Fear No More

Fear No More

by Dr Ang Yong Guan

(Extracted from a book A Nation Awakes: Frontline Reflections 2011)

“Politics can withstand a lot of apathy; indeed when the

normally apathetic person suddenly becomes greatly interested

in political questions, it is often a sign of danger.”

~ Bernard Crick, In Defence of Politics.1

Soon after the 2011 General Election (GE2011), whenever I met friends and former classmates, most of them would congratulate me for standing as a candidate in the watershed general election. Many of them would go on to remark: “You are a retired SAF colonel and ex-grassroots leader and doing fine in private practice as a psychiatrist. There is no reason for you to come forward unless you sense something is fundamentally wrong with the present PAP (People’s Action Party).”

Yes, these friends are right. Why would I, having spent 23 years with the SAF and more than 15 years in grassroots work, have bothered to step forward if I didn’t see something was amiss (in spite of the feedback I had given to them over the years) and feel strongly the need to prevent the stifling political situation from worsening?

When Jee Say had lunch with me on 6 March 2011 to share his 45-page economic regeneration paper and his dissatisfaction with the way the PAP government was handling the economy and managing the nation, he disclosed his interest in taking part in GE2011. He wanted to walk the talk, to translate some of his ideas into action, and asked if I would like to join him. He said he would focus on economic issues while I concentrate on the psychological and social impact of economic policies on Singaporeans. I told him that I was interested but would like to have a bit more time to mull over it.

A Prophetic Dream?

That night I had a dream which I shared with him and some close friends the next day. “It was a packed auditorium. All were seated as usual. The space between the first row and the stage was filled with wounded people on wheelchairs and stretchers. I was one of them lying on a stretcher. On stage was our first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew delivering a speech. Halfway through, he suddenly said “regrets, regrets, regrets” three times and started to tear as well. Then he paused. Everybody expected him to walk out through the back of the stage. But he closed his file and climbed down the steps and walked down the central aisle out of the auditorium. There was no applause, just dead silence as the audience was visibly stunned. As soon as Mr Lee left the auditorium, I got up and when the nurse nearby asked whether I needed assistance, I said no and with my arms up in the air, I remarked: “I am free! I am free!”

This dream was prophetic on many counts; most of it came true two months later. Throughout the nine-day GE2011 campaign, words like “repent” and “we are sorry”, were used, and tears were shed by some PAP candidates and soon after the election, Mr Lee, who personified the PAP, stepped down from the cabinet and left its Central Executive Committee.

What was more poignant about the dream was that those who were in wheelchairs and stretchers were mostly psychologically wounded, and as soon as Mr Lee walked out, the sense of being free from fear was palpably felt.

Community Work

Jee Say and I were schoolmates at Raffles Institution. He was one year my senior and we were editors of the school newspaper Rafflesian Times in consecutive years. We have always been interested in politics since our school days. After I returned from my overseas post-graduate psychiatric studies in Edinburgh, Scotland in 1986, we met frequently together with other like-minded Rafflesians to discuss the nation’s affairs. 

It was in fact Jee Say who introduced me to ex-minister George Yeo in 1988 and I had the opportunity to work with Mr Yeo to serve residents of Kembangan (and Aljunied Group  Representation Constituency) as a community leader from 1988 to 2004. At the height of my community involvement, I was appointed Chairman of the Punggol Community Club and Secretary of the Kampong Kembangan Citizens’ Consultative Committee. I have had no regrets devoting time and effort to help the residents. I see doing community work as a meaningful activity which allows me to repay the nation what it has given me.

Old Versus New PAP

The old service-driven, people-connected PAP was able to deliver and people did not mind the tough policies it implemented. Singaporeans were prepared to tolerate living in a nation that is largely apolitical but economically vibrant. “The PAP began as a multiracial grassroots party. Its largely English-educated leadership was supported by the ordinary man in the street, clerks, postmen, technicians, small businessmen, carpenters and barbers. Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his cabinet colleagues were seen by the electorate as selfless men, sacrificing promising careers for an uncertain future in politics,” said former Permanent Secretary and Head of the Civil Service Mr Ngiam Tong Dow.2

The emergence of the new PAP in recent years, driven by profits, obsessed with economic growth and disconnected from the people, has led to complacency at the top and anger and a sense of helplessness on the ground. Since the announcement of paying ministers hefty salaries based on prevailing market rates and the implementation of several policies which showed lack of consultation with the people, I began to observe a distancing of the PAP government from the people and the emergence of an unhealthy climate of complacency within its ranks. “When the gap between the highest and the lowest paid is excessive, the rank and file become disgruntled. Insolence sets in. Morale goes down,” added Mr Ngiam.3

The situation got worse after the 2006 General Election as political leadership with clear values and direction seemed to be absent. It was more of the same: a pragmatic, legalistic, paternalistic and economically-driven leadership lacking in ability to feel and connect with its people. The PAP’s brand of pragmatism is sometimes carried to the extreme to the point that when it formulates policies, the end often justifies the means. The dictum seemed to be: “Never mind how we do it, just get it done; never mind the process, just focus on the outcome.”

