The Yaw Saga

Today I read one such article in Straits Times:

WP 'had absolutely no idea of Yaw's alleged affairs'In letter, Low refutes criticism that expulsion was hasty and careless
By Andrea Ong & Kor Kian Beng 

WORKERS' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang has made clear that he and the party's election committee had 'absolutely no idea' of the alleged extramarital affairs of sacked member Yaw Shin Leong when they decided to field him as a candidate in last May's General Election.
'Even though I was familiar with Yaw Shin Leong's background and I have met his family and attended his two wedding ceremonies, I have no way and no authority to inspect his private matters and personal life.
'I am a Member of Parliament, not a private investigator!' Mr Low said in a letter to Chinese daily Lianhe Zaobao yesterday.
He added: 'Mr Ho Kah Leong said I should take responsibility for the Yaw Shin Leong saga. May I ask how I should take responsibility?'
Mr Low was replying to the former People's Action Party MP, who had criticised the WP's conduct in the matter.
Mr Ho, a former senior parliamentary secretary, said in a letter to Lianhe Zaobao three days ago, that he found it hard to believe Mr Low had not known anything about Mr Yaw's personal life and family.
He questioned if the WP had stringent selection criteria for its candidates and called on Mr Low to take responsibility.
Replying, Mr Low said that even though he had worked with Mr Yaw for many years, he and the committee that pick election candidates had no idea of the allegations until the media reports emerged last month.
Mr Low's statement is the strongest denial yet that the WP leaders knew of the alleged indiscretions of the Hougang MP, who has reportedly left the country. Sources said he was in Vietnam last Friday.
At a media conference last Wednesday announcing Mr Yaw's expulsion, party chairman Sylvia Lim said queries from the media on the allegations were 'the first time that we were aware the media was looking into this matter'.
In his letter yesterday, Mr Low also rebutted Mr Ho on several other points.
He said his relationship with Mr Yaw had been that of working colleagues, not the 'master-apprentice' tie described by Mr Ho. Mr Yaw succeeded Mr Low in Hougang, where the opposition veteran was MP for 20 years.
Mr Low also refuted Mr Ho's criticism that the expulsion seemed hasty and careless. Mr Yaw should have been given a chance to defend himself, Mr Ho said.
Mr Low argued that about a month had lapsed between the first media reports on the allegations and the sacking.
'From start to finish, Yaw Shin Leong did not step forward to state his stand, and refused to explain himself to the executive council,' wrote Mr Low. The WP then 'had no choice but to expel him'.
Finally, he took issue with Mr Ho's charge that the WP was abusing the democratic system by calling for a by-election - which requires a lot of public resources - to uphold the party's image.
Mr Low said the WP expelled Mr Yaw 'because he was irresponsible and had lost the public's trust'.
He also said that in 1992, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong had on his own accord resigned as an MP, triggering a by-election in Marine Parade GRC just one year after the 1991 General Election.
In the 1991 election campaign, Mr Goh had promised to hold a by-election in 18 months because, among other things, he wanted to bring new talent into the party and Government.
Current Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean was the newcomer in the by-election slate.
In a separate development, Ms Lim confirmed that Mr Yaw's grassroots arm in Hougang is being re-organised for a leadership reshuffle.
Two WP executive council members have been added to the Hougang Constituency Committee to beef up its ranks.
They are deputy webmaster Png Eng Huat, 50, who contested in East Coast GRC last year, and organising secretary Ng Swee Bee, 31.
Their appointment has sparked talk that either could be fielded in the Hougang by-election.
When asked, Ms Lim said: 'I'm not answering that question.'

Then I read in another article on Facebook that the scandal supposedly emerged before GE2012. This intrigued me a little bit to find out that perhaps the storm was already waiting at the peripheral since before the decisive election. Then of course this begged the question, actually a lot of questions.

