Please do not mock the God you profess to worship

Did you see this article in today’s Straits Times? It’s an abridged version of the full report in the Los Angeles Times.

“A cathedral is an odd place for a coming-out party”, began the article. “But not, as it turns out, if you are a former prime minister of Britain and you are preparing to tell the world that God was one of your senior advisors during your 10 years in power.”

I say the house of God is indeed a strange place to mock the God you profess to worship. Just look at this line from the ST report:


“Mr Blair’s aides have long said that his policies on intervention in Iraq, Kosovo and Sierra Leone were motivated not by practicalities or, even in the case of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, fear of weapons of mass destruction so much as a profound sense that they were the “right” things to do.”

This gives the impression that Tony Blair had some kind of divine mandate to invade Iraq. Did your ‘advisor’ tell you to go along with that ‘worse than fierce tiger’ war monger, to invade Iraq under the pretext of getting rid of weapons of mass destruction; knowing full well that Saddam Hussein did not have such weapons?

Did your advisor tell you to ‘sex up’ a dossier on Iraq's weapons capability in order to justify this war which led to death and misery for thousands; when UN inspectors have declared repeatedly that they found no evidence that Iraq had any such weapons?

Did He tell you to switch from a war to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction to a ‘war on terror’ after you could not find any ‘smoking gun’; again despite having no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists?

The report also said;

“In secular Europe, where religiosity tends to be viewed with suspicion, Mr Blair said he kept his belief long under wraps for fear of being dismissed as a “nutter”.

“In our culture, to admit to having faith leads to a whole series of suppositions, none of which are very helpful to the practicing politician.”

Didn’t your advisor tell you about this stern warning which Jesus Christ issued in Gospel of Matthew, (chapter 10: 32, 33)

“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

The minister should resign

In his speech to parliament last Monday concerning the escape of suspected JI terrorist Mas Selamat, DPM Wong Kan Seng said;

“A window that should have been grilled but was not; guards who should have maintained line of sight of the detainee …….. – these all point to a slackening in internal vigilance and supervision. Complacency for whatever reason, be it fatigue given the protracted security operations by ISD since 2001 or routinisation over time, had crept in the operating culture at WRDC.”

Personally, I am rather disappointed that the Committee of Inquiry into the Mas Selamat escape only looked at the simple matters like the physical lapses (the famous ungrilled window, the low fences etc), the human lapses (the guards’ negligence etc) and did not probe deeper into the “whatever reason(s)” mentioned by the minister.

DPM Wong says that complacency crept into the operating culture of the WRDC? I don’t think organizations per se can become complacent. It is the people running these organizations that become complacent and I would like to offer some reasons for how this could have happened.

1) Young men with brilliant academic qualifications but little front line experience are put in charge of huge complex organizations. Such leaders are good in strategic planning but tend to underestimate the importance of operational details. They are easily lulled into thinking that everything is fine in the front lines.

2) Leaders have been over-praised by other leaders who over-praise themselves. Even when things go wrong, they continue to pat themselves on the back. They should learn to be humble.

3) Leaders accept accolades for achievements but refuse to take the blame when things go wrong. Only frontline managers are disciplined for disasters in the organisation. This results in low morale of the staff in the lower rungs of the organisation.

4) They earn astronomical salaries and still tell themselves they could be earning even more if they were working in the private sector.

I did a search on Googe on the topic Organisational Culture and Leadership and found that most management gurus assign a strong link between the two. As such I think the leaders, starting with the DPM Wong Kan Seng should accept the responsibility for the complacency that had ‘crept into the culture’ as he put it, and resign.

I am reminded of the movie Titanic. The main reason for the disaster was the complacency of the captain and his crew. As such when the ship sank, he refused to be rescued and chose to go down with it. Likewise, DPM Wong should resign to accept responsibility for the failure of his ministry.

And if all the above is not sufficient reason for the minister to resign, another one just surfaced on today’s front page of the Straits Times. An accident involving a school mini-bus resulted in one kid being killed and another seriously injured. How often have you seen these mini-buses and vans, carrying young children without seat belts speeding recklessly through our housing estates and wondered to yourself, “Where are our traffic police when we need them?” Likewise, how often have you seen lorries overtaking buses overtaking other lorries on our busy expressways and asked yourself the same question. At such times, I ask myself; "Aren't our leaders drivers too?" (to borrow a line from a petrol advertisement).

Public responsibility

When Parliament seats on Monday, Singaporeans will get answers to many of the questions about the Mas Selamat escape; so says a report in Today.