My First Brush With The Government

One example of pragmatism was the medical bond issue in 1978. The problem then was that there were not enough doctors in public hospitals. The PAP government’s solution in 1978 was to bond all new medical students for five years to serve in government hospitals upon graduation. If the bond was broken, the penalty then was $81,000. These new students came in with their eyes open and they could opt to do another course if they were not keen to sign the bond. 

Meanwhile, all existing second-year to fifth-year medical students were told that they too had to serve in government hospitals from one to four years (depending on their year of study) and had to sign a similar bond, with a $81,000 penalty in cases of default, regardless of the duration of their bonds. This is an example of how the end justifies the means: never mind how the existing medical students feel, just bond them because we need them to serve in government hospitals and forget about paying an equitable amount (just impose a flat penalty for all existing second-year to fifth- year students!).4

The principle that one could not bond students in mid-stream was ignored, and to have a flat rate of liquidated damages regardless of the bond duration was grossly unfair. Of course, we did not take the whole issue sitting down. The existing medical students, led by the final years, challenged the government for 88 days and managed to make the compulsory bond an option because we presented an alternative: a Declaration of Intent to serve in government hospitals without having a bond of $81,000 hovering over our heads which, in the first place, was not there when we first joined medical school. 

That was my first brush with the PAP government. I was the final-year class representative who led a delegation to see the then-Health Minister Dr Toh Chin Chye, a meeting which lasted nearly two hours before he finally accepted our Declaration of Intent as an option. I knew from that encounter, as long as we are truthful, clear and principled, we should have no fears.

For the sake of pragmatism, values had been relegated by the government to second place. This is just one example of the ends justifying the means. I am sure you can think of many more.

Lack Of Inter-Ministry Coordination

Besides pragmatism, there seems to be a lack of inter-ministry coordination. The impression created is that one ministry does not seem to know or does not seem to care what other ministries are doing. For instance, the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) gantry at Central Expressway (CTE) for homebound vehicles was in operation until 10.30 pm, which defied common sense–why tax Singaporeans for going home before 10.30 pm? What message is being conveyed by having such a policy? The Ministry of Transport failed to see the psychological and social consequences of such an illogical timing and how it impacted on the ideals of work-life balance and family cohesion actively promoted by the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports.

I raised this ERP issue during the election campaign5 and am glad that recently the authorities shortened the operating hours of the CTE’s ERP gantry to end earlier at 8.00 pm.

This is just a simple example to illustrate the disregard of the impact of policies on Singaporeans. It also shows complacency at the top as civil servants and ministers cease to think deeper and question the illogicality of some policies which may, on the surface, appear logical.

The Mas Selamat escape was the biggest act of complacency that had tarnished the image of our country. Some civil servants and highly-paid cabinet ministers had become ineffectual. Jee Say had said during GE2011 that “the heavyweights have become lightweights”.

One Central Message

Throughout my nine days of campaigning, my central message was: “Complacency at the top, helplessness on the ground”. In recent years, the PAP government had lost the art of listening to and connecting with the ground. Grassroots leaders were feeding what their PAP Members of Parliament (MPs) wanted to hear. 

Singaporeans felt that whatever they said did not matter; decisions had already been taken and feedback was a mere perfunctory exercise. Alternative views on, for instance, the influx of foreign workers, , the overpriced new HDB flats, the congested public transport, issues of transparency (especially regarding our national reserves) and accountability of government policies seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

In the presence of an over-domineering, over-powerful, omnipresent and increasingly complacent PAP government, Singaporeans felt more powerless and helpless. This quickly led to suppressed resentment, as the channels for legitimate expression were heavily controlled. The restless, especially amongst internet-savvy young Singaporeans, turned to social media to vent their frustrations. It is no good for a nation to have great economic growth, but its citizens feel helpless, apathetic and unhappy. 

