Forum: Three ways in which Tharman presidency can have an impact

This article was published in The Straits Times on September 4, 2023.

By Viswa Sadasivan

Each Singapore president shapes the office in different ways within the framework of the Constitution.

In the case of Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the overwhelming mandate from the people lends him added cachet in putting his stamp on the presidency. This is key to his ability to influence change.

I see the Tharman presidency having an impact in three fundamental ways.

First, the formidable authority he would have when dealing with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, as well as the Council of Presidential Advisers. This comes from his domain knowledge, expertise and experience, especially in the management of reserves. Combined with his non-confrontational ability to make an argument and persuade, Mr Tharman as president is likely to have the power to influence, if he chooses to use this influence.

Second, this president will be perhaps the most dynamic projector of Singapore’s soft power. Mr Tharman’s international standing is already world-class. He is also highly liked personally and professionally. This formidable combination buttressed by the title of Head of State will likely get him a seat in the league of charismatic leaders.

The third and, perhaps, the most critical impact of the Tharman presidency would be in making Singaporeans regard less of race, language and religion. About 70 per cent of the electorate, which is 75 per cent ethnic Chinese, voted for an ethnic Indian candidate. For me, it is a landmark event. Surely, this must debunk the narrow assumption that Singaporeans vote primarily on racial lines.

This election proves that the Government has, indeed, succeeded in getting us to place meritocracy above other considerations. It must strengthen our faith that we can be one united people.

The resounding victory is a statement of our belief in Mr Tharman, and his presidency is an opportunity to go beyond excellence and strive for greatness and graciousness.

Forum: Fairer, gentler tone in Parliament augurs well for 4G leadership

This article was published in The Straits Times on April 29, 2023.

By Viswa Sadasivan

The last day of the parliamentary debate on the President’s Address was significant. The ruling party and the opposition chose a soft landing after five days of crossing swords (No place for populism, political opportunism in S’pore: DPM Wong, April 22).

It could easily have remained vitriolic with the parties digging in their heels. It would have been more entertaining.

Instead, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh chose to be conciliatory. They walked the talk by jointly rejecting “populism and political opportunism”.

To me, this is a departure from what we are used to seeing in parliamentary debates in Singapore and, indeed, elsewhere. Almost as a rule, the parties across the aisle reject what is said by the other side. Even when you can see that an argument is valid, there is no acknowledgment. There’s the Whip to enforce compliance. Members who raise contrary points often find themselves, instead of their argument, the target of counterattack.

This has led to a binary conduct: You are with me or against me, and for me to win, you must lose. Also, if you disagree, especially vehemently, you are being disagreeable.

I never quite understood why political discourse needs to be so adversarial and contentious. Am I unrealistic or naive in wanting to see greater conciliation and reconciliation?

Is listening with an open mind, and acknowledging, if not agreeing with, a point made by the other side a sign of weakness or magnanimous confidence? Can we not at least agree to disagree?

It has been said that politics is dirty and, by definition, adversarial and polemical. However, does it need to be? Singapore is known for its exceptionalism. We have seldom shied away from bucking the trend when we know it’s the right thing to do.

Let’s lead the change we want to see in the world. Let’s show it can be done.

I choose to see Mr Wong extending the olive branch and Mr Singh accepting it, albeit with qualifications, as signalling a positive shift in political discourse. It’s a fairer, gentler tone that augurs well for the 4G leadership. Indeed, it’s a style that speaks to the joint commitment to reject populism and political opportunism.

Let’s go easier on the hard-hitting, point-counter-point debates and have more conversations. In the best interest of Singaporeans, let’s listen more.

Winning battles, losing wars

By Viswa Sadasivan

The Washington Post characterized TikTok Chief Executive Chew Shou Zi as “soft-spoken,  earnest and temperate” during the 23 March US House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing. For me, it was a triumph for dignity and quiet confidence against an exhibition of mediocrity by a horde of arrogant legislators. The bullying was shameful.  

It was painful to watch amateurs with misplaced authority ridiculing an earnest executive significantly more intelligent than many of them. In the name of establishing the truth they were obscuring it. Their actions and tone were no better than what they were accusing TikTok, or the Chinese Communist Party, of. They didn’t allow Shou Zi freedom to express. He didn’t have rights. There was no accountability. It was uncivilised.  

