That video on DPM Tharman & Trampolinegate

Hello everyone, every now and then I like to take on something I see in social media and challenge it. Today, I am going to take on a video about DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam (or Tharman for short, if you don't mind) of Singapore clearly created by his PAP supporters. The video is about 6 months old but still being shared on social media. Now it's not that I have a problem with him personally, I am treating this more as a discussion about how videos come across on social media and I am also putting on my PR hat because I see a huge difference in the way he comes across as a politician compared to his counterparts in the UK. So let's begin with this video I am talking about and be warned, they are heaping praises on Tharman - the video offers us five reasons why Tharman is loved by Singaporeans. I am not going to get into the PAP vs the opposition political discourse, I am just dealing more directly with the video which I clearly dislike: I have far more of an axe to grind with the idiot who put the video together than Tharman himself. Here's the video in question:

Reason 1: He is sharp and eloquent

Verdict: Yes he is but the video editor chose a terrible example. 

Now I am not challenging the fact that Tharman is very well educated and sharp. I have watched a number of Tharman's interviews, he certainly speaks very well and comes across as a fairly eloquent, intellectual politician. Compared to a lot of other Singaporean politicians who even struggle with expressing themselves in English at the best of times (remember the racist gaffe made by PAP MP Seng Han Thong whose broken English got him into big trouble?) so when the benchmark is so very low in Singapore, then yeah I would certainly credit him with being one of the most eloquent Singaporean politicians today. But when you compare him to other politicians from other countries like Obama or even the young Mhairi Black from Scotland, he is far from exceptional. He is above average at best even when you compare him to say bankers or lawyers in the West. I am a salesman and I know how important it is to sound eloquent, confident and convincing when delivering a sales pitch to an important client and I would give Tharman a 7/10 for his public speaking performance - it is a decent effort but there is still a lot of room for improvement in terms of his performance and delivery. And if Singaporeans love him for being somewhat above average, then you're a nation with very low standards. 

But wait, I do actually expect my politicians to be sharp and eloquent - even my boss expects me to be sharp and eloquent when dealing with my clients. I am aghast when I come inarticulate politicians who struggle to express themselves. Surely that should be a basic requirement, just like how we expect a bus driver to be pretty good at driving a bus or a French teacher to be able to speak French fluently at the very least. When I get the bus into town and the bus drops me off safe and sound at my destination on time, I would go as far as to say that I was satisfied that my journey was smooth and punctual but then again, why should I expect any less from the bus driver? Should I be thrilled, delighted or surprised that the bus I was on didn't crash into another vehicle or a tree on the short journey into town? Of course not, that is the least we expect when we do take a bus! Hence Tharman is rather good at public speaking and is able to conduct himself in an interview - he's not some primary school teacher or a bus driver, he's the deputy prime minister of Singapore for crying out aloud. With that job title, surely we have the right to have pretty high expectations of him and subject him to much, much higher standards (especially when Singaporean politicians are paid very handsomely for what they do). Can you imagine a country, any country, having a DPM who is inarticulate and struggles in most nterviews? Thus should Singaporeans adore and love Tharman for merely meeting some bare minimum standards? 

This reminds me of something I came across on Instagram recently: a friend of mine uploaded a short video of her daughter at a gymnastics competition. Clearly she was extremely proud of her daughter but I didn't want to respond to the video because I was not at all impressed by her daughter's performance. In fact, I was totally underwhelmed by the execution and the lack of difficulty in her daughter's routines. I would have expected a lot more from a gymnast of her age. But that when I realized that okay, my friend is clearly thrilled because that's the only daughter she has and whatever her daughter does is going to be amazing in her eyes - when you only have one child, you cherish whatever that child does no matter how mediocre or average it may be. It's not like my friend is ever going to stop loving her daughter if she turns out to be stupid or crap at sports, is she? By that token, are Singaporeans doing the same thing, Tharman's all you have: you're stuck with him, he's your DPM so you may as well love him, embrace him and cherish him the way my friend is loving her one and only daughter? Is this just another form of patriotism, where you suspend your standards and embrace your nation's leaders unconditionally? That almost sounds a bit too much like North Korea!