One research scientist-turned-monk, Dr Matthieu Ricard, said in a recent interview in Singapore: “If a country is rich and powerful but everyone is unhappy, what’s the point?”6 

Mr Ngiam also commented that “politics is about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Trust is the cornerstone. This election (GE2011) shows some chipping away of the trust that past generations of Singaporeans had in the PAP. This was shown, for example, in the way Aljunied voters did not heed the statements from senior PAP leaders warning them against choosing the opposition,”7

During the GE2011 campaign, I came across many Singaporeans who told me: “Forget about the upgrading, the CPF top-up, the goodies the PAP is dangling in front of us; they are not listening to us. We want to send more opposition members into parliament to wake them up.”

Token Opposition

The PAP, which was in opposition in 1955 (occupying three out of twenty-five seats under the Labour Front government), knows that having no opposition in parliament is not good for the country; hence, it came out with several measures including the NCMP (Non-Constituency Member of Parliament) and NMP (Nominated Member of Parliament) schemes. But Singaporeans remain rather sceptical about how effective such MPs without constituencies and no voting rights are in influencing policies. In any case, how much can they, being in the minority, do to bring about real change in policies? 

In spite of the PAP’s effort to have token opposition in parliament, the fear created in the early 1960s, and intensified during the 13-year period of one-party rule between 1968 and 1981, has already taken root in the minds of Singaporeans. This fear was and still is made worse by the Internal Security Act. In fact, Dr Catherine Lim, a political commentator for the past 17 years, opined that the PAP’s “systematic use of fears as a strategy to silence critics was so successful that it had become a permanent feature of the Singapore political landscape.”8

Even though the historic win by Mr J B Jeyaretnam in the Anson by-election in 1981 dented the PAP’s one-sided control and paved the way for victories in Potong Pasir and Hougang by Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang respectively in subsequent years, the few opposition MPs (including the 4 opposition MPs in 1991) were mere drops in an ocean. 

Although a minimum of more than one-third opposition MPs is required to deny the PAP the two-thirds it needs to change the constitution in parliament, a more substantial opposition presence of close to half is necessary to ensure that the ruling party is ever mindful of having good and right policies, lest it loses the majority at a subsequent election. Even with its dominance in parliament, the PAP has always been hyper-vigilant and is always on the look-out for potential threats to its hold on power. It will not hesitate to get rid of such threats the moment it deems fit.

Direct Fear of the PAP Government

Given the PAP’s overpowering and ubiquitous presence in every stratum of society, many Singaporeans have grown accustomed to its iron rule and its disapproval of dissent. Parents would tell their children not to say anything against the PAP government in case something unpleasant happens to the family. People avoided expressing their political views openly, especially those touching on controversial topics and critical of the PAP government.

The presence of serial numbers on ballot papers worsened the fear because Singaporeans felt the vote was not secret and the PAP government could trace who voted against them. This fear was unfounded because many residents in Potong Pasir and Hougang had repeatedly voted against the PAP and had not been adversely affected. The positive side of having serial numbers is that it ensures the authenticity of the ballot papers which are destroyed six months after each general election, a process witnessed by representatives from the ruling and opposition political parties. GE2011 ballot papers were destroyed on 12 November 2011. 

In spite of these assurances, the fear remained because it arose from a deeply-held perception (i.e. “no matter how you convinced me, I still feel the vote is not secret”) in the minds of many Singaporeans, and as a result they still dare not vote against the PAP.

Fear is a conditioned response, developed as a result of learning.9 Fear has been instilled in us for many decades by the PAP machinery propagating the belief that a) Singapore is a small country, b) we do not have natural resources, c) we cannot afford to make mistakes (one mistake and we are forever doomed), and d) there is no place for a two-party system.

Singaporeans have been conditioned to believe that if we don’t have the PAP to rule us, Singapore will be worse off or may even perish. The perception that the PAP can do no wrong and has the best brains to rule the nation has become entrenched in the minds of Singaporeans. The PAP, Singaporeans are made to believe, has combed through the nation to identify the best to be its candidates.

The opposition candidates, on the other hand, are always depicted as second or third rate, and that only unsuccessful Singaporeans with a personal axe to grind would want to be associated with the opposition. Under such a perception, anyone opposing the PAP is deemed to have done something wrong and must be taken to task. Such fears of “opposing the PAP equals doing something wrong” become entrenched in the minds of the citizens and get deeper with time.

