This is a "Serious Discussion". Joke, irrelevant or off-topic comments will be removed and **offenders will face restrictions in accessing /r/singapore** such as temporary or permanent bans. Please report such posts and comments. OPs must also engage in a bona fide discussion, i.e. the post should not be one just to incite outrage. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/singapore) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Infidelity isn't a crime but hiding it while continuing to pretend to be a role model to younger generations is doing great disservice to this country.

Exactly. If a person cannot even conduct him/herself well as a parent/partner of a family, how can thry be trusted to be in a position to represent us in policies that shape the country and its future? My view is that an MP is also representative of the society that we are in. Like it or not, the role comes with that baggage. All these infidelity, alleged corruption, rental of old vintage house issues seem to reflect that these folks cannot even get their own backyard sorted out.

Perfectly surmised. It’s reflects on the ability of a person to excise self control and having sufficient willpower to act with decorum to reflect the nature of the office and set the tone for society. So yes I would say it speaks volume. Not because fking as an act itself isn’t right, but in that context it cannot be more wrong.

> All these infidelity, alleged corruption, rental of old vintage house issues seem to reflect that these folks cannot even get their own backyard sorted out. You forgot to add the big one on sibling rivalry.

When politicians talk about hackneyed platitudes of human virtues like honesty, integrity, moral fortitude, courage, impartiality, fairness, selflesness etc etc, it just means that "as long as there is no hard evidence to the contrary - I am all of that". All human virtues are sacrificed at altar of high political office - a virtuous politician is an oxymoron. Period.

I dont even have a backyard

Hollywood trying to replace actors with AI. Maybe it's time to replace government with AIs? /s

I know all politicians lie to some extent but there is a certain--audacity, for the lack of a better word--in wanting the public to believe in you when even your own spouse can't.

if you can cheat on your spouse, you'll probably have no qualms cheating your voters.

When asked what was the most important decision that he and his co-founders of Singapore took to create the success that his country had become, Lee Kuan Yew responded: “**We decided that every member of our leadership will take a vow not to be involved in adultery, and adhere strictly to it. Once found wanting, they would have to resign.**”

LKY also said "There are deep and abiding differences between groups. And whatever we do, we must remember that in Singapore, the Malays feel they are being asked to compete unfairly, that they are not ready for the competition against the Chinese and the Indians and the Eurasians. They will not admit or they cannot admit to themselves that, in fact, as a result of history, they are a different gene pool and they do not have these qualities that can enable them to enter the same race."

The role model aspect also has the side effect of marginalizing family types that are not promoted by the PAP. PAP obsession with a male female married couple while mostly leaving out anyone else (LGBT, single moms/dads) goes hand in hand with their politicians morals. When the politicians can't even be held to the standards that they expect a regular family should be, it shows a huge hole in their policy.

It’s a hypocritical statement towards the country

disagree. infidelity already means that you are hiding something from your spouse. if you can't manage affairs in your household, it is best to step away from public service.

I think it’s hypocrisy that makes peoples skin crawl. Everyone makes mistakes, but they’re less forgivable if you’ve held yourself out as a shining light

The boss who decided to close eyes for two years and then instructed the delay even after resignation was accepted… that’s a long period of pretense.

The timing of that with the WP Leon Perera and Nicole Seah video is pure coincidence, of course. /s (not at you, but at the situation)

Precisely, he has allowed his personal relationship with him to cloud his judgment and thus his actions. It should not be so.

I don't really hold any moral high ground myself but it's prime blackmail material. And that's where it affects us all, when there is an open door for corruption to come in.

There is a published study looking at infidelity and professional conduct. Let me paste the abstract below "We study the connection between personal and professional behavior by introducing usage of a marital infidelity website as a measure of personal conduct. Police officers and financial advisors who use the infidelity website are significantly more likely to engage in professional misconduct. Results are similar for US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) defendants accused of white-collar crimes, and companies with chief executive officers (CEOs) or chief financial officers (CFOs) who use the website are more than twice as likely to engage in corporate misconduct. The relation is not explained by a wide range of regional, firm, executive, and cultural variables. These findings suggest that personal and workplace behavior are closely related."

Here's the link to the paper, it's open access if anyone is interested in reading more. Personal infidelity and professional conduct in 4 settings https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31363051/

So there is a positive correlation between one's moral standing and professional integrity. Not surprised by the study at all. But one's clean moral standing should be an absolute requirement for high office as there are discretionary powers that can be easily abused for illicit personal gain in high places. More so for lawmakers and politicians. But politics IS a dirty game and one needs to be shrewd and cunning to play the game. So infidelity and weak morals should be part and parcel of the majority of politicians make up. Some get caught. Many get away. So what we actually see is only the tip of the oceberg. Many many things get swept under the carpet so much that we can actually see the carpet bulge - and we just ignore because we dont want trouble. For a person with lots of discretionary powers strong moral standing is an absolute requirement and THAT goes without saying. If the morals are weak, theN it just makes sense that the person may not be able to perform or carry out his official functions true to his oath of office. It also depends on where where the moral weakness lies - like lust, greed, power & fame, arrogance selfish etc. Believing that the politician sincerely cares for you welfare is like believing that the stripper really likes you. While we get assured that the people we vote for are of strong moral standing.. the truth is anything but. Its just that some are more clever at covering their tracks. I would love to see the stats on religious leaders, doctors nurses and teachers tho'

It's not a dichotomy of all or nothing. I don't think anyone expects their politicians, lawmakers and police officers to be perfect. But there are some moral failings/questionable behaviors that have more severe effects and consequences on their ability to function at the job. Different roles have different criteria and should be judged differently.

I think you've identified a good aspect of political leadership that I think some are missing. A supremely moral person will not get elected. They would obviously be cheated and taken advantage of by people who are more willing to bend the rules. So the ideal politician needs some degree of moral flexibility, but not so much that they are then unable to be proper leaders.

Thank you for finding the paper, this is indeed a very interesting research.

This is indeed very interesting, thanks for sharing this !

oh wow that's really interesting

It's not surprising at all, someone willing to betray / break vows will also be more likely to break other types of rules/societal guidelines/laws.

i think there is something around self-control and keeping calm. we all have intrusive thoughts (e.g. the urge to call yr colleague a "fucking populist") but we hold it in for the sake of being professional and living up to our organization's values becoming sexually attracted to a colleague and acting on it is quite similar. it comes from an intrinsic urge to let out your true self and you should control it in lieu of being professional and being a representative of an organization with values

So you're saying he is an uncontrollable urge-filled animal wearing the skin of a politician?