But let me turn to the example the editor of the video chose, when Tharman said, "I believe in the notion of a trampoline" - he didn't leave Stephen Sackur 'speechless'. Sackur laughed at the awkward comment the same way I may laugh when someone says something totally absurd. If you had watched the interview in full, you would see that the conversation was becoming increasingly heated: Tharman had just made an inflammatory comment about Sweden, putting down the Swedes and clearly Sackur didn't agree with what Tharman had said about Sweden. Tharman then defends the Singaporean system which doesn't include a welfare state and Sackur accuses him, "You mean you’re a bit more ruthless. Is that what you’re saying?" Sackur then goes on the offensive and twice asks Tharman if he believes in a welfare state and the first time Tharman sides steps the question; Sackur asks the same question again and Tharman then makes the joke about the trampoline and after laughing, Sackur replies, "So people are just bouncing up and down in Singapore?" Tharman then sidesteps the issue again and manages to successfully steer the conversation in a different direction, away from the tricky issue of the absence of a safety net for the most vulnerable in Singaporean society which is a huge failure on the part of the PAP. Tharman was not being cooperative by refusing to answer the question and Sackur probably realized, okay, I can be even more confrontational but he is still going to try to dodge the bullet again, I'll defuse the tension and see if I can make him more relaxed because when I am not going to get totally honest answers from a man who is already on the defensive. So Sackur retained full control by defusing the tension at just the right time. 

But was Sackur at any point 'speechless'? No, Sackur had realized that the conversation had become somewhat heated and whilst Hard Talk typically asks their guests difficult questions, it was clear that the issue of the safety net had become so contentious that it would have changed the mood of the interview to a rather confrontational one. Sackur chose not to go down that route because this was at a very public event, the St Gallen Symposium, with a very big audience. (Some Hard Talk episodes are recorded in private, without an audience - who knows what Sackur would have done in private?) If you actually watched the entire interview, you will clearly see that Sackur is very articulate and eloquent and wasn't afraid to hold Tharman to account when his answers didn't make sense - however, he wasn't prepared to cross the line and come across as too interrogative in from of a live audience, hence the pause and the laughter at the trampoline comment to diffuse the tension at that point as it made sense to. If you had watched the whole interview (which lasted 48 minutes), you will clearly see that Sackur was very much in charge of the interview at all times and the idiot who had put the pro-Tharman video together had completely taken the 'trampoline' comment out of context. To Tharman's credit, he said many more things which were far more insightful, but hey he was using big words that were probably too difficult for the average Singaporean. If I were to pick a flattering moment from that interview, I would have not chosen the trampoline comment at all - this very poor choice says a lot more about the idiot who compiled the video than Tharman. 

Watching the video, it was clear that Tharman didn't even answer the question which was, "does Singapore believe in the notion of a safety net for those who fall between the cracks of a successful economy?" Regardless of what Tharman may personally believe in, he didn't address the sticky issue about what happens to those who do fall between the cracks in Singapore - it is no secret that there is a growing number of elderly poor in Singapore who are forced to keep working because they would simply starve if they even stopped working for a few days. Where is this so called trampoline in whatever form in Singapore? It doesn't exist - the fact is, you can believe in the notion of anything like I can claim that I believe in the notion of Santa Claus but just because I believe in that notion doesn't make him real. Politicians can claim to have all kinds of good intentions of course but I judge them on whether those good intentions actually translate into real policies on the ground that leads of helping the most vulnerable in our society. In Tharman's case, he has done far too little for those who have fallen between the cracks in Singapore, so whatever he said in that interview is just hot air. 