Fear of Government: Kia Zhenghu

Singaporeans are already well known for being kiasu (a Hokkien term, now included in the Oxford Dictionary, defined as “afraid of losing”). Added to this kiasuism is the prevailing attitude of kia zhenghu (another Hokkien term which means “afraid of government”). This kia zhenghu attitude is more prevalent amongst the older generations who have witnessed how the nation went through turbulent times and how the PAP government reacted to dissenting voices. The kia zhenghu attitude further intensifies the climate of fear.

Fear of PAP government-related agencies

Fear can be generalised from one object to other similarly-related objects. If a child is fearful of cats, he will also be fearful of any furry animals (such as a small dog) that resemble cats.10 In our local political context, fear of the PAP government is generalised to fear of other PAP-related agencies such as the civil service (including the military and the police), the tightly controlled media, the People’s Association and other statutory boards. 

As an exgrassroots leader, I realised that because of PAP’s dominance, Singaporeans have equated PAP to Singapore. The line between the PAP government and People’s Association, and between the PAP government and the civil service, has always been blurred. The perception that PAP equals to Singapore was made even more pronounced during the 13 years of one-party rule.

Indirect Fear

Fear can be acquired by observing others going through a traumatic incident. There is no need to directly experience the trauma to feel the fear. Observing others facing the incident and seeing the consequences is enough to induce fear.11 The PAP government instils this form of indirect fear in the minds of Singaporeans by periodically exposing certain individuals, especially those who are seen to be a threat to the PAP, for wrongdoings and then suing them in courts. This kind of indirectly acquired fear is in response to observing what happened to others if they don’t toe the line. It is as strong as directly acquired fear.

To further reinforce the siege mentality of Singaporeans, certain exercises in the past, to expose certain individuals to be communists or to have Marxist connections and then arresting them under the Internal Security Act without trial, further intensified this climate of indirect fear. So far, as this is being written, nobody has been arrested or sued after GE2011. This augurs well for the political landscape of Singapore.

The Third Fear

Against a background of a climate of fear, some Singaporeans practise what I call self-censorship by preempting what the PAP government would do in response to certain scenarios or actions. They would automatically refrain from saying or doing certain things for fear that the PAP government would react negatively towards them. After GE2011, the media responses to me have been mixed. The print media (i.e. two Chinese evening papers, the Straits Times and The New Paper) and the radio stations (i.e. 93.8 FM and 95.8 FM) continue to interview me on professional and political issues. It was a different story for TV news and current affairs programmes, of which I used to be a regular guest and interviewee. For at least seven months after the general election, the TV stations stopped interviewing me.

For a moment, I thought I was going to be proven wrong. One day, I received a phone call and an email from a producer inviting me to appear on Channel 8’s Good Morning Singapore on 7 December 2011 to talk about the topics of depression and schizophrenia. I was psychologically geared up to be at the ‘live’ morning show but on the eve of the show, I suddenly received a phone call to inform me that I was no longer required as they had decided to change the topic to aesthethic medicine. I was naturally disappointed; throughout my earlier association with the Good Morning Singapore show, I had never encountered such last minute cancellations. 

Out of curiosity, I tuned in to Good Morning Singapore on 7 December 2011, only to find another psychiatrist speaking on the same subjects of depression and schizophrenia. There was nothing on aesthetic medicine. If this is yet another example of self-censorship, then it has done more damage to the current PAP government which has openly declared itself to be more inclusive and

tolerant of diverse views.

GE1991: PAP’s Loss of Four Seats

The PAP had a scare in GE1991 when it lost four seats - three were won by the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) and one by the Workers’ Party (WP)- and managed to get only 61% of the votes. This significant breakthrough by the opposition in GE1991 was not carried through to the following elections in 1997. The PAP had, by then, reorganised itself and managed to regain the two seats it had lost (securing 65% of the votes) and conceded only two seats to the opposition.

I hope GE2016 does not suffer the same fate as GE1997. The joy and euphoria arising from the GE2011 results need to be translated into sustained enthusiasm that will see us right up to the next general elections. We need to ride on the psychological breakthrough achieved by the opposition winning a GRC for the first time just as with the 1981 Anson breakthrough after 13 years of 100% PAP rule. Mr Ngiam asserted that “the greatest value of the WP win in Aljunied is that it breached a psychological barrier, giving a boost to the opposition and its supporters”.12

The momentum needs to continue. It is only natural for the PAP to take a good look at itself and to study in depth the criticisms levelled at it during GE2011. The opposition parties likewise need to consolidate and grow together for the nation. New issues will crop up and we need to be ready to face them.

