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".
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