But let's be fair to Tharman, I watched the interview in full to give him a chance to elaborate on what his concept of this trampoline may be. I have a feeling that a lot of more racist, less educated, more ignorant Singaporeans would be thinking that Tharman had put the Angmoh in his place with one quip like that and they can't be bothered to actually understand what the interview was all about. That unfortunately, is way too common amongst some Singaporeans on social media. I tackle a lot of difficult issues about Singapore on my blog and rather than getting insightful replies from Singaporeans about how they may offer a different perspective on those issues as they live in Singapore, the average hate mail I get goes along the lines of, "fuck off and die, shut the fuck up". Oh you can see how the average Singaporean is really inarticulate, that says a lot about the failure of the Singaporean education system - no wonder, Tharman is seen as this hero as he is actually rather articulate, unlike the rest of his countrymen.  But just in case you've not seen the full interview, I am going to cut and paste the section I shall entitled "trampolinegate" for you and so you can be the judge. 

Tharman: But the point is, there are ways in which an active government can intervene to support social mobility, develop opportunities and take care of the old, which doesn’t undermine personal and family responsibility. And that’s the compact that we’re trying to achieve. And it’s almost a paradox.

Sackur: You mean you’re a bit more ruthless. Is that what you’re saying?

Tharman: No, we’re achieving a paradox of active government support for personal responsibility, rather than active government support to take over personal responsibility or community responsibility.

Sackur: Do you believe in the concept of a safety net?

Tharman: We believe in a concept of support for you taking up opportunities. So we don’t have unemployment.

Sackur: I believe in the sometimes simplicity of yes-or-no answers. What about this idea of a safety net? Does Singapore believe in the notion of a safety net for those who fall between the cracks of a successful economy?

Tharman: I believe in the notion of a trampoline.

Sackur: So people are just bouncing up and down in Singapore?

Tharman: No, it boils down to what policies you’re talking about. If you provide help for someone who is willing to study hard; if you provide help for someone who is willing to take up a job and work at it, and make life not so easy if you stay out of work; if you provide help for someone who wants to own a home – and we are very generous in our grants for home ownership, which is why we have 90 per cent home ownership and, among the low-income population, more than 80 per cent own their homes — it transforms culture. It’s not just about transactions, it’s not just about the size of grants, it’s about keeping alive a culture where I feel proud that I own my home and I earn my own success through my job. I feel proud that I’m raising my family. And keeping that culture going is what keeps a society vibrant.

But before we leave that interview, I must say how shocked at how badly Tharman was dressed at that event compared to Sackur. Shirts with button down collars are a strict no-no in any formal setting, unless you're American but then most Americans have no sense of style whatsoever. These rules are unwritten of course, but you will be judged by your choice of attire at events like that. Is he simply a geek who doesn't care or someone who is totally oblivious to the judgement of others? Did he realize that he was going on TV with the BBC? And it is not like Tharman can't afford to buy a decent shirt from any shop on Orchard Road - he is paid a lot more than practically everybody in that room, but one then wonders if he is merely clueless about the fashion police or if he is trying to make a statement by breaking the rules like, "I may be this well-paid politician from a rich country but I am not spending my money on expensive suits or Rolex watches as that would be in bad taste. Instead I am dressing like a humble primary school teacher who can't afford trendy clothes in order to send a clear message that I am identifying with the ordinary working class man in the street rather than trying to impress the other rich people at the event." But we all know that's not the case because of one vital piece of evidence. 