Emboldened Electorate

We are dealing with an emboldened electorate which is no longer cowed by the PAP. Politics is coming of age in Singapore. GE2011 has contributed to it. Even Dr Catherine Lim admitted that GE2011 proved her wrong. “But the climate of GE2011 was far from fearful. I saw to my amazement, in the days leading up to the election, the emergence of a large group of young Singaporeans who were articulate, confident and bold, speaking their minds freely, fearlessly, in the mainstream and social media, and showing open, unabashed support for the opposition.”13 

The Director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Mr K Kesavapany, put it aptly: “The political assertiveness of citizens will need to be recognised as an asset in the next phase of Singapore’s development.”14

Presidential Election 2011

The strength of the empowered electorate’s sentiments was put to the test three months later on 27 August 2011 when it had to vote for Singapore’s seventh president. Only 35% voted for Dr Tony Tan, the candidate unofficially endorsed by the ruling PAP government. The remaining 65% showed no qualms in voting for the other three candidates. One in four Singaporeans supported Tan Jee Say, a man who was clearly identified with the opposition as he had contested in GE2011 just three months earlier. This augurs well for Singapore as it shows that Singaporeans dare to stand up and think for themselves and choose freely without necessarily opting for the PAP-sanctioned choice.

I would have preferred Dr Tony Tan, who represented the PAP elite, to have a direct contest with Dr Tan Cheng Bock who embodied the values of the PAP grassroots. If this had happened, it would have forced a split down the middle for the ruling party and I am certain who the victor would have been. When this did not happen and the other two Tans decided to have a go at it, I threw in my lot to support Jee Say. I spoke in Mandarin and Hokkien at Jee Say’s rally at Toa Payoh Sports Stadium on 23 August 2011.15

I likened the elected president as sitting on the upper deck of a double-decker bus with the prime minister as the driver and the leader of the opposition as the co-driver. The elected president will not interfere with the day-to-day running of the nation, which is the responsibility of the prime minister and the cabinet. But whenever he deems fit, he will call the prime minister to the upper deck to discuss certain issues that he feels is vital to the unity and prosperity of the nation. I urged Singaporeans to vote Jee Say as he is the man who has the ability to protect our national reserves, connect with the people and unite the nation. To secure 25% of votes in a short space of nine days of campaigning was indeed remarkable.

Mature Politics

At the SDP press conference on 22 April 2011 when I was introduced as a candidate, I remarked that “taking part in politics here should be like playing a game of soccer. The PAP in their white jersey and the opposition in their multi-coloured jerseys thrashing it out in the field and when the game is over, drinking coffee or sipping coke and shaking hands with each other, remaining cordial and friendly. This is what I would call First World Politics”.16 

Fear has no place in mature politics. It is heartening to read in the press recently that newly-elected WP MPs Pritam Singh and Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap were playing alongside PAP MPs in a soccer match against a team of reporters from Singapore Press Holdings and MediaCorp. Mr Singh told the press: “It’s important not to get lost in partisan politics. We are all Singaporeans. We have to be united.”17

There is no doubt that the opposition sees itself as pro-Singapore and is ever ready to provide constructive feedback to the government for the betterment of Singaporeans. The ball is now in the PAP’s court. Having been so used to a dominant position, it takes courage, humility and magnanimity to shift its paradigm and consider the opposition as a patriotic force that will assist the party to shape the nation. To talk about spending time fixing the opposition will not be keeping with the current electoral mood.

When Lord Peter Mandelson reflected on the Labour Party’s loss in the United Kingdom after 13 years in power, he told the local media, on his visit to Singapore in September 2011, that “the trick for any party long in office is to recognise that with this power comes great responsibility. It must find ways to give away more power to the people, rather take more power into itself ”.18

I am glad that GE2011 has helped to remove a lot of the stigma associated with opposition politics. Out of every ten MPs in the current parliament, one is an opposition MP. As the climate of fear erodes further, it is my hope that the ratio will improve further. 

When Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (then Minister for Community, Youth and Sports) was asked by the press about the trend of former civil servants such as Jee Say and myself joining the opposition, his reply was: “I think this is part of the natural evolution of the political scene. As people become more educated and as people have more varied careers, you should expect that more people may want to throw their hat with the opposition.”19 The day when more successful Singaporeans readily step forward to join the opposition to speak their minds without fear is the day Singapore politics has truly come of age.