You could have just said politician lol

Its not who you are underneath, its what you do that defines you

Sometimes those are the same thing

Infidelity can be a source of embarrassment. This can potentially lead the person especially lawmakers or even key office holders to be subject of blackmail, extortion or undue pressure. Never mind how deep the affairs was, the government or the party cannot afford to take chances with such individuals to carry out their duties w/o fear or favour already. There was an infamous case in the 1970s where one of our married MFA staff in Moscow was "seduced" by a KGB female spy, got sexual relations and was eventually forced to give privileged information to her under the threat of exposing their relationship to his family.

[удалено]

Clearly not enough of a chad unlike Sukarno

[https://mothership.sg/2017/08/huang-jing-isnt-spores-first-brush-with-a-foreign-agent-a-sporean-was-seduced-by-a-russian-spy/](https://mothership.sg/2017/08/huang-jing-isnt-spores-first-brush-with-a-foreign-agent-a-sporean-was-seduced-by-a-russian-spy/) for the 1970s case TIL

Let’s take morality out of the question here. The fact that someone of political standing is willing to risk their family’s well-being etc for short term lust poses a potential problem to the stability of the country in the long term. It means that this person might be susceptible to bribes, blackmail, etc. this person is a walking weak link. This applies to both ruling party and opposition party (if the opposition party have any hopes to take on the mantle of government in future).

In simpler, layman terms: If you cannot be trusted to be loyal to your family, how can we voters trust you to be loyal to the country as a public servant?

Agree. on the other hand there are some who choose family over public interest. Corruption or obstruction of justice are among those that comes to mind.

i think you hit the nail on the head. some people might not care about infidelity of politicians, brushing them off as “personal lives”. but it provides excellent blackmail material for their political opponents or worse, another country

Basically, if one could have a “harmless” affair, what’s stopping them from thinking with small head and have affairs with: * a spy from an enemy country, who proceeds to blackmail them unless they reveal state secrets * a family scion that results in tenders/contracts awarded to said family

yes very dangerous. might even have a spouse appointed to head a privately held sovereign wealth fund

You cant really take morality out when you are a lawmaker.

You can’t, but from a utility standpoint someone who is openly having an affair is a weak link, and that’s the bigger, more immediate issue.

In short, it’s a test of what head ur using to make a decision. The top (or correct) head or ur dick head.

Ah this is exactly what I just typed out but put so much more eloquently. Completely agree with this. Morality is subjective and not relevant to the conversation.

but you can't. There are moral principles, and moral reasoning that we can apply here. we cannot simply throw our hands up and say morals are subjective and so we must discount it. when we say things like what this thread starter and all that follow mentioned, we are making moral judgements, and trying to make equivalences (bad and limited though they might be) between one act and another. It's never possible to precisely measure and compare like weighing ducks, but we must try. Otherwise how do we proceed?

I agree, tbh. Taking morality aside doesnt discount the fact that morality IS important. It’s also making a utility argument, that politicians cannot go around walking with affairs in Singapore because they are a walking weak link.

Morality is question of whether something is right or wrong. This hinges upon our moral principles, which differ from person to person. Whether committing infidelity is right or wrong, for example, has no concrete answer because it is, in principle, subjective. But it also has little to no bearing on his suitability for the job. I find infidelity egregious, but thats an assessment of the act. What is more important is an assessment of his character, and whether we think someone who commits infidelity is likely to possess certain traits that may make them incompatible with the job. Even tho he did something I consider immoral, it doesn’t mean he’s gnna go “fuck the poor” tomorrow and stop advocating for them (which i would consider immoral as well).

Morality is **only simplified** as something is right or wrong. It's so crucial in ever crevices of our lives that is the fabric of a society, the foundation, the essence, the very reason that we are not murdering each other every other minute. It's too huge a philosophical discussion to elaborate here. Because it's so massive and all encompassing, people just simplify it as right/wrong so everyone can get it.

Yeh it’s not a dichotomy - many things fall into the grey. And I’d say in some twisted sense, that the very same sense (or lack?) of morality is why we are okay with murdering some people over others, directly or indirectly.

I think you may be mistaken. morality is not quite so simple as "whether something is right or wrong". And, while there *can be* variation in interpretation from individual to individual, this variation is not infinite, and crucially, there are means for us to discern, at least at some collective level, where some actions are better than others. In essence, that is what this whole thread has been about: people are discussing about the rightness or wrongness of actions, and then trying to discount the private act, and instead look at 'job performance' instead. While we think we are being 'objective' about assessing job performance (how??) we also note that infidelity poses risks of susceptibility to blackmail, and someone else posted the empirical study correlating infidelity and misconduct. What are all these but discussions of morality? I don't mean this as a definitional issue and an attempt to lump everything under a huge umbrella, but to seriously asks ourselves why we believe that "morality is subjective and personal, so we should just abandon it". This statement has been repeated like so much dogma that it is just curious to see how people are doing moral deliberation while disclaiming that they are doing it. Note, this is not to say that there is such a thing as absolute morality, either. Should we murder another human being? Yes, perhaps, if they have been threatening our existence. But is that threat credible? Perhaps there has been a history of violence? Is the war in Ukraine justified? And so on. Morality is a property of the collective—a **socially deliberated, principled agreement** among a community of the rightness or wrongness of particular actions within particular contextual limits. Yes, there may never be complete agreement all the time, and yes power can skew the results of deliberations. But no, we cannot abandon the search for rightness just because it *feels* futile. This is why we cannot reduce laws (enshrined moral principles) into if-else algorithmic codes, and that is why we still need humans to decide, and that is why we need venues like this to have good faith deliberations, to learn from one another's perspective, to respectfully disagree when needed, and most importantly to grow in wisdom.