Firstly, why is it that Low Thia Khiang at this point in time start to deny the 'master-apprentice' relationship between him and Yaw when that impression has been allowed to simmer in public opinion for so long. I can still remember the day Yaw won the seat in Hougang and what did Low say? Anyone still remember? I guess that statement summed up a lot about their relationship and helped forge public opinion about their relationship. The best part is that they repeated their changing stance method as they did during the debate on ministerial pay, as if to tell us that they can change stance for all they like but they will be above reproach, unlike the PAP. Changing stance from supporting Yaw (or appearing to stand behind him) to expelling him and now claiming that they don't know anything about his private life.

Secondly, why wasn't anything surfaced when the first sign of scandal emerged and why did WP choose to keep it quiet? All in the name of winning and retaining the seat in Hougang? Then of course why act now? Is it because it has become untenable for the incumbents to remain 'innocent' without distancing themselves from Yaw?

Thirdly, is there a power struggle ongoing within WP itself? A seemingly cohesive opposition party (perhaps the only one in Singapore electoral history since the Barisan Socialis) is crumbling within its ranks?

I think perhaps out of the whole incident, Yaw is the most pitiful character here. True enough, if the allegations are true, he will have to bear responsibility for his actions, especially when he is a public figure. There is no escaping from it (although he seems to be running away as I see it now). But upon the unveiling of this scandal, people started to emerge to talk about how irresponsible he has been, the character flaws that he has displayed and the number of affairs that he has engaged in, which lead me to think 'why now'. It almost seems to me that this becomes a coordinated effort by his ex-friends to discredit him and to distance themselves away from them.

It may be true that WP deems it necessary to expel Yaw due to his conducts. However, the fact remains that this decision came after the declaration to support him from within the party ranks. This came after the 'lou hei' party that they had before the Great Expulsion. WP does have a valid reason to expel him but WP's change of stance and apparent distancing from their involvement in Yaw's private life remains questionable. I find it hard to believe that Low does not know anything about his private life after attending his two wedding ceremonies.

That of course will be true if Low is in the first place not interested in Yaw's life and only interested in using Yaw to fulfill his own political agenda. This is all speculation but evidence may seem to point analysts towards that direction.

Conclusion? I think the nation will decide one day how to make sense of this incident and it will be intriguing to see how the WP come back from this. The political development from now on will prove interesting.

And of course it will get more exciting if Tan Jee Say decides to contest in Hougang.

Where is thy baseline?

I have been thinking of doing this post for a while but not really sure where to start. But might as well start somewhere.

It is about the kind of standards that we should set for ourselves as Christ followers. Take an analogy, in all sectors that have to be regulated by the government or some government agencies, there's always a set of laws and statutes that govern the regulation and set the minimum standards for the sectors. Very often, this set of standards is the very bare minimum the sectors will be allowed for in order to guarantee societal safety, personal safety, work safety and other many reasons. In some sectors, the minimum is so minimal that you sometimes wonder why regulate in the first place.

For the average Christ follower, we do not have a set of laws to regulate the kind of standards we should be having. This is true in the sense that firstly, we do not live in the OT era anymore, and secondly, the church cannot fine us for failing to meet any standards (at least that's the case in Singapore). A lot of times, our standards, therefore, remain at John 1:12, that we believe and receive God's Son, Jesus , and thus become part of God's family. It stops at there. But honestly, I refused to believe that it should stop at there and I have many reasons to believe why it should not stop at there.

Firstly, if we call ourselves a Christ follower, then the bible actually does not allow us to remain our standards at a low baseline. By baseline, before I carry on, I really mean that minimum standards that we should display in our Christian life. At low baseline, I mean stopping at John 1:12 and John 3:16. Yet, Jesus clearly outlined a higher standard than that. In Luke 9:23, a very famous verse for us, He mentioned that whoever wants to be His disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow Him. Such harsh standards. A few verses later, in our NIV bible, it's subtitled 'The cost of following Jesus', He said to the people that foxes have dens and birds have nests but the Son of Man has no place to lay His heads. By this, I'm taking that He means that following Him will not be as comfortable as some will make it to be.

Secondly, Christ's disciples declare a higher standard than John 3:16. Take Paul for example. Acts 20:24 sums it very nicely, that he considered his life worth nothing except to run the race and complete the task that Jesus has given him, that is to testify the gospel of His grace. Apparently, he is not expecting to be comfortable and remain hidden in one comfort zone as well.

