Singapore Going (2011), he cited several reasons, the costly maintenance it entailed being among them.
Other memorable excerpts from the interview :
(when asked why he told the Cabinet of PM Lee Hsien Loong that he wanted the house demolished when he is dead):
“…I’ve seen other houses…(like Nehru’s and Shakespeare’s)…(t)hey become a shambles after a while. People trudge through. Because the neighbouring houses cannot build high. Now demolish my house and change the planning rules, go up, the land value will go up…”
Q: But that is part of Singapore history?
LKY: No, no no…cost of preserving it?…No foundation…”
Q:…you don’t place great store on preserving ld buildings…like the old National Library…a lot of people still bemoan its loss today..
LKY: I don’t think my daughter or my wife or I, who lived in it, or my sons who grew up in it, would bemoan its loss. They have old photos to remind them of the past.
To quote paragraph 7 of his last Will:
“I further declare that it is my wish, and the wish of my late wife…that…(38 Oxley Road)…be demolished immediately after my death …or after…she (daughter Lee Wei Ling) moves out of the house…If our children are unable to demolish the House as a result of any changes in the law…binding them, it is my wish that the House never be opened to others except my children, their families and descendants…”
Grandson Lee Sheng Wu puts LKY’s sentiment best: “I think his meaning was that if Singapore does not persist, then a monument will be no help. And if Singapore does persists, then a monument will be unnecessary”.
No ambiguity then, as to what the Sage ruler wanted.
But, as democratic processes demand, one can do little better than repeat the perspicuous observations of Cherian George in his blog “Air Conditioned Nation”, regarding the utilitarian needs of the nation overriding the wish of a single person, however great he was:
“…the system he (LKY) built never allowed individual preferences to stand in the way of the public good, as interpreted by the government of the day.
Nowhere is this principle more apparent than in Lee’s land policies. Countless patriarchs’ plans for their property holdings have been dashed by Lee’s all-powerful land acquisition laws—freehold leases be damned. Countless others, who would have undoubtedly preferred their final resting places to be exactly that, have been dug up from their graves when the state decided their cemetery plots were needed for other purposes. If everyone else’s voice from the grave can be vetoed by the government, it’s not clear why Lee Kuan Yew’s should be the exception—especially when the government’s hard-nosed, unsentimental approach to such matters is utterly in Lee’s own image.
By Singapore standards, therefore, it’s not necessarily sacrilegious for the government to consider the option of conserving Lee’s storied bungalow, no matter how firmly Lee would have opposed the idea. Part of the challenge of maturing our polity is to get used to the idea of operating by the rule of law, not the rule of Lee.”
Here, then, is the riddle. Having lived by the Rule of Man more often than the Rule of Law, the government of the day appears to want to invoke the rule of law to override no less than the Man who championed the interests of the many over the loss of rights for the very few.
The very Cabinet Ministers who now deliberate the options in the government were personally interviewed (if not hand-picked for their positions) by the testator whose Will has been granted probate by our Courts of law. Apart from asking if this is a good time to depart from LKY’s guiding precept – follow the Sage Leader, a further question to be raised is: shouldn’t the Cabinet have deliberated on it before allowing the executors of LKY’s Will, Messrs Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Wei Ling, to obtain and extract the probate from the Courts of the land?
Our leaders now want us to unite firmly behind the country and its leaders in this time.
But who’s leadership is to prevail? The Rule of Man exemplified by LKY, or the Rule of Law invoked by the Cabinet (personally groomed, if not selected by LKY)?
Whose leadership are we to follow?
The point of this piece is that the issue at stake reflects the change of leadership style which has become inevitable with the passing of the old guard. It’s also a little bit disappointing (if not disconcerting) that the present leadership was not able to stand up to LKY when he was alive regarding their prerogative to preserve the heritage of 38 Oxley Road when he was confidently announcing that the family home would not be open to public if they could not tear down the building.
At the rate the lobbying has proceeded, this unspoken dialogue about leadership will be continued, even up to or beyond part three…
This feature article is the first of a three part series, as Mr Ong Ying Ping shares his thoughts on the recent dispute over 38 Oxley Road. You can read the second part here.
Most people enter into a relationship believing it would work; that both sides will get more out of the relationship than the sum of its partners’ parts.
As was the case, presumably, when the United Kingdom joined its neighbours in the European Union to enjoy a system of no tariffs or legal impediments to the flow of goods, services and labour. Until the Brexit vote on 23 June 2016, a fair number of people thought that the negative aspects (some loss of sovereignty concerning immigration, intrusive directives or rulings from Brussels) were outweighed by the positives.
In short, few people considered: what if any relationship fails or breaks down? How should parties share the pool of benefits and burdens? It is our experience in resolving relationship conflicts that it often happens that there are no good options or outcomes. The clients must choose the least unpleasant among the unlikeable alternatives. Refusal to accept this situation may result in a vicious cycle where losses keep mounting.
With that, I should point out:
- Legal remedies do not cure hurt feelings, disappointment and loss of trust. They generally concern money, imprisonment (some infliction of caning and worse, death) or undertakings (promises) to NOT do something.
- Following from that, lawyers (including judges and mediators) will not readily understand why some clients will continue litigating to the point of incurring more in legal charges than what they expect to recover. From a personal perspective, recovering money from the defaulting party is either “too cheap” or “too little, too late”.
- Even worse, the financial penalties imposed on the losing party may not be recovered in full. For instance, the defaulting party goes bankrupts (for individuals) or becomes insolvent(for companies).
What, then, should we do or expect? To borrow from Shakespeare, do not demand the pound of flesh. Legal costs may extract some blood. Consider mediation or other methods of resolving the dispute. If all else fails, work it out with Ong Ying Ping Esq.