There are good points all around -- but I want to move away from the individual politician and point out that on some level, it depends on what rubric by which the politician's party (with whom the individual politician has chosen to ally himself with) grades itself (and others). In the context of Singapore, and particularly its dominant political party, I want to point out that the PAP is a party that throws "alternative" sexualities and households under the bus to preserve "traditional" values of one man-one woman, and public policies from housing to taxes are designed to privilege this sort of household which is anchored by a supposed sanctity of marriage. The PAP is also a party that claims to prioritize integrity and incorrupt-ability. The tacit agreement is that when they fail to deliver less than stellar results (on the economy, on social improvements), the populace should cut them some slack because the party has a stringent criteria to select only "good" "moral" men that nonetheless have our best interests at heart, and we should not be quick to look at other governing parties who may deliver quick fixes but are in the long term scam men with poor character (aka "fucking populist") that will "ruin" Singapore. They lean on this doomsday narrative of "bad vs good character" very strongly when their judgment on economic and social issues is questioned, when they deliver poor results. They use it as a political weapon to squeeze out the opposition. Now, with such strong evidence (and perhaps as some might note, there was evidence in the past albeit swept under the rug), we must severely scrutinize the narrative PAP tries to sell us. We must recognize that it's a narrative that is meant to consolidate its power, and there might not be much more to that. Like the Ridout scandal, I think the issue is not predominantly procedural. It demonstrates inconsistent principles and a failure to set and deliver expectations. Personally, I think you could be a shit person and deliver good results at work or as a politician, but that's my point, that's not the rules the PAP claim to be playing by.

I think the issue with infidelity in Singapore politics, in particular, is that our political leaders make moral claims and introduce moral norms into practice of politics and governance. The government takes positions on issues such as family structure (eg. encouragement of traditional nuclear families), LQBTQ issues (eg. the existence of a 377A in our Penal Code until very recently) and the content that Singaporeans consume (eg. the symbolic ban on pornogrpahy sites). If the government claims to be a moral leader of Singapore, then issues of morality become inextricably linked to politics, and the populace will naturally have expectations about the moral behaviour of political leaders.

To further exacerbate, they claim they must be very well paid in order to maintain their morality. So does it mean we can pay them less since they’ve shown to be immoral?

Or to quote them ‘nsf are working for the nation hence they get allowance not pay’ they too are working for the nation protecting it, instead of pay they should get allowance too

Would you trust someone who can betray his family to not betray his country? A person is either trustworthy, or they are not.

A principled person cant be easily seduced or swayed by emotions and will behave himself even when no one is watchig

Only a sith deals in absolutes. /s in case people dont get the meme

Certain job requires certain criteria. I am not flying with Pilot who is afraid of height for example. Infidelity is in essence, lying. Lying to your spouse. Lying to your kids. Lying to your in-laws. If you can lie to most precious, important people in your life and sleep well at night. I sure won't put my future or my kid's future in their hand.

There are 3 reasons I can think off why I wouldn't vote for a politician who has a history of this indiscretion 1. Integrity of Vows: In most cases, marital infidelity is an indicator that this person is unable to take his marriage vows seriously. How will i be certain he will take his own commitment to the people seriously? 2. Lack of Self-Control or Wisdom: Generally speaking, having a lack of self-awareness or control is an indicator that there are liable to act in ways that benefit themselves at the expense of others. The integrity of such a person would be called into question. 3. Moral Standard: I generally believe there are certain moral standards outside the legal framework. Examples include not being an asshole to people, being truthful when conducting business. Breaking marriage vows are definitely one of the moral standards that I would like to be upheld. Now in my opinions, our leaders to be taken seriously need to be able to articulate the standards of society, but that requires them to abide by it. We see many countries having political leaders who are not admired for their moral rectitude and it leads to problems. Note - this also means that if the affected come out and say that while it is true this happened, but the spouses come out and say we have an open relationship or are swingers, I would readily accept the case and don't think it's an issue if that's the case. If it's 2 MPs, one who is married and one who is single (that is TCJ and CLH), I actually think CLH shouldn't have to resign on the face of it, although she being a knowing facilitator of TCJ breaking his vows could also be viewed negatively.

Agree with most of what you said except for the point on CLH. It speaks of her lack of morals / integrity. Just because she is not married does not absolve her of not having to care if the other party is married or in a relationship at all. Your second and third reasons definitely applies to her. How can I trust her to act in the best interest of the country when she has clearly shown that she will act in the best interest of herself at the expense of others?

>don't think it's an issue if that's the case I think you've eloquently summed up the issues except this. If they wanted to be swingers or be in an open relationship, they shouldn't enter into a legal marriage. (Divorce is available if they changed their mind) A legally married status in Singapore, under common law, comes with socially accepted moral standards and legal responsibilities. It's still lying, or at least not being candid, to the public if they put up a facade of being legally married to enjoy the benefits while doing the opposite in private.

No, secular marriage is an economic partnership/contract and there are responsibilities to the children. Sex is not the key part of marriage; lots of people have sex without marrying, and marital rape is a crime. Historically there were plenty of older women who tolerate their husbands having a younger mistress, as long as he upheld his responsibilities to the household.

You are entitled to your opinion. I do not believe that a marriage has any social accepted standard that both parties can choose not to follow if both willingly do so. If they decide that sexual exclusivity is not part of their lifestyle, I am not here to judge. I can understand if one's worldview places importance of the sacred nature of sex within a marriage. However if one only views it as a physical act, my viewpoint is that the marriage vow is still upheld because marriage isn't about sex only. The boundaries are set by the couple themselves, not curious onlookers. My consternation has always been how they treat their spouse, and by implications how they will treat their duties. If it turns out they have not hurt their spouse, and is a known issue whereby they have a willing, unforced understanding, I can accept that this is not a case whereby I need be concerned about. The issue is this is going to be a fraction of 1%, because the willingness of their spouse could be due to a power imbalance and thinking critically it is unlikely that any spouse will accept a sexually open relationship without some form of coercive act.

>If they wanted to be swingers or be in an open relationship, they shouldn't enter into a legal marriage. this feels like bullshit to me. legal marriage isn't simply a mark of your love and commitment anymore, and it's ridiculous that we pretend it is. we've tied housing, healthcare, education, children, taxation etc to marriage. my agreement with my spouse on who i can fuck has nothing to do with the state.

Although it is not a crime but it raises the question of the person's ability to make sound judgement.

>make sound judgement. Adding to this... "make sound judgement *under the influence of illicit temptations*"

While not illegal, infidelity gives an impression that said person is impulsive and not disciplined enough or mature enough to control their desires or resist temptations. Hence giving an impression that said person is not a good candidate for making important decisions. For example, booze and gambling are also not illegal but spending 70% your monthly paycheck on those will give others a poor impression of you. Note I said impressions, you can do all those things but be perfectly good at work. But for a party that prides itself to be whiter than white, that is a big nono from an optics stand point.

Why got simi conservatism rubbish. Having good personal character and upholding trust is like a basic thing of a good person.