Members of parliament have filed several questions. But looking at the questions, we can clearly see that the opposition MPs are only interested in pointing fingers and apportioning blame. Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir) for example, wants to know how the escape occurred. Low Thia Kiang (Hougang) asks for an update on the manhunt, the estimated expenditure on it and whether investor confidence and Singapore’s reputation have been affected. And non-constituency MP, Sylvia Lim’s question is downright mischievous. She wants the PM to explain the Government’s approach to taking responsibility for such major lapses.

The PAP MP, Mr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang), chair of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law, on the other hand is much more responsible. He is not interested in pointing fingers. He is more concerned with bigger issues like how to ease traffic congestion at the land checkpoints. Above all, he wants the PM to address the vital issue of public responsibility. Dr Teo said: “Hopefully he will touch on the idea that public responsibility is important. The Government could not be responsibility for everything.”

How magnanimous. How noble. I am almost moved to tears.

The answer to Ms Lim’s irresponsible question is obvious isn’t it? In fact, simply looking at the noble PAP MP’s questions will give you the answer.

First of all, let me tell you who is NOT responsible. The government is not responsible; at least not the ministers and top civil servants. Just look at all the past disasters that happened in Singapore. Was the minister or the perm sec of the National Development ministry responsible for the Nicoll Highway collapse of April 2004? Was the minister for defence or the army chief responsible for the ‘accidental drowning’ of 2SG Hu Enhuai 2003?

Who then is responsible? Answer: the Singaporean public. Their bo-chap attitude of leaving everything to the government is responsible not only for the escape of Mas Selamat, but also for his ability to evade capture for two whole months. How is it possible for one man to escape the huge dragnet put up by our army and police on such a tiny island? Obviously he must have help from many friends. If the public had been more vigilant, these friends would have been identified and apprehended long ago.

My answer to Singaporeans is this. Ask not what your government can do for you; but ask what have you been doing for the government.


Related post.

Badawi is only 20% to blame

One of the happiest persons in Malaysia today must be Mahathir Mohammed. He could not wait to call a press conference to condemn his successor Abdullah Badawi for the dismal performance of the Barisan Nasional at last Saturday’s general elections. Looking like a delighted kid who has just received his favourite toy, he gleefully pointed out that since Badawi had been given 100% credit for BN’s outstanding performance at the last election in 2004, he should now shoulder 100% of the blame.

I would disagree with that assessment. I think Badawi should only receive 20% of the credit in 2004 and 20% of the blame this time. In both occasions, 80% of the creditor/blame goes to Mahathir. Why do I say that?

Ask yourself. What is the main cause of BN’s poor performance? The newspapers have gone into great detail on that. In a nutshell, the people are fed up with the BN’s mismanagement and wanted change. And this desire for change was already very strong in 2004. Hence they were hopeful that Badawi, being quite different in character and temperament from Dr M would bring about that change. Unfortunately they were disappointed. And so now, they are willing to give the opposition a try.

Let’s take a closer look at just a couple of these causes of discontent among Malaysians.

1) Corruption, nepotism and money politics. Did these come about only during the past four years under Badawi’s leadership? Obviously not. They flourished during the Mahathir era. Remember that famous Lingam video? Who was PM at that time? Badawi’s failure was only his inability to deliver on his promises to solve these deep-rooted problems. So I ask you - can Badawi take 100% of the ‘credit’?

2) Marginalization of the Chinese and Indians arising from the NEP (New Economic Policies) which led to exodus of large numbers of talented Chinese and Indians. Again did this arise during Badawi’s term?

3) Crime and social problems. Remember the time when Lee Kuan Yew caused an uproar in the Malaysian papers when he commented that Johor Bahru was crime-infested? Was that during Badawi’s or Mahathir’s rule?

4) Finally, there is the so-called Anwar factor. This one is fact is 100% caused by Mahathir’s petty feud with his apparent successor. Badawi was simply the innocent bystander. His only fault is that he was not as ruthless as his predecessor in finishing off Anwar by dishonest means.

The above are just a few of the many problems that caused the ‘defeat’ of BN. All these problems were deeply entrenched when Badawi took over the reigns from Mahathir. As I said before, here:

冰冻三尺 非一日之寒; or A three –feet layer of ice did not result from a single day of chill.

Conclusion: Mahathir should not be so quick to point fingers at his successor. You know what they say about pointing fingers. One finger is pointed at Badawi, 4 are pointed at himself. That’s why I say Badawi is only 20% to blame.