We know he is clueless because we can see a cheap ballpoint pen tucked into his shirt pocket throughout the interview, even primary school teachers in Singapore don't do that anymore because a cheap ballpoint pen is hardly the kind of fashion accessory that gives a good impression. It is not even some kind of fancy, expensive pen! Look, even if I do have a pen on me during business meetings and between you and me, it is usually a cheap ballpoint pen, it is always concealed, well out of sight in an internal pocket rather than worn like some kind of fashion accessory. In any case, when was the last time you actually used a ballpoint pen? We have everything from mobile phones to tablets to laptop these days, if you wrote something done on a piece of paper, then you'll end up carrying loads of paper with you and perhaps that was something we did way back in the 1980s, but no longer! Does he have a notepad, ruler, pencils and other pieces of stationary in his other pockets? Yet for some reason, Tharman chooses to wear a cheap ballpoint pen in his pocket as if he is a primary school teacher in the 1980s who has to whip it out to mark a paper? Good grief. All that money but Tharman is still utterly clueless and has comes across with as much class as an elderly Singaporean primary school teacher - that wouldn't matter so much if he was canvasing for votes in Yishun or Tampines, you could claim that he was trying to blend in and look like one of the locals so they will identify with you. But at the St Gallen Symposium?!  

Reason 2: He is adored by opposition party members. 

Verdict: Misleading, based on one positive statement by Paul Tambyah. 

I would be cautious about that one - many Singaporeans are utterly clueless about how multi-party politics would work in a genuine democracy, in fact some believe that it would descend into kungfu-fighting chaos in parliament if you didn't have the PAP running the show. But if I may talk about the UK for a moment, it is pretty common place for politicians to sing praises of other politicians from the other side of the political divide. It takes a certain amount of maturity and confidence to be able to acknowledge the strengths of your opponents and simply acknowledging that the opposition is strong and capable doesn't tantamount to admitting defeat: it simply means that you are gracious and respectful of whom you're up against. This kind of gentlemanly behaviour is quite common in some sports - take tennis for example, after every final at a major tournament, it is customary for the two finalists to face journalists in a press conference and that is when they would heap praises on each other. In some sports like boxing or basketball (especially in the NBA) for example, the complete opposite happens and we call it trash talking: that's when you go out of your way to put down and insult your opponents prior, during and after the game. Now those of us who have a bit more class would never ever do that: it is called trash talking not so much because you are talking trash, but because it makes you look like utter trash. 

In the world of politics, you get both gentlemanly behaviour and nasty trash talking - in the USA for example, Trump has no qualms about indulging in trash talking when he attacks his opponents and people like Kim Jong Un in a way that Obama would have never ever done, not in a million years. Trump is a downright disgrace. Likewise in Singapore, you have a mix of politicians who range from respectful to downright disgraceful in the way they treat their opponents. I would always gravitate towards politicians who are able to exercise a lot more self-control and express themselves without resorting to the kind of 唱反调 politics we have seen in Singapore where certain political parties would oppose a good idea simply on the basis that they weren't the ones who came up with it. In fact, the way Paul Tambyah conducted himself in praising Tharman says a lot more about Tambyah as a politician than it does about Tharman in this context. But of course, if you're used to the kind of trash-talking mud-slinging politics associated with people who have no class, then Tambyah's comments may be misinterpreted as a sign of surrender or defeat, which clearly isn't the case at all. 

Reason 3: He knows his strengths. 

Verdict: What kinda dumb reason is that?!

This is a complicated one because it doesn't just mean that Tharman is a confident man who knows what he is capable of - the video talks about how a poll has showed that 69% of Singaporeans would support him as the next PM but he is not going to even contemplate stepping into that role. This gets messy: do Singaporeans only like him because they want a capable man willing to make the government work but reject him as the country's most powerful man because of his skin colour? Let's not beat around the bush, the Chinese majority population in Singapore are still very racist towards Indians: your typical older Chinese Singaporean would gladly claim that some of their best friends are indeed Indians but would go apeshit if their daughter came home and told them that she wanted to marry an Indian man. Thus if I may talk about the elephant in the room, are the Chinese Singaporeans happy to accept an Indian like Tharman as long as he doesn't go for the top job and leaves that to an ethnic Chinese politician? Besides, we all know our strengths and what we're good at, what we're not - that's hardly a unique trait per se, that's why this reason is far more wrapped up in racism.

Reason 4: He can be a ball of fun. 

Verdict: The video was sickening. 