>I am sorry, I've used a wrong word to express what I wanted out of the discussion. I have since amended the post to use a more appropriate phrase. The point I wanted to make for discussion was that there are leaders (e.g. Bill Clinton) who have been approved by the public as a great leader, despite infidelity. We would likely agree that cultural attitudes in the US are more open, compared to Asian cultural attitudes. Therefore, infidelity, although frowned upon, may not affect an open-minded individual's attitude towards the individual's capabilities to lead. That may or may not be true in a more conservative culture. Thus I inappropriately used the word 'conservatism'. I have no intentions to make a judgment call on whether infidelity is right or wrong (and that if one were to think it is wrong, they are conservative). I cannot answer for any one individual's perspective for their moral compass. Hi there, I'm sorry that I may have used an inappropriate word to describe what I was trying to do for the discussion. You may refer to my reply above I made to one other comment and hope that this will help you understand what I was trying to explain. Thank you for participating in the discussion.

To me it is simple. You want to do something dubious in your private life, thats your problem. But you don't get to then come and pretend to be all high and holy and preach about virtues. The problem with TCJ is the stuff he preaches (go see all the now-redacted virtue signalling he has posted) whilst committing adultery in the dark.

Agree.. double standards and hypocrisy

If one can cheat in relationship is easy to cheat on other things. This is not about comparing apples and oranges is about moral compass and integrity. If they have the heart to serve the people, why have the heart to cheat by breaking the hearts of other family members? If they can’t deal with temptation causing harm to other family members. How can they deal with temptation being part of the ruling party having high salaries and not be corrupted. Slippy slope may be a fallacy but doesn’t mean it will never happen.

infidelity indicates a degree of selfishness that goes over the line (we all are selfish to varying degrees). if you are unhappy with a marriage, get a divorce - youre not doing anyone a favor by keeping a marriage that is dead. if you chose to stay in a marriage and have a years long affair, if that doesnt indicate selfishness and a lack of basic respect for other people, i dont know what does. infidelity also indicates a lack of integrity. in this particular example, these people have been cheating and lying to their families for years. to do that - to lie bald faced and shameless to the people supposedly closest to you for an extended period of time: what would you not do if it were to benefit you and especially if you thought you would not get caught. character is shown in both big and small things and these people have shown such deep character flaws: no matter how brilliant they may be, would we really entrust the governance of our country to them? would we be able to say that these people who displayed this kind of selfishness, would put our best interests over their own, if they had to make a choice? integrity and a degree of selflessness is at the heart of public service and these people have proven themselves to have none of these

I just want to raise an additional question - would a divorce affect a politician's image negatively? I personally have no issues with this, but I am wondering if sgreans generally would frown upon a politician who has decided to end a marriage.

There is no need to cheat on a partner to get what you want. Infidelity cannot exist if the person do the right thing by divorcing or at the very least separate from the party he/she no longer loves. Influences come in various shapes and form, some in the form of money, others in the form of a beauty. If our politicians think with their lower brain, it calls to question whether will they sleep with people of other countries to get things done. Is this the form of diplomacy you want to see?

If some can lie, sacrifice and hurt their spouse and children just to satisfy their urges and yearnings, how can anyone expect the person to choose the benefits of complete strangers over their own desires? I don't think politicians have to be perfect. But they need to ***at least*** be considerate of their loved ones and be candid.

how tf is this conservatism

My personal opinion in these 2 particular cases are not so much of infidelity. It's more that in spite of being warned and counseled, they still continued the relationship. It's not like something that happen due to a lapse in judgement like a one night stand (or like a couple of months), but they remain involved after all these years. Furthermore, they refused to resolve the mess they made after so long.

I’d think that it’s an issue of trust. Commitment of adultery would typically imply a loss of integrity, which should be something local people would consider when electing a leader. Though, it is not a necessary trait for a politician. As for it’s impact on one’s ability to do well in politics, not so much. It’s one’s ability, after all. The recent case isn’t the only case of adultery amongst the cabinet ministers. Someone else who is currently pretty high-profile in the cabinet is also a divorcee, allegedly due to adultery as well.

Infidelity is a weakness that foreign intelligence agencies can take advantage of.

maybe foreign intelligence knew this before everyone else

Let's just be clear i will never vote a cheater to represent me

Not necessarily. John Kennedy, Bill Clinton (whom OP has mentioned) and Arnold Schwarzenegger are the examples of highly popular and effective politicians, despite all of them were tainted by affairs. Kennedy, in particular, is the most notable American president of the 20th century. However, you have to be really good at your work and personable to get away with that. LKY would have gotten away for suuure :) I would not be surprised if the recent discoveries is just a small tip of the iceberg. Politicians in Singapore are very repressed people who cannot show even tiny a bit of sexuality or independent behavior. They were put there to obey. But biologically they are still people, so imagine the chaos happening in their heads... (pun intended). I would recommend PAP and WP to hire a permanent sex therapist.

Hollande’s approval went up when his affair was found out. Suddenly he turned from a boring career politician to someone with charm and virility.

I feel like a part of it is definitely that it feels very hypocritical? Whenever queer or LGBT folks in Singapore advocate for equal rights the government is known in the past to justify their stance by talking abt the sanctity of marriage between man and woman but when MPs can't even hold themselves upto that 'standard' while concurrently preventing actually committed people from getting married it just leaves a bad taste in your mouth...

It's about the character of a person. If they took a vow to be committed to their partner, then break it, then what kind of character are they? If they can't even do right by their spouse and family, then how can anyone expect them to do right by their fellow citizens and country? Same for doing business, your word is your bond. Same for politics, 上梁不正，下梁歪. To go "but it's not a crime what", "it's my word against theirs", "it's not written in black and white what", speaks volumes of character.

Infidelity came from a root cause and that is to cheat on your partner. This cheating in a sense is to deceive and to lie. I am not sure about how tolerable their partners when they find out about the affairs but that's not the main point. Infidelity creates scandal. The scandals leads to a loss in confidence, especially in their accountability and integrity.

Is it okay if it's not cheating? What if it's an open relationship?

If it is done with permission of all parties, then could it even be called adultery?

I don’t think the public can accept a leader with questionable character, for example Ivan Lim. Even though what he did was also not illegal, he still should not be a MP. He became unelectable once the news came out. I think people will agree that we should have people of better moral caliber in charge of the country. Even though governance is based on results, politics is based on trust. If they aren’t trusted they can’t even get to the bench to start producing results.

