in defence of Chen Show Mao's speech

I interrupt my regular programming of not giving a shit about this blog to bring you this brief counter-argument to disapproving reactions to MP Chen Show Mao's maiden parliamentary speech.

Among the seventy-odd speeches made during the week-long session, it was Chen's speech, with its erudite Mandarin and obscure Chinese analogies, that stood out above the rest. It invited several retorts from PAP MPs, raised eyebrows among observers, and got people poring through their history books to figure out if there was more to his analogy.

It also invited several disapprovals, some from minorities, who found the choice of language and analogies offensive.

Against the backdrop of a tsunami of mainland Chinese immigrants, an entirely justified perception that the government is bending over backwards to attract mainland Chinese money and attention, and the combined effect these two trends have on minorities, I share the same such concerns, really.

But these disapproving reactions got me thinking. And I could not but conclude even more strongly that his speech was an excellent piece of political oratory.

MP Chen Show Mao's full speech, followed by 

MP Teo Ho Pin's retort for comic contrast

To begin with, I read his choice of analogies and quotes differently. The point of his speech was to affirm his support for political pluralism and a tolerance of dissent and diversity, and to implore Singaporeans and the government to embrace these principles for the betterment of the country.

It seemed obvious then that sweeping appeals to classical Confucian texts, modern Chinese historical figures, and, of course, Tang Dynasty history, was a deliberate strategy of framing the argument. By appealing to the authority of classical Chinese civilisation, rather than to so-called "Western" human rights and liberal democracy, to substantiate his support for pluralism and loyal dissent, he effectively precluded the PAP from attacking him on the basis of cultural relativism.

I remember a time not too long ago when founding PM Lee Kuan Yew, self-appointed Confucian philosopher-king, stood up in Parliament and poo-pooed multi-party liberal democracy as a "highfalutin" idea. For all his possible contempt for political liberalism and pluralism in Singapore, Lee, who was an outspoken apologist for "Asian values" in the nineties (along with former Malaysian PM Mahathir Mohamad), could not possible attack Chen's speech on the basis that such political traditions or values are alien to "Asian culture".

Chen's Mandarin speech is therefore a subtle attack against an argument long propagated by the PAP -- that political pluralism, a tolerance of diversity, and freedom of dissent are foreign/Western imports inimical to Asian societies. This is an argument whose prestige has ridden on the coat-tails of Lee's prestige himself, but whose intellectual foundations are flimsier than Tin Pei Ling's street cred.

And I would believe any day that Chen, who has demonstrated an ecumenical predisposition in his intellect so far, is less of an opportunistic pseudo-Sinophile than any of the top-ranking PAP leaders. The bottom line: between an impassioned argument for humane values delivered in Mandarin, and half-wit rhetoric on "Asian values" (or on the politically-correct historical lessons of Sun Yat-sen's revolutionary legacy as applied to Singaporeans and Singaporean history, for the matter), I'd easily choose the former.

Let's not forget that his speech was technically a bilingual, not a Mandarin one. He spoke in both languages. The preceding English section drove home the same arguments, but employed completely different analogies and quotations. The words of former Foreign Minister George Yeo and Pope John Paul II were put at the service of affirming political diversity and pluralism. Surely more effective than simply translating his Tang Taizong analogy into English.

This MP is a man to watch, though he's still largely an unknown quantity. Or perhaps precisely because of that. If his party's successes continue unabated, he may be destined for a greater role in the political tapestry of Singapore. If he descends into obscurity, he won't be the first opposition politician of seemingly scholarly credentials to have sunk, along with his political fortunes, the hopes of so many Singaporeans eager for positive change.