The video showed Tharman pouring water over a bunch of kids who looked too frightened to run away. Is that fun? Did he consider that the kids didn't have a change of clothes at hand and would have to spend the rest of the day in uncomfortable wet clothing? The kids who got soaked probably didn't enjoy their encounter with Tharman and at this stage, I almost feel sorry for Tharman because the idiot who put together that video couldn't have chosen a worse example. Surely Tharman has done other more interesting, spontaneous gestures of fun, perhaps there's a video of him telling a joke or entertaining someone and the other person enjoyed the encounter with Tharman. Let me give you a classic example: president Clinton often entertained his audiences with his skills on the saxophone - it was fun and entertaining to listen to a musician like that, contrast that to some inconsiderate idiot pouring water over you. That encounter in question was not fun for the kids involved! To be fair to Tharman, I found out that he was an active sportsman in his youth and has done a lot of work with the Singapore Sports Council - that would be a far more interesting aspect of Tharman to talk about than a spontaneous gesture of pouring water on those unsuspecting kids. 

Reason 5: He does not use the media to play politics. 

Verdict: Oh really? 

Yes there are PAP idiots (yes we're talking about Dr Koh Poh Koon) who wave at invisible supporters, should Tharman be congratulated for not being an idiot? Hey, whilst we're at in, why not congratulate him for knowing how to tie his own shoelaces? This says far more about the idiot who put together the video than Tharman, to be fair to Tharman! The video claims that he "keeps it real and never puts on a facade" - but the video never goes on to illustrate why or how Tharman does that? In any case, the point is moot because the mainstream media in Singapore is highly censored by the PAP and even if Tharman himself is not responsible for manipulating the media to portray him in a more positive light, he is part of the regime constantly suppressing the freedom of speech and press in Singapore. Ironically of course, such a poorly put together video does Tharman more harm than good because it has made some very odd choices about what to feature in the video and more to the point, it has left many of Tharman's greatest achievements out of the video! It's like doing a video on Usain Bolt and talking about him being the Jamaican national champion but somehow leaving out the fact that he won several Olympic gold medals. The fact is the PAP has loads of people (some more stupid than others) putting out videos like that to engage the younger generation through social media - that's using the media to play politics but this video was so badly put together, I think it is laughable and I feel bad for Tharman for it doesn't do him justice. So he's a geek who has no fashion sense but he deserves better than this! Are Tharman's supporters really that unsophisticated?

Believe you me when I tell you that I don't actually have a problem with Tharman, I am not fond of the PAP in general (and that's putting it mildly already) but amongst them, Tharman is definitely one of the better ones who is good at his job. What this video exposes however, is the absence of any PR skills amongst both Singaporean politicians and the people they represent: you see, the PAP would remain in power no matter what they do, so why bother trying so hard to appeal to your public when you know you have their vote already? It's like if you're the only supermarket in an isolated small town, you wouldn't bother spending any money on advertising if you know the folks in town have nowhere else to get their groceries if the nearest alternative is over 100 km away. But wait, what if a second supermarket opens up in that town and starts advertising all these special discounts and exciting new items? It would force the first supermarket to up their game and come up with a new campaign to retain their existing customers. This is what pisses me off about Singaporean politics: the opposition parties are equally clueless about PR and suffer from a terrible image just like the PAP. Thus that is why PAP supporters can get away with putting up such terrible videos and not draw any criticism from more educated Singaporeans. The whole situation makes everyone both all sides of the political divide look bad - there are no winners here. I shall leave you with a Vox Youtube video to show you the kind of political discourse that is going on in other countries and it will show you just how much Singaporeans have much to learn when it comes to politics.

So that's it from me on this topic, do let me know what you think. What are your opinions about DPM Tharman? Do you like him or do you think he's getting more credit than he deserves? Does he have any credibility, is he good at his job? Is he one of the good guys or part of the PAP regime? And what does the terrible video in question tell you about the attitude of your average Singaporean when it comes to politics. Leave a comment below and many thanks for reading.