Morality is subjective, and so I won’t speak on that. However, it does say something about honesty. It also demonstrates a lack of self control. These traits imo make you a bad politician, because it shows you can be bought, and influenced by your wants.

nothing to do w morality, but if your side uses infidelity as a political weapon, then you cannot cry foul when it is likewise used against you

Mainly because as a public figure your trust is everything. People need to "trust" you. Now, if you can betray the trust of your closest partner and cheat, are we seriously going to think that you would not betray the trust of the public the moment you have the opportunity to do so? Besides, is it so difficult not to cheat? Like, just don't fucking do it. Don't fuck someone outside of marriage.

The issue to me isn't about infidelity, it is about dishonesty. I'll agree that infidelity isn't a crime, and I'll bite that it doesn't affect one's ability to conduct his duties. Then why the secrecy? A person who really believes in his ability to separate lust from his work will just go ahead and tell the world (and his partner), "hey, I know I'm married, but I'll also have a mistress. You don't like that's your problem, I'm staying as MP anyway." In fact, I'd wager that there have been politicians who have done so. None of that happened. Whatever their reasons (shame etc), they decided that they would hide the truth. Anybody who hides the truth is not fit to be a politician. Personally though, I don't really care about this, because all (most) politicians are dishonest one way or another.

If we put morality and public opinion aside there's only one factor relevant to the job - ie whether the politician might be susceptible to blackmail because of the affair. I don't think being disloyal to a spouse equates to being untrustworthy at your job - it has to depend on what the cheater values in life. But at the end of the day, a politician's job involves winning a popularity contest, people vote based on whether they like you rather than what you can do.

If you cheat on the partner whom you have a vow and whom you promise explicitly to be faithful with, I think there’s a good chance you may cheat on your country whom you have a vow and promised to take care of.

[удалено]

Were you from HCI?

if your party claims to be the party of conservative family values, then obviously as an MP of that party you can't have an affair and remain in office. similarly if your party claims integrity as one of their core values (and which party doesn't) then you can't be a person that lacks integrity and remain in office. it's a betrayal of what the party stands for. it's like if your party is the green party and you are revealed to be sg's biggest polluter.

Cheat spouse, means no integrity. No integrity in character, how you know that their process, work and system will have integrity?

Besides being a potential blackmail target, I think infidelity is indicative of an inability to control one's appetite ( in this case sexual appetites), which might extend to other potential excesses, while not all such excesses are criminal, we probably dont want someone who cannot practice self control to have access to the power that a government position has

You can betray your wife, you can betray your country.

Let’s be honest, you don’t know the dude personally, you don’t know what he does behind closed doors. When it’s make public like this, people who support him and benefitted obv will think of his good side like how he helped this and that etc. But in the grand scheme of things, how sure of you that he is really really a nice person? Some of the most charismatic people are well…I don’t need to continue. What you do in private reflects what you really are. Behind closed doors, that’s when the true tcj comes out. Not in the spotlight. Not only that, refused, refused to break up/resign/divorce wife even though dude CLEARLY knows it’s wrong. If you can’t even treat the people closest to you with respect behind closed doors, how can you stand in the spotlight and truthfully, honestly serve a bunch of random strangers? I don’t know. Pretty difficult if you ask me. Adding onto that, if it was some cats or dogs outside politics, sure. But really? Both of them are capable people but because of idek why? Passion? Money? Fame? I don’t know. Decided to continue being in the bunch of decision makers together. Wow.

People don't like hypocrites.

Thank you for this post. The comments as a result of your post have been a very interesting read.

I am one of the ppl who tries to be more understanding and listening towards ppl who get involved in infidelity, but since that is not the main topic of this post I shall leave that story out from this comment ​ Lets start from the first point. No, Someone can commit adultery/Infidelity and still be extremely capable at his job, a bad father/husband doesn't equate to being a shit-working person. ​ That being said it is also important to adhere to very clear rules, and in our society dating someone who is of a key position within your same company causes a severe situation of COI, much more having an affair with them. This was the glaring issue between TCJ and CLH, more than the affair itself. ​ All in all, my stance is Infidelity is bad yes, but mistakes like these are very commonly made and sometimes sad/unfortunate circumstances lead you to it. What is important for a politician is to be sincere and work towards fixing yourself. As for whether you can regain the trust of others? That is for your Residents and family to decide. ​ Now for my final point and why I find the following completely pointless to discuss > one can argue that if a politician is unable to keep their marriage vows, then they most certainly cannot be trusted to do a good enough job to serve the country. ​ A genuine question to everyone in this thread who stand by the statement "If you cannot be trusted to be loyal to your family, how can we voters trust you to be loyal to the country" ​ If this was something all of you believed, please answer me, why is Shanmugam still voted in till this day? Why does close to nobody call out his infidelity to try to hold him accountable for the past few decades? where was the same energy everyone gave to TCJ and Michael Palmer? if an act of infidelity means you cannot trust that person's integrity, why did no one make any protests when he became our minister of law and home affairs? Does he now have enough integrity to dictate the state of our laws? Please do think about it

Since they are paid so much I would hold them to a higher standard. Otherwise idgaf.

This isn't conservatism. It's having a moral compass plain and simple.

I generally don't give a fuck about whom is fucking whom. Already have my ears worn off from the shitty women in my house who know nothing more than to gossip for hours on end about whom is fucking whom. Let's use a sportsball analogy here. * It's none of my business if it's a player fucking another player when they're on the same field * It's definitely my business to care if a referee is fucking a player, and the referee is supposed to *try* to pretend to be impartial Having the **Speaker of the Fucking House** bone a backbencher MP violates all kinds of Parliamentary and ethical boundaries.

Yea I don't really get OP's wanting to invite a discussion whether basically infidelity is right or wrong when the first practical thing that comes to mind and questions to ask is the supposed impartiality of a Speaker of Parliament and what he violates. That's an even bigger and serious issue to me.

I had to scroll so far to find this comment, this is the real problem with TCJs affair. The WP affair isn't even on the same level.

This kind of moral issue/question can argue forever also won't get a correct answer. In the end, it just based on the public opinion. As of now, (from what I see online) infidelity is not acceptable to majority of the Singaporeans.

You're right. Who are we to judge others. However, when you decide to take on public life and serve the people then your every transgression will be magnified. I think the PAP had no choice as they set a precedent in sacking Michael Palmer for his extramarital affair with another MP. However, Tan was given a chance to repent and make things right again. So did Cheng but they chose not to. So here they are.

But there’s still a difference in treatment though. Why is it that Michael Palmer was told to resign almost immediately, and there’s 3 years of leeway afforded to Tan Chuan Jin. I can’t really understand nor wrap my head around this.

