Sometimes I read statements like the following with some amusement (see below):

Did Mr Siew meant this as a joke? From what I gather through a simple search on Google, AWARE broke its silence on a homosexual issue for the first time in 2007, when it said it supported the repeal of Section 377A. As an NMP, Siew Kum Hong presented a petition to repeal Section 377A of the Singapore Penal Code in Parliament. It is clear AWARE shares Mr Siew’s opinion (or vice versa) on HBT (Homsexual, Bisexual & Transgendered) issues. On top of that, from the chatter one can gather on blogosphere and in extension the Internet, the Josie Lau ExCo’s stand on HBT issues and alleged lack of inclusiveness and tolerance, is also one of the reasons why AWARE held an EGM on May 2nd, which led to its overthrow.

Now, with Siew so closely identified with championing for the HBT, he expects people to make the distinction that his involvement with AWARE is in his personal capacity and not as an NMP? It is even more surprising that Siew failed to see there was never the issue of right or wrong in his participation, but the possibility of his participation being used by some to mislead others into believing that an NMP has expressed explicit support, in spite of his declaration otherwise.

Does Mr Siew need to be reminded that when Chan Soo Sen, a former Minister of Education was invited as a guest-of-honour at a dubious university’s convocation, he got a lot of flak? Other than a lack of diligence on Chan’s part to check up on the background of the university, one of the main gripes of the public is that he failed to see how his position as an ex-Minister of Education would lend credibility to this university and his presence would suggest to the general public that he endorses it. Comprendez, Mr Siew?

Next, let me move on to explaining how it is usually impossible to make the distinction between what is in one’s personal capacity, and in the capacity of one’s office. Take for example the Lewinsky Scandal, where Monica Lewinsky allegedly gave Bill Clinton a ‘blow job’ (oral sex for the really pure and innocent) in the Oval Office while he was on the phone with with a Congressman. Assuming Clinton was speaking to the Congressman as President of the U.S., in which capacity was he receiving the blow job then? Can you imagine the mouth that was talking to the Congressmen was in the capacity as President while ‘Little Bill’ below was getting some serious ‘attention’ in Bill Clinton’s personal capacity? Now I understand why Bill Clinton dare to say “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!”. He obviously didn’t, in his capacity as the President.

Next, consider this: whenever the name of our respected Minister Mentor (MM) is invoked, do most people think of him as just a simple respectable elderly man, or as an elder statesman from Singapore, Prime Minister of Singapore for a good 31 years who is instrumental in the success of modern Singapore, and Senior Minister when Goh Chok Tong was PM? If I am laying this a little too thick, then also consider this, when someone is asked who was the former patron of the NKF, which of these answer do you expect: Tan Choo Leng or simply, Senior Minister (SM) Goh’s wife? All of the people I asked gave the latter as the answer. But why? Did Madam Tan not served in her personal capacity as NKF’s patron? What has her capacity as the wife of our respected SM Goh got anything to do with it? Similarly, in 1999, Choo Wee Khiang resigned his Member of Parliament (MP) seat after facing court charges (for allegedly using falsified invoices to secure $1.83 million in loans in 1999). Was Choo not acting in some other capacity for the company facing those charges and not as an MP?

Now, the above examples, 2 positive and 1 negative are used for a simple illustration. The first two examples showed that ‘lesser mortals’ (as a Charles Chong would have called people like us) cannot see the distinction at all. And the last example reminds us that even though Choo has acted in whatever capacity other than an MP, he resigned as a matter of integrity because whatever action in the other capacity has tarnished the office of MP, and the political party he belongs to.

In other words, for Siew to justify that his participation in AWARE as being in his own capacity is quite spectacularly lame. (Granted, that it was the most politically correct thing to say, as that would indicate the decision not to reappoint him was unbiased.) After all, I have shown that the first thing that always comes to mind is always that of the person’s office, or his relation to some famous and important person and never just his ‘personal capacity’.

If I were in his shoes, I will start doing some recollections, such as when I started participating in AWARE – before or after I was nominated an NMP? If the answers is the latter, then I must ask myself whether I seek them out or the other way round. If the answer is again the latter, then there is much to ponder about the implications. That’s not mentioning that I will be asking myself just what is so outstanding about me, among the thousands of lawyers out there in Singapore, that AWARE welcomed / desired my participation. In fact, if my profession as a lawyer isn’t what AWARE seek, then what is so special about me compared to any Tom, Dick or Harry out there?

Simply put, it is my considered opinion that it is naive for Siew to justify his participation in AWARE as being in his personal capacity regardless of his office he holds. If Siew cannot yet see that there is really no distinction whatsoever, then he should really refrain from participating further in any political activities, because he is opening himself up for attacks or what some would consider as ‘smearing’ by his opponents.

Funny Picture of the Day:

[Translation] Nabei!!! Weekend Burn!!! = Fxxk!!! Here goes my weekend!!!