As an aside, I think the opposition should thank Mahathir for their victories. Just imagine. If Dr M hadn’t so ruthlessly dealt with his previous deputy, would today’s results be possible. If Anwar had succeeded Dr M, he certainly would have continued the BN’s policies; only he wouldn’t be as easy to handle as Badawi. As it turns out, Anwar is now forced to work with the opposition parties and court the Chinese and Indian voters, and win over some disgruntled Malays.

A final word caution to my Chinese and Indian friends – watch Anwar carefully. There is a Cantonese saying; kor kew chou pan. After crossing the bridge, remove the plank.

My Top 5 Gahmen Boo Boos

I have always had strong faith in the effectiveness of our government. I have always felt proud when I hear foreigners sing praises of how well Singapore is governed (Example here). I even support, in principle at least, the high salaries of our top civil servants and ministers.

But lately, that faith has been shaken by some events which I never expect to happen in a small and first-world country like ours.

1) The drowning of 2SG Hu Enhuai during so-called Combat Survival Training in August, 2003. (Tortured to death would be a more accurate description)

2) The Nicoll Highway Collapse of April 2004.

3) The NKF (National Kidney Foundation) fiasco of 2005.

4) The great Budget Surplus of 2007. After forecasting a deficit $0.7 billion and increasing the GST by 2% points, they tell us we actually had a surplus of $6.47 billion.

5) ‘The Great Escape’ of the suspected Jemaah Islamiah terrorist, Mas Selamat Kastari from police custody yesterday.



Which would you vote as the biggest blunder of all?

I would vote No. 2 because human lives were lost and destroyed; and ample signs of the impending disaster were ignored by those in charge.

But No.1 is the one that makes me most angry because of the sheer negligence and arrogance of the leaders involved.

Thus I am deeply disappointed to read remarks like these being made in parliament a couple of days ago.


“It is this far-sightedness and prudence, as well as the many timely and astute policies implemented, that have played a major role in bringing about such a large surplus.” Hong Kah MP Amy Khor

Wrong move

It was reported yesterday that former US President Bush has endorsed John McCain as the Republican Party's nominee for the next US president. McCain was apparently quite happy.


After Bush spoke, McCain said that his endorsement would "help me enormously in the process of uniting our party and moving forward." (CNN)

I wouldn’t be so happy if I were McCain. Right now Americans are sick to the core with the mess created by Bush Junior during his 7 years in office. They are desperately looking for change. Thus anyone who wants to be the next president should be fleeing in the opposite direction from anything to do with the ‘worse than fierce tiger.

In Singapore we had a similar situation in the last election. The PAP was desperate to win over Potong Pasir from Chiam See Tong. And so they brought in the big gun – or so they thought, in the person of former prime minister Goh Chok Tong to endorse their candidate, whose name I cannot even recall. Goh Chok Tong even threw in lots of goodies in the form of lift upgrading and that sort of stuff to entice Potong Pasir voters, assuming that Singaporean are kiasu and cannot resist goodies.

PAP as we know, lost, and I doubt Potong Pasir residents ever saw Goh Chok Tong again.

Oops we did it again!

The last time they arrested a Christian couple from America for ‘close proximity’.

This time they want to keep the body of a Chinese who had already converted to Christianity. Apparently she had consulted a Malay Muslim faith healer who tried to convert her to Islam.

I wonder if they are big fans of Britney Spears.

UMNO Leaders not sensitive

Many UMNO leaders were fond of accusing people of other races and religions of being ‘insensitive’. This was especially so during the Mahathir era when Singapore leaders and newspapers were frequently taken to task for the supposedly 'insensitive' comments they made or printed.

But judging from some of the news coming from up north, I would say that the UMNO leaders themselves are guilty of being insensitive. Let’s take the latest controversy on the use of the word ‘Allah’ for God in the Malay Bible. (By the way, I wonder if Malaysian Muslims know that the Bible has been around for a much longer time than the Quran)

Mr Abdullah Zin, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, and de facto minister for Islamic affairs, told reporters on Thursday that the Cabinet is of the view that "Allah" refers to the Muslim God and can only be used by Muslims, who comprise about 60 percent of Malaysia's population. He said:

"The use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims may arouse sensitivity and create confusion among Muslims in the country,"

I think the minister could have been more sensitive and said this instead:

"Non-Muslims should not use the word 'Allah' because it may create confusion among non-Malays everywhere."

Most non-Malays like me tend to associate the word Allah with Islam.