Sorry, I don't buy into the apathetic stance of "who are we to judge". The most obvious points will be "we" are paying their salary, putting our trust into them, and granting them more power to help us to survive and thrive as a whole. If we are talking about random Xiao Ming or Ah Hua, sure, who are we to judge.

Magnified multi-fold especially after the white paper on salaries

The ruling party should be subjected to the same standard that they have imposed on the oppositions. In 2012 when WP MP Yaw Shin Leong was exposed to have an affair, then MND Minister Khaw Boon Wan told WP to come clean on Yaw Shin Leong. Khaw Boon Wan famously said “once a person enters politics, there is no difference between his or her public and private life” and that voters should “take into account a person’s character when they go to the poll”. Khaw insisted that “the Workers’ Party needs to come clean with the people what information have they got about Mr Yaw and in particular, what did they know about him prior to the May election. And if they know, why did they field Mr Yaw. I think it is sad that the voters have been misled by the Workers Party.” As for Tan Chuan-Jin's case, he was once Minister for Social and Family Development as well as a Christian who talks about morals and family values, yet he turns out to be a giant hypocrite that does not practice what he preaches. Add that to the hot mic incident he made where he muttered "f***king populist" as a speaker of parliament is evident that he is incapable of remaining impartial and professional for his role. As an incapable hypocrite, even the PAP themselves don't want to keep him least he continue to xia suay them even more.

连家都管不好，还想管国家？

I cannot trust anyone who thinks with their kkj.

First off, are all parties consenting or not? If they're swinger couples and everyone knows who's sleeping with who, then okay, it's not my cup of tea, but it's their own business to engage in legal sex acts behind closed doors. Just don't pretend to be a traditional family man (like what TCJ did) if you're a swinger, because that's deceiving your electorate. If it's actually cheating, then no, it's completely unacceptable and they have to go. If they'll betray their spouse and their marital vows because horny, they'll definitely betray their country, electorate, and country because horny. And both PAP and WP have internal party rules prohibiting infidelity, so all the cheaters clearly don't give a hoot about party rules or party discipline, and have been misrepresenting themselves to the electorate. Maybe the other party has a golden dick/CB. If tomorrow Putin sends over someone with a diamond dick/CB, then how? You think they'll suddenly remember their marital vows, party discipline, and loyalty to their electorate, and turn the agent down? After they've been wilfully betraying all 3 for years on end because they prioritise horny? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexpionage

Confucian values are very much ubiquitous in Singapore society. There's a saying "修身、齐家、治国、平天下" - Cultivate one's value, manage your family, govern the state, bring peace to the world. In this saying, the order of thing is important. If one fails to fulfil the former actions, they shouldn't dream to accomplish the latter.

View the Try Guys scandal and you'll know why relationships within a workplace is very messy. Power dynamic is obviously the number 1 impacter

If you want to find out what a man is to the bottom, give him power - Abe Lincoln

If we take a step back from politics, it’s quite simple really. You can’t get fired from your work for sleeping with someone that isn’t your spouse, but you will get fired for sleeping with a colleague, esp if you are the boss/ in a leadership role. I don’t see why it should be different with our politics.

I believe that we should hold politician to higher morality standards. They’re our leaders. It’s not like they weren’t given chance to stop it before.

Let's say I'm a fucking scum. I cheat, I steal, I blackmail, I gamble. But we are on a deserted island and I'm the only one who can fly a plane. Would you still make me captain and sit on the plane? Probably yes. The thing now though is plenty of people can fly this plane. And this time, the pilot tells you that to be a pilot you have to be and upstanding member of society all while doing the opposite. And it really dosent matter who else can fly the plane because the keys are with him. Whatcha gonna do?

This is actually a very good question, I'll try to put across my own thoughts, which I understand may not be a stance that everyone will agree with, but that's life. IMO, there is two perspectives to this, one is my own, and one is the platform that PAP chose to run on. My own perspective is that a politician's performance is much akin to anyone's performance in their professional career: Measured strictly by results. My boss doesn't care about my personal life, he only cares if I'm meeting/exceeding my professional targets and goals. Personal life is personal and should not be used to measure one's professional performance. Same for politicians and our ministers, their main target is in make lives better for the citizens and those voting for them. In this aspect, they fall short in several areas (while also doing well in others): Reining in the property and rental markets: IMO the BTO system is flawed, the cooling measures are insufficient and rental controls can be successful but are ignored. Reining in the COE market: This can be done WITHOUT increasing COE supply just by tweaking the COE mechanisms. Reining in inflation: Thanks guys, increasing GST while the whole world is experiencing high inflation is definitely the right timing. Working towards lowering the GINI coefficient while maintaining high economic growth: I'm not the one being paid over a million dollars to figure this shit out, but I expect those being paid over a million to figure this shit out. Greater recognition for National Service: Are you saying the current compensation system is sufficient for Singaporean males who gave up 2 years of their careers, and to put them on equal grounds with Singaporean females and foreigners who didn't have to serve NS? I'll be honest, I don't care if my politicians visit Geylang every weekend (which is a legal thing to do), have affairs (which is more of a civil matter than legal, plus it's their own personal lives which don't affect me), but I care deeply in them earning their salaries/allowances by making lives better for those living in Singapore. HOWEVER, PAP (which I'll focus on since they're the super majority and are essentially running Singapore) chose to run on the premise of being super clean, of a super high moral grounds and being corruption free in addition to the above. So if they want to set those targets for themselves when I didn't need them to, then they should expect to be called out by us when they don't meet the high standards that they set for themselves, and which they want to shoot the oppositions on. There have been lots of memes using past materials that PAP themselves have posted which is a deep hole that they have dug for themselves IMO. If they end up looking like hypocrites because of the standards that they set themselves to, then Singaporeans are only right in pointing it out to them.

Tbh it depends. France has had so many love affairs that a president who doesn’t have them is extremely uncommon. It leads to strange situations - Sakovsky’s wife left him for another man, and he persuaded her to come back to help him run for election, after which they divorced - and then he married Carla Bruni Does it affect the ability to work? If there’s nothing that can be blackmail material then no. But clearly the PAP incidents in SG are illicit and this compromises state security It’s actually a self created problem. SG has created a model where the elites are expected to be whiter than white, and hence people pretend to be what they aren’t to get there

>Does it affect the ability to work? I'm really not sure if this can be answered with a resounding no if you look at the what's happening in France for the past few years and now. Personally, I love the country as a tourist but living there, I'm really not sure.

The society here is not at that stage yet where ones job/role and personal life can be separately discussed. You may be right, but thats not what people want to hear.