GE2011 saw the beginning of this fearless opening up and this trend, I firmly believe, will continue. For the sake of future generations of Singaporeans, all of us need to remove the fear – of associating with opposition parties and that the vote is not secret – from our minds and elevate our politics to the highest plane.

Politics Is Civilising

Singaporeans no longer need to have fear of getting involved in politics. In fact, GE2011 has proven that with the greater participation of more creditable opposition, and once Singaporeans were given good choices, they truly could show their political maturity. But in some quarters, the fear remains. We hope in the coming GE2016 this fear will further be eroded.

For Singaporeans who have been brought up in a climate of fear with a certain siege mentally, let us take heed of the words of Bernard Crick: “Politics deserves much praise. Politics is a preoccupation of free men, and its existence is a test of freedom…. Politics, then, is civilising. It rescues mankind from the morbid dilemmas in which the state is always seen as a ship threatened by a hostile environment of cruel seas, and enables us, instead, to see the state as a city settled on firm and fertile ground of mother earth.” 20

Fear of the PAP government is no good for Singapore.

Fear no more.

Notes:

1 Crick, Bernard, “In Defence of Politics” (Pelikan, 1964), p152.

2 The Straits Times, “Winning back public trust after GE”, 2 Jul 2011.

3 The Straits Times, “Winning back public trust after GE”, 2 Jul 2011.

4 Tang Kok Foo and Ang Yong Guan, “Days of our lives” (Singapore Medical Association News), Vol 43, No. 06 June 2011.

5 Ang Yong Guan talks about ERP at a GE2011 rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmH__HoZkvw&feature=player_embedded

6 The Sunday Times, “The mind can be wired for happiness”, p52, 6 Nov 2011.

7 The Straits Times, “Winning back public trust after GE”, 2 July 2011.

8 Lim, Catherine, “A Watershed Election, Singapore’s GE2011” (Marshall Cavendish, 2011), p15.

9 M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.) “Handbook of emotions” (New York: The Guilford Press, 2000), pp.573–593.

10 Bracha, H. “Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry”(2006) 30 (5):pp 827–853.

11 Bracha, H. “Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry”(2006) 30 (5):pp 827–853.

12 The Straits Times, “Winning back public trust after GE”, 2 July 2011.

13 Lim, Catherine, “A Watershed Election, Singapore’s GE2011” (Marshall Cavendish, 2011), p15.

14 The Straits Times, “Redefining success Singapore style”, 22 June 2011.

15 Ang Yong Guan spoke at Tan Jee Say’s Presidential Election Rally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toXaYH6DDwc

16 The Straits Times, “SDP unveils its ‘star’ candidates”, 23 April 2011.

17 The Straits Times, “Rivals in politics, mates on football field”, 5 Nov 2011.

18 The Straits Times, “Diversity is the new normal: Mandelson”, 22 September 2011.

19 The Straits Times, “Objection raised but rivals stay cordial”, 28 April 2011.

20 Crick, Bernard, “In Defence of Politics” (Pelikan, 1964), p152.

About the writer

Dr Ang Yong Guan is a psychiatrist in private practice. He graduated from the National University of Singapore in 1979 and did his postgraduate training in psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh between 1984 and 1986. He served as a psychiatrist with the Singapore Armed Forces between 1986 and 2003, and retired, with the rank of  Colonel, as Head of Psychological Care Centre, Military Medicine Institute, SAF Medical Corps.

Dr Ang was the president of Singapore Psychiatric Association (1997-1998); chairman of the Chapter of Psychiatrists, Academy of Medicine (2001- 2003); and member of National Council on Problem Gambling (2005 - 2011).

He is currently founder-chairman of Action Group for Mental Illness (from 2004 to the present), a national advocacy group championing for the mentally ill. He is a member of the Clinical Advisory Committee for Chronic Disease Management Programme, Ministry of Health (from 2009 to the present); Member, Board of Visitors, Mental Health (Care & Treatment) Act, Ministry of Health (2009 to the present) and Special Visitor, Board of Visitors, Mental Capacity Act, MCYS (2009 to the present).

Dr Ang was awarded the Public Service Medal in 1995 for community work and the Public Administration Medal in 1996 for military services.

He contested, together with Mr Tan Jee Say, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha and Ms Michelle Lee, under the SDP banner in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in GE2011. The team polled 39.92% of the valid votes cast, compared to the People’s Action Party’s 60.08%.