It will be sensible for the Singapore government to back off from the ill conceived idea of an elected President from a small pool of qualifying candidates. An election that excludes at least 99.999 % of the population cannot be democratic by any norm.

They will make matters worse if they have to make concessions to their own rules. Does a person of mixed origin qualify for Mendaki or fall under the quota reserved for Malays under HDB rules if he or she identifies as being Malay? Rules no matter how flawed should not be bent by the originator.

Halimah cannot be a unifying President if she only qualifies by identifying with one part of her mixed heritage and denying the other. Is she being respectful towards her late father and would her Indian relatives be offended? Would a candidate of mixed Indian Chinese heritage stand a chance of being elected in a future Presidential election by solely identifying with his or her Indian heritage.

The performance of the PAP members of Parliament was incredulous. Serious allegations of impropriety behaviour were levelled at the Prime Minister by his own siblings. The PAP MPs should have played the devil’s advocate instead of being nice to the PM. Their questions should be probing and relentless to get to the bottom of the matter regardless of Lee Hsien Loong’s position as the leader of their party. How Hsien Loong stands up to this barrage of questions from his own party and his unwavering responses would convince the majority of the citizens on the baselessness of the claims by Hsien Yang and Wei Ling.

He stands to gain nothing from a tame performance but will win sympathy and respect for a necessarily ugly session that he has to withstand because the accusations were serious and made against him by credible individuals from the establishment. Taking pot shots at the Workers Party only does further damage to what should have been a sober session in Parliament. Most unexpected was ESM Goh reiterating that Tang Liang Hong was not his brother, only confirming the point Low Thia Kiang was making that by not suing their siblings the PAP leaders practice double standards.

This was a lost opportunity for the PM to strike the tone for a major change in direction which is probably needed if the PAP is to remain relevant and leading a totally different society than which existed decades ago. The younger citizens are more expressive and want to have the freedom of expression on a far wider range of sensitive subjects than what was permitted in the past. They also do not accept explanations easily and are more diverse in their thinking. Social media and generational change makes it impossible for the government to easily explain inconvenient issues.

Hsien Loong could have turned the table on his siblings and make this unhappy episode his ultimate triumph. I have no doubt that he is an honourable person with a passion to do well for the citizens of Singapore. The charges levelled against him are mainly emotional and lack evidence to substantiate the serious charges. Calling your sibling a dishonourable son is an opinion. Differences with his siblings on their family estate does not prove he is unfit to lead or abusing instruments of government. He could have said that he has not made the decision yet whether to sue his siblings but upmost in his mind is family reconciliation. He can also emphasise that if he feels compelled to sue them to put an end to this matter he will not make a financial gain out of this unfortunate saga.

After subjecting himself to this inquisition he will be in a good position to state that it is time to take stock of changes in society and declare that moving forward the government will be more tolerant of criticism but will defend itself robustly but not necessarily always in court. This will definitely resonate well with younger Singaporeans who will increasingly be less tolerant of high handed tactics in a battle they perceive to be between a David and a Goliath. But this does not mean that there are no red lines but rather the red lines should be pushed further to allow more criticism. Arresting a group of vocal students for their left leaning views as in the past is likely to backfire. It is better for the PAP to demonstrate that it has changed instead of being forced to change.

Ultimately how history remembers Lee Hsien Loong depends on his role in transforming the government to reflect attitudinal changes in society. Continuing the practices started by his father and ensuring the economic goods are delivered will not be enough. This was an opportunity for him to take the high ground and lead the party in a change of direction it inevitably must make in the future.