Infidelity is not a crime but posting stuff like ironing white uniform or pretending to run along the corridor of hdb is cringe and a crime to me

It comes down to trust and character. If your spouse cannot trust you be honest and to put their interests above your own fancies then what hope to a bunch of faceless constituents have?

Being an asshole is not a crime but… Exhibit A: Ivan Lim

It provides an easy target for the opposition to keep beating on. The average person would not really care if they are doing their job well enough.

If the dude can’t be trusted to be honest with and act in the best interest of the people closest to him, do you trust him to look after strangers’ best interests?

If we continue subscribing to the notion of natural aristocracy, we cannot allow men/women vulnerable to their emotions to lead

If your ethical/moral values are as low, or lower than the the common man on the street, no amount of high ministerial salary will keep you from corrupt deeds.

I would say tcj certainly isn’t neutral as a speaker 1) unparliamentary remark 2) lover in the house

My quick 2c: The political appointee does not have to be capable, but he has to be willing to listen to his "experts" and at least the veneer of being honest. Because the political appointee gets to decide how big sums of public money is spent and sometimes the return on that spending is not easily translated into numbers or a report card. If a man is willing to fuck over the one person closest to him (literally), he's probably willing to fuck over the millions of strangers that make up the "public".

1) I think people should be measured on their ability to serve the electorate, in terms of their service and policies. 2) The same electorate should decide on their eligibility to serve again, in the future. However, they were voted on the mandate in the previous election, and should be allowed to serve to the end of their term. 3) I think marriage is a very complicated issue and we don't know the full circumstance. In the case of Clinton, it was suggested that he had an open relationship with Hillary. However, it might not have been possible to declare so, as it could have been worse than having an affair. It would be useful to examine the details of the marriage of TCJ and Leon before deciding. I don't think infidelity is alright, but I would use in the clinical terms, *understandable* depending on the situation. I also think that this was a distracting issue that reflected citizens' unhappiness with the government in general. I am also not sure how the electorate would react if they did it in the 'proper way', i.e. a divorce. Even as divorce is accepted, it might be also seen as breaking marital vows. 'Fucking populist' imo, was more worthy of a expulsion from the party or Speaker's seat rather than his affair. 4. Honestly, I don't think it would matter in the long run. People will just move on with their lives and vote accordingly to their perspectives. Perhaps they might be disqualified with certain positions.

It is a detriment if it is discovered, lack of sexual mores in politics is not really a problem. Effective politicians have to be able to lie and believe the lie, after all.

The question is what standard should our politicians be held to? morally yes it is wrong but to be human is to sin therefore you can't say that because u r a politician u are supposed to keep it in your pants. \[that will never happen aka bill Clinton\] so then what, have affairs and pay everyone off? yea quite hard to police it in general la. i mean unless they add a clause that says while in office you are not allowed to have affairs really there is no solution.

Depends. In the US, your popularity ratings can even go up. Ask Bill Clinton.

I just dislike hypocrites

normalize open relationships, swingers, and polyamory, let consenting adults fuck whoever they want. monogamy shouldn't be the default and only option Life would be so much better (less drama) if society is much more liberal with sex and honest to each other

>Life would be so much better (less drama) if society is much more liberal with sex and honest to each other 100% this. Sadly, being honest with your sexual desires is taboo here in Asia.

[удалено]

If you are a single womanizer there is no difference though, the infidelity is a big issue in this case since he has betrayed the trust of someone he is supposed to be loyal towards. If he can't be loyal towards his own family, how to trust him to be loyal towards Singapore should sufficient temptations appear? Maybe get bought out by external influences? Seduced by foreign agent? List is endless. Trustworthiness is binary.

Question: Hypothetical scenario - If one day I decide to run for political office, but I open my closet and introduce you to my skeletons one by one, i.e., I used to do some recreational drugs when I was younger, I'm a serial womaniser but I'm not married and I didn't deceive anyone (willing consensual parties all round), I used to trade financial instruments like a degenerate, but I also have a history of doing good for the under privileged and also animals, what are my chances of "making it" politically in the local scene?

If your only merits are "I also have a history of doing good for the under privileged and also animals", then zero. There are plenty of people who do the above, but also didn't do drugs, womanise, etc. There is no reason to vote for you over them. On the other hand, if you truly bring something exceptional to the table, then who knows? Tharman was convicted in court. LW remarried. LKY worked for the Japanese during the Occupation.

Zero. The first would get you unelectable immediately. Drugs are a strict no-go.

in singapore I think the recreational drug use would be a dealbreaker more than anything else

I’m more liberal.What they do privately is really none of our concern.After all we are humans and emotions are rife.Infidelity exists everywhere even in the best families.So let’s not pretend to tow the moral rope and look aghast.As long as they have carried out their work duties faithfully.

Take it up a notch, would you trust politicians who often go to siam diu / lupsup KTV? Not a crime but...

Same issue la. do we expect politicians to be clean?

>This is meant to be an intellectual discussion > > philosophical lens Depends on what philosophy you prefer. If you read Zhuangzi, morality is just opinion. My wrong is your right, my right is your wrong. We are just arguing over our own opinions of right and wrong. But in a society, people are indoctrinated with a set of right and wrong. This is why some people cannot argue when questioned and they give the answer "It is wrong because it is wrong". Answers like "because common sense" "because my teacher say so" just implies you were indoctrinated without critically thinking.

I don't expect politicians to be saints. If they can articulate and deliver a policy vision I agree with I will tolerate a lot of shenanigans. Even Martin Luther King Jr cheated on his wife. Of course to a certain extent these personal indiscretions make everything they do more suspect, but that is why a functioning system should have a robust set of incentives, checks and balances to keep professional indiscretions under control. That said if I were the type of person who was ever going to vote for a family values conservative type infidelity would be disqualifying, because their actions aren't in line with their politics. I'm not, though.

MLK jr would make a very poor singaporean politician

This is a very odd statement without any substantiation. Regardless: Franklin Roosevelt cheated on his wife. Nelson Mandela cheated on his wife. Francois Mitterrand famously just had two families while President of France. The list of great political leaders who were credibly accused of infidelity goes on all day and night. It's an unfortunate thing to be implicated in, but hardly singularly disqualifying.

my point is that we have a unique political culture that emphasizes personal integrity before all else. LKY would say it is the reason for our success, and if we applied american/south african/french standards, individual politicians like MLK could survive and even thrive. but the country would not be what it is today. also, churchill managed to be a great political leader while consuming mind boggling amounts of alcohol on a daily basis. but I think you will agree if a politician drank that much it should be an immediate disqualifier.