There are many more examples which I do not have time now to explore to that greater extent.

But it remains appalling to me that for us as Christ followers, we are willing to settle for something less than what God has desired for us. I am not saying that God does not want us to live comfortably, which in this case, it is a question of what is God's direction for our lives, but I am talking about the broad standards that we can find in the bible. I once talked to a sister who was saying that I cannot expect to impose the same standard on everybody assuming God is fair to everybody. I almost lashed it out on that sister but decided to restrain myself. Yet, I was really appalled that someone who is serving the Lord actively can come to me with such remarks. It is not about imposing my own standard on others, but if that standard is being stipulated in the bible and I co-opt it onto my own life, then it is really that I am encouraging people to build their life upon the standards that I have built my life upon. It is for people to be willing to be challenged to move out of their own little world and not be self-centred and not be self-contained within their worries and such.

If there is one thing that Christ followers have to know, I believe that us receiving Jesus is not the end, but the beginning. Jesus did say that we need to show the fruits of our salvation. It cannot be the case that we have received Christ (which together received His victory) and yet continue to live life the same as we have lived before. It cannot thus be logical that the only change in our life upon receiving Christ is just that the group of people we hang out with changed and we have one more item on our weekend schedule. If so, then it thus becomes a cliche when we say the old has gone and the new has come.

My point for this post is this: that we need to rethink if we are willing to settle for a low baseline? Is a high baseline for our Christian life a man-conjured one or a divinely derived one? How then should we really be living our lives?

I think Christ followers ought to give these questions serious thought.

The dialectic of the Organised Religions

There was this article which was published on Straits Times on 4 Feb 2012 written by David Brooks:

A FEW weeks ago, a 22-year-old man named Jefferson Bethke produced a video called 'Why I hate religion, but love Jesus'. The video shows him standing in a courtyard rhyming about the purity of the teachings of Jesus and the hypocrisy of the church. Jesus preaches healing, surrender and love, he argues, but religion is rigid, phoney and stale. 'Jesus came to abolish religion,' he insists. 'Religion puts you in bondage but Jesus sets you free.'

The video went viral. As of Thursday, it had acquired more than 18 million hits on YouTube. It speaks for many young believers who feel close to God but not to the church. It represents the passionate voice of those who think their institutions lack integrity - not just the religious ones but the political and corporate ones, too.

Right away, many older theologians began critiquing Mr Bethke's statements. Blogger Kevin DeYoung pointed out, for example, that it is biblically inaccurate to say that Jesus hated religion. In fact, Jesus preached a religious doctrine, prescribed rituals and worshipped in a temple.

Mr Bethke responded in a way that was humble, earnest and gracious, and that generally spoke well of his character. He also basically folded.

'I wanted to say I really appreciate your article man,' Mr Bethke wrote to MrDeYoung in an online exchange. 'It hit me hard. I'll even be honest and say I agree 100 per cent.'

Mr Bethke watched a panel discussion in which some theologians lamented young people's disdain of organised religion. 'Right when I heard that,' he told The Christian Post, 'It just convicted me, and God used it as one of those Spirit moments where it's just, 'Man, he's right.' I realised a lot of my views and treatments of the church were not scripture-based; they were very experience-based.'

Mr Bethke's passionate polemic and subsequent retreat are symptomatic of a lot of the protest cries we hear these days. This seems to be a moment when many people - in religion, economics and politics - are disgusted by current institutions, but then they are vague about what sorts of institutions should replace them.

This seems to be a moment of fervent protest movements that are ultimately vague and ineffectual.

We can all theorise why the intense desire for change has so far produced relatively few coherent recipes for change. Maybe people today are simply too deferential. Raised to get college recommendations, maybe they lack the oppositional mentality necessary for revolt. Maybe people are too distracted.

My own theory revolves around a single bad idea. For generations, people have been told: Think for yourself; come up with your own independent world view. Unless your name is Nietzsche, that's probably a bad idea. Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous world view.

