Bilahari Kausikan – Loose and at Large

The day was 31 October 2015 and I was in the famous university town of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. 

I was there to attend a conference with the enticing title "The Legacy of Lee Kuan Yew and the Future of Singapore".  The Conference featured an impressive line-up of speakers comprising distinguished Singaporean and non-Singaporeans with in-depth knowledge of Singaporean history and politics.   

Oxford historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin and Singapore's Ambassador-at-Large Mr Bilahari Kausikan were among the Singaporean speakers I was eager to hear.

Dr Thum Ping Tjin

Dr Thum’s topic was "Lee Kuan Yew’s political legacy".  In his presentation, Dr Thum reviewed the historical context of Mr Lee Kuan Yew's rise to prominence and the political ascendance of the People's Action Party (PAP) in the pioneer years of Singapore. 

In the course of his comprehensive historical analysis, Dr Thum made the point that the era which saw the independence of Singapore was marked by robust political competition. Democracy, debate and dissent characterised the early phase of Singapore's political history.  However, the subsequent period was marked by intolerance for dissent, which has become the one enduring legacy of Mr Lee. 

It was interesting to hear Dr Thum because his perspective of Mr Lee's role in Singapore's history dissented from the narrative circulated by official sources in Singapore. 

Mr Bilahari Kausikan

Mr Bilahari's topic was "Lee Kuan Yew's cast of mind and its lasting influence".  As I leaned forward to listen, I had not bargained to be in for some unpleasant surprises.

To my amazement, Mr Bilahari departed from his prepared transcript at least twice to take two digs at Dr Thum - to make it clear to the audience that he was not in agreement with Dr Thum’s point of view. 

On Dr Thum’s view that the PAP government was intolerant of dissent, Mr Bilahari argued that since Dr Thum was able to express his dissenting views about Mr Lee’s political role, then Dr Thum can’t be right to complain that the PAP government was intolerant of dissent. 

I was taken aback. I failed to see the logic of Mr Bilahari's reasoning.  Dr Thum had expressed his dissenting views to an international audience at an overseas conference, not in Singapore.  Has Dr Thum been free to express his dissenting views in Singapore without adverse repercussions?

Mr Bilahari's second swipe at Dr Thum was more caustic. He called Dr Thum "a young academic trying to make a name for himself" - implying that Dr Thum was propagating an alternative version of Singapore’s history so as to draw attention to himself.

Some in the audience booed Dr Bilahari on hearing his ungracious words against Dr Thum.  

I was shocked - and ashamed - that a high ranking diplomat would deem fit to speak against a fellow Singaporean speaker at an overseas conference in front of an international audience.

By trying to attack Dr Thum's credibility, Mr Bilahari only succeeded in proving Dr Thum right about the PAP Government's intolerance for dissenting views.

But there was one more unhappy surprise in store for me.

"Some" opposition politicians

As Mr Bilahari drew his speech to a close, he said the key challenge ahead for Singapore was whether young Singaporeans would take the achievements of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted and be persuaded that Singapore was no longer vulnerable.

Having articulated what challenge laid ahead, I expected Mr Bilahari to conclude his speech by mentioning how the Singapore Government would handle the mindset of the next generation of Singaporeans. 

Instead, Mr Bilahari opted to bring out the proverbial bogeyman, namely, PAP dissenters.

The exact words of Mr Bilahari's concluding remarks were as follows:

"The key challenge is internal: that a new generation of Singaporeans will take the achievements of Mr Lee and his comrades for granted and be persuaded that Singapore was no longer vulnerable.  Some opposition politicians and their fellow travellers among the intelligensia have tried to do just that. They either do not understand their own country and region or place their ambition above the national interest. Fortunately, as the results of our recent General Election have demonstrated, the majority of my compatriots do not believe them."[1]

Thus, Mr Bilahari thinks that "some" opposition politicians (and their sympatheziers) are busy working against the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans; but fortunately, most Singaporeans are wise to the ruse, as results of the recent General Election show.

Mr Bilahari's remarks are disturbing.  Inherent in his choice of words is the insidious attitude that “some” opposition politicians are a pain in the neck, self-seeking and distracting our good government from protecting our nation and serving Singaporeans. 

Mr Bilahari is entitled to his own personal views.

But Mr Bilahari was not speaking at the Cambridge conference in his personal capacity.  He was invited to speak at the conference on the basis of his credentials as Ambassador-at-Large and Policy Advisor in the Singaporean Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Mr Bilahari was speaking at the overseas venue in an official capacity, as a diplomat and civil servant.

The Singapore civil service and the salaries of civil servants are funded by taxpayers’ money. Singaporeans are entitled to be served by a non-partisan civil service in which civil servants do not comment on politics or on politicians or take sides with any political party. 

I do not think that a country with a functioning democracy would have a civil servant, much less a senior diplomat, speak against opposition politicians at a public forum.

Mr Bilahari is a civil servant and has no business to comment against opposition politicians in public platforms.  By so doing, Mr Bilahari has provided observers with clear evidence that our civil service is partisan and partial to the ruling party. 