How different is this from the McCarthyism of the 1950s condemned by Americans of all ages and colour? Regardless, episodes such as this do not help the already tarnished image and standing of the USA. In spite of its continuing good in many spheres, more of the world is seeing the USA as a bully with double standards.

To clarify, amidst the barrage of ill-informed, ridiculously articulated points, the US House representatives did bring up some worthy concerns. However, these got subjugated by the unreasonable demands placed on the CEO. For example, the chairperson of the committee asked a list of questions that would typically require lengthy responses. Yet, she demanded a “yes or no” answer. It was evident from the outset that the committee wasn’t interested in gaining understanding through an inquiry.  

The aim was to excoriate through an inquisition. It was to establish the master-slave protocol essentially to a hungry, angry American audience; to China, and to a lesser extent the rest of the world. Given the influence the USA wields it’s legitimising this brand of engagement across the world. It appears to be working. 

There’s a palpable increase in this sort of bullying. It’s all around us. Those with power are using it to dominate, muzzle or ridicule. They do it because they can. Instead of debating them, alternative perspectives are viewed as opposing perspectives that must be crushed. There’s often little regard for fairness and decency. Righteousness gives way to self-righteousness. 

Society is worse off in such a scenario. We don’t have the benefit of a contest of ideas where knowledge gained through informed perspectives can deepen insights. Instead, we have polemics that polarise. It’s a downward spiral. 

To be honest, I have my issues with some of the actions by China. I also have genuine concerns about TikTok, some of which were raised at the House committee hearing. Even though he handled the interrogation admirably, by any standard, the TikTok CEO was evasive when responding to some pertinent questions. I am not vindicating China or TikTok here. 

My point is essentially this. Nobody should feel entitled to brow beat, bully or wilfully smear another. We shouldn’t feel we can suspend decency because it’s expedient or simply because we can. We have a duty to speak up against belligerent, self-righteous behaviour especially by those who wield power. 

In a millennial-generation Z-dominated world there is growing disgust for brow beating and  bullying regardless of whether it is global or local. This can serve as an essential check on abuse of power. Unfortunately, this can also unleash counterforces that are disruptive and dismissive. Cancel culture is an example. It propagates a climate of fear. 

For those who abuse their power there must be an unequivocal message that there will be consequences. They must be made to see that there’s growing disdain for it. In many instances – regardless of merit - he who is bullied will emerge the champion, perhaps even a martyr. This can usher a different problem – populism and playing to the gallery. We can prevent this. What’s needed are robust yet reasoned debates. Better still, let’s have honest yet respectful conversations.  

We must do our part to make this a kinder, more gentle world.

Viswa Sadasivan [Former Nominated Member of Parliament, Singapore]

Forum: TikTok case shows growing disdain for bullying

This article was published in The Straits Times on April 1, 2023.

By Viswa Sadasivan

The Straits Times quoted the Washington Post describing TikTok chief executive Chew Shou Zi as “soft-spoken, earnest and temperate” at the March 23 US House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing (‘Earnest and temperate’: TikTok’s Singaporean CEO’s poise fails to sway sceptics in US Congress, March 25).

For me, it was a triumph for dignity and quiet confidence over an exhibition of mediocrity by ahorde of often ill-informed legislators. The bullying was shameful.

It was painful to watch those with misplaced authority ridiculing an earnest, intelligent executive. In the name of establishing the truth, they were obscuring it. Their actions and tone were no better than what they were accusing TikTok, and the Chinese Communist Party, of. They didn’t allow Mr Chew the freedom to express himself. It was uncivilised.

Episodes such as this do not help the already tarnished image and standing of the US. In spite of its continuing good work in many spheres, the US is being seen by more of the world as a bully with double standards.

What’s sad is that there’s a palpable increase in this sort of bullying. It’s all around us. Those with power are using it to dominate, muzzle or ridicule. They do it because they can. Alternative perspectives are viewed as opposing perspectives that must be crushed. There’s often little regard for fairness and decency.

Society is worse off in such a scenario. It doesn’t encourage a contest of ideas where knowledge gained through informed perspectives can deepen insight. Instead, we have polemics that polarise.

In a millennial-Generation Z dominated world, there is growing disdain for brow-beating and bullying. Often, he who is bullied will emerge the champion, perhaps even a martyr. This can lead to popularism. Nobody gains. What’s needed instead are robust yet reasoned debates.