If you go out there armed only with your own observations and sentiments, you will surely find yourself on very weak ground. You'll lack the arguments, convictions and the coherent view of reality that you'll need when challenged by a self-confident opposition. This is more or less what happened to Mr Bethke.

The paradox of reform movements is that, if you want to defy authority, you probably shouldn't think entirely for yourself. You should attach yourself to a counter-tradition and school of thought that has been developed over the centuries and that seems true.

The old leftists had dialectical materialism and the Marxist view of history. Libertarians have Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Various spiritual movements have drawn from Transcendentalism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Thomism, Augustine, Tolstoy or the Catholic social teaching that inspired Dorothy Day.

These belief systems helped people envision alternate realities. They helped people explain why the things society values are not the things that should be valued. They gave movements a set of organising principles. Joining a tradition doesn't mean suppressing your individuality. Applying an ancient tradition to a new situation is a creative, stimulating and empowering act. Without a tradition, everything is impermanence and flux.

Most professors would like their students to be more rebellious and argumentative. But rebellion without a rigorous alternative vision is just a feeble spasm.

If I could offer advice to a young rebel, it would be to rummage the past for a body of thought that helps you understand and address the shortcomings you see. Give yourself a label. If your college hasn't provided you with a good knowledge of counter-cultural viewpoints - ranging from Thoreau to Maritain - then your college has failed you and you should try to remedy that ignorance.

Effective rebellion isn't just expressing your personal feelings. It means replacing one set of authorities and institutions with a better set of authorities and institutions. The authorities and institutions don't repress the passions of the heart, the way some young people now suppose. They give them focus and a means to turn passion into change.

NEW YORK TIMES

This is an interesting article as I would never thought that someone would allow an article on organised religion to be published on Straits Times. My prejudices may be unfounded perhaps but that's not really the point why I am commenting on the article. The reason is cos David Brooks mentioned something very interesting:

 Very few people have the genius or time to come up with a comprehensive and rigorous world view.

Indeed, very few people have the genius or time to conjure their own worldview. But that really does not stop people from conjuring their own worldview by mixing and matching ideas from different religions - be it buddhism, hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or even New Age. I have not seen it really happening in Singapore other than people who propagate Yi-Guang Dao, a Taoistic syncretic religion that tries to enfold all religious doctrines in the light of Taoist philosophy, but from what I have read so far in apologetic literature, it seems that people are mixing and matching different aspects of different religions to form their own belief systems, never mind the logical contradictions which may result in the end.

But yet, human-conceived ideologies will always be riddled with internal and external inconsistencies. Ravi Zacharias has famously outlined a simple test for any worldviews: internal consistency, external consistency and experiential relevance. A worldview cannot be coherent if it is contradicting within itself. A house that is divided within itself will surely fall. Logically speaking, how can a worldview be divided among itself if it is to guide someone in their life? It's like the law telling you in one section that murder is wrong and the other section telling you that murder is ok. That is one reason why critics of the Bible have been trying to point out the 'internal incoherence' of the biblical writers (in most cases thus showing their ignorance about the bible).  Likewise, even an internally coherent worldview has to be corroborated by its external environment. The evidence we see in the world must be coherent with what the worldview teaches. And of course, the worldview must make sense and be livable. That is why atheism, lived to its logical conclusion, is unlivable and thus atheists become incoherent in their worldview and have to somehow argue that an atheistic lifestyle can still be meaningful.

Apologetically speaking, I have reached the conclusion that Christianity will remain the most coherent worldview in the market so far, corroborated by its internal consistency, external corroboration of science and history, and its experiential relevance. It is so because we know of one thing, we are not believing in some man-made myths but the historical resurrection of Jesus the Son of God and the Christ. It is not an ideology that is being conceived by man, or rather a few dozen of men who lived through a period of a few centuries.

Therefore, David Brooks is right when he says that very few people have the genius to come up with a comprehensive or rigorous world view but only One Person has the ability to come up with a coherent worldview which is able to address the question of origin, meaning, morality and destiny and yet be able to withstand its attack and critiques.