Moreover, Mr Bilahari is a diplomat. I am at a loss as to how Mr Bilahari can be said to be serving his country and his countrymen by highlighting the electoral victory of the ruling party.

Singaporeans will be best served if our civil servants spend their time thinking of ways to improve their efficiency instead of using opposition politicians as lame excuses for their inadequacies. 

Mr Bilahari and his fellow diplomats should focus on dealing with our foreign foes and on how to fix them[2], instead of thinking about how to defeat opposition politicians.

PAP dissenters are not “the enemy”.  On the contrary, political dissenters and opposition politicians serve the nation by holding the PAP Government accountable to Singaporeans.  Their continued presence in the political arena is indispensable to the operation of democracy in Singapore. 

That day in Cambridge, I was saddened to see Mr Bilahari throwing punches against his own countrymen in front of an international audience in his capacity as Singapore's official representative. I do not understand how our Ministry of Foreign Affairs could allow its diplomats to express sardonic remarks against our own Singaporeans at an overseas venue.

A “sardonic diplomat" is a contradiction, an oxymoron.  Till now, I am still pondering the enigma of the oxymoron which is Mr Bilahari.

UPDATE on 20 Dec 2015:
In response to this Blog, Mr Bilahari Kausikan commented on my Facebook page on 17 Dec 2015. As a rejoinder to Mr Bilahari's comments, I posted a Note on my Facebook page on 19 Dec 2015 captioned "My Rejoinder to Mr Bilahari's Comments on my Blog".

---

[1] Extracted from the transcript of Mr Bilahari’s speech posted at http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/bilahari-kausikan-on-the/2235302.html

[2] "Instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I have to spend all my time thinking what is the right way to fix them, what's the right way to buy my own supporters over," Mr Lee Hsien Loong, General Elections 2006 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1WhJKsYb50

Why I think Kho Jabing should not suffer the death sentence

No intention to kill

Jabing was convicted under Section 300(c) of the Penal Code. Section 300(c) is notorious for providing a controversial definition of murder. To convict an offender for a Section 300(c) murder, it is not necessary for the offender to have an intention to kill the victim. It suffices to prove that the offender intended the bodily harm which caused the victim's death.  All of Jabing's judges agreed that Jabing's motive was to rob the victim and, though he intended to physically harm the victim, he never intended the victim's death. But since the Court found that Jabing intended the injuries which caused the victim's death, the court convicted him of section 300(c) murder. 

"An eye for an eye" is a form of justice. On that basis, it may be justifiable or acceptable that someone who intentionally commits murder should himself have intentional murder committed on him. But Jabing never intended to kill, yet he has now been sentenced to suffer the penalty of being killed. His punishment is harsher than his own culpability and being so, it does not seem justifiable or acceptable.  

Disadvantaged at sentencing

The Court of Appeal conceded that that the sequence of events which took place during the time of the offence, was garbled and not entirely clear. The gaps in the factual matrix were not crucial for the purposes of proving the charge under Section 300(c). So it was not necessary to belabour the trial proceedings to elicit a blow-by-blow account of how the crime was committed, unless such facts were relevant either to prove his guilt or for his defence. Jabing was convicted of the murder charge notwithstanding certain gaps and inconsistencies in the factual matrix.     

More importantly, at the time of Jabing's trial, the death penalty was the only sentence - it was mandatory once the offender was found guilty of the murder charge.  There was then no other sentencing option.

in 2012, after Jabing's conviction, the Penal Code was amended to give the Court a discretion to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment. The factors relevant to the Court in deciding whether to commute the death penalty to life imprisonment was not known at the time of Jabing's trial. Had such factors been known to Jabing's lawyers at the time of his trial, I believe that Jabing's lawyers would have made it a point to bring up for the record, certain facts of the case equivocal to his defence, but helpful for his sentencing if found guilty.  

Hence, I find that Jabing was at a disadvantage when he came before the sentencing court. Certain gaps in the factual matrix which, had they been explored, canvassed or clarified during his trial, might have helped him to escape the gallows. (Alternatively, such clarification might have served the legal process by enabling the judges to have no doubt he should be hanged, in which case, a unanimous decsion would have ensured.)  

Indeed, the dissenting judges were of the view that it would be unsafe to sentence him to death, given the uncertainties caused by the gaps in the factual matrix, and that the offender should be given the benefit of doubt. Unfortunately, the majority of the Court of Appeal were prepared to sentence him to death despite the gaps in the factual matrix.

No unanimity within the Court of Appeal

Under the law, the death sentence may be carried out so long as a majority of the judges of the Court so decides. The death penalty is the ultimate punishment from which there is no turning back. The decision to execute must be very certain. But in Jabing's case, the five judges did not agree amongst themselves. The decision was split 3 - 2.  Notwithstanding the law, it is difficult to accept that Jabing should hang when two of the five sentencing judges did not think so. 

Current Status: 

On 19 October 2015, Jabing's clemency petition was rejected by the President, on the advice of the Cabinet. On 5 November 2015, Jabing was granted a temporary stay of execution to allow for the consideration of last-minute legal challenges. The hearing of the criminal motion is fixed for 23 November 2015. 

Sign the Petition