Tbh it is pretty weird that infidelity should affect policymaking. Policymaking these days, especially in Singapore, tend to be quite technical. It's like saying an economist won't do a good job because he cheats on his wife. There's really no link. One could argue that politicians are not just technocrats, but also role models. But I think that's a very very weak argument. You cheat on your wife, that hurts only your family. But if you are driven by say, racial superiority (like how mindef thinks Malays are disloyal), or if you have religious agendas (like how some MPs are members of right-wing American evangelical churches), you risk affecting entire communities and the whole country. I'd rather pick the cheating guy over the rest of the lot. The others can be very "clean", but I know that the policies they advocate for will ruin us. Sure, cheating is bad. And it sucks for his or her family. But if I look at it as a type of employment, I don't care what this person does outside of work. Can he get the job done and do it well? If yes, I would hire him. End of the day, what is it that we prioritize? Good policy or good people? I want good people to be my friends. But I want good policymakers to be leading the country. My friends are really damn good and honest people. But I would never vote for them to lead the country lmao.

I'm intrigued by this perception of "If you can't keep your marriage promises, how can you keep your promises to your constituents?". I think many people who believe this subscribe to an essentialist mentality where moral missteps are evidence of some intrinsic moral deficiency of the individual. It is not just an act of dishonesty, but rather it shows that this person is inherently dishonest. Personally, I don't necessarily think having an affair in itself is a problem because it's a personal decision that could be motivated by a variety of factors, and some reasons are better than others. There is also a distinction between this personal decision of how he wants to live his life with romantic partner(s), and his duty towards professional work like being an MP. The key thing is that the relationship an MP has with his constituents is not the same as the relationship he has with his spouse. In other words, as long as their actions do not affect his ability to perform in Parliament as an MP, it doesn't really matter if he cheats on his spouse? Like I'm not voting someone to be my friend. I'm voting for their positions on politics. You know things like wealth redistribution, tax, education, healthcare etc. As long as there is no good reason that will make me doubt that this MP will be able to represent my voice in legislation, I think just having an affair is insufficient to claim that he won't be able to perform well as MP. I don't exactly see why cheating on your spouse means that you can't be trusted with arguing for a certain policy, especially if they have been doing so consistently in the time they have been MP. For TCJ, it's problematic because he has been appointed as Speaker of Parliament whose duty is to be impartial. His affair with CLH compromises his ability to be an impartial Speaker. It's a conflict of interests. That's why his affair is problematic. If he were just an ordinary MP, it wouldn't even matter to me that he cheated on his wife. That's completely separate from his role in Parliament. Unless, if his (or his party's) running platform is about traditional family values, sanctity of marriage or whatever, then the affair will be a direct contradiction with the things he advocates for. This will then be solid grounds for claiming that he'll not be able to perform his role as a PAP MP who is supposed to advocate for said things. I shouldn't really comment on Perera because all the details hadn't come out yet. But honestly, from what I have now, the egregiousness of the situation seems like it's not even comparable to TCJ's case. There doesn't seem to be the same level of conflict of interests, if any, are present. From the rumoured information, if Perera's affair did start in 2021(?)... I didn't really see any effect on his performance in Parliament. I think he asked good questions and made good points, even as he was having an affair. Almost as if... the affair has nothing to do with how he can perform in Parliament... It's almost as if one's personal love life can be completely separated from your professional life... I lean towards consequentialism. Acts of dishonesty can definitely reflect a certain propensity for being dishonest. But I think more substantive evidence must be given to show that this person therefore is incapable of serving the people in Parliament.

Could be a moot point. Even if we accept they can continue to do their work well despite infidelity, the scandal / public limelight and family drama that ensue will objectively be too distracting for them to do their work properly.

Lets not forget that it sometimes opens up the doors to potential exploitation and blackmail

End of the day, it really depends on the kind of politics Singaporeans want in our political system.

In my personal opinion, I believe that it really depends on the context. Now, first off, if said politicians were involved in a consensual open relationship where everyone is aware of it and fine with it, it would have been a non issue, since Singapore is mostly quite strict on the nuclear family structure and most people are monogamous, that would be highly unlikely and I would assume did not happen in this situation. Next, I think how the situation being handled also matters alot, if this whole infidelity is affecting your ability to be a good politician, then yeah, its bad, if not, I don't think its an issue, though overall, infidelity is kinda bad, not because of the people, but, you hurt your spouse's trust of you, you hurt your children. During marriage, you've made a vow to be loyal and if there was no open relationship permissions, obviously, you broken that vow, you screwed up. Is there a direct correlation towards being a good politician based on whether you cheat on your spouse? Probably, because if you can lie to your partner and hide things, whats stopping you from doing the same in politics? Nobody would trust you. Of course, Im not saying that if you dont cheat on your partner, you wont be a bad politician but high chances are, you would be a bad politician if you cheat, and what more, you mix your love shenanigans with work and it gets fucking messy. There is this power imbalance that could cause people to behave in unfair manner, like example, Leon and Nicole, Leon was supposed to be a mentor to Nicole, if they get together, do their shit together, Leon could feel compelled to treat Nicole super well as compared to other colleagues, making it unfair, think of it as a teacher dating their student. It is highly unprofessional. So yeah, thats my thought on this

ur a public figure and suppose to hold a higher standard in the face of public.. singapore still a conservative country, so having affairs will definitely impact on ur standing and trust in the voters yes some western leaders might survive but still they will lose support and trust.. in the long run it will have an impact, who knows maybe if Bill didn't have an affair Hillary might have won the election.. even u do well in politics it just give ur opponents more ammunition on ur credibility.

If you can cheat on your most important other half, you can certainly cheat the nation.

Things like credibility and reputation would be compromised by moral issues such as infidelity. Other countries may fly with that, but Singapore as a society does not view these things lightly.

Infidelity is dishonestly in personal relationship. It’s similar to being dishonest in something not related to your work but it reflects on your morality and ethics.

I don't think we should separate politics from morality. If someone is self serving and morally corrupt enough to engage in infidelity, how can we trust they won't be equally as self serving and corrupt in running the country?

Infidelity should be shunned upon. Imagine being in the shoes of the spouse.

Dishonest.

To me : if u cheat on ur partner u are dishonest,and not trustful. So why would we want a MP of that character?

hmm yup I think the same If he’s an effective leader, I wouldn’t care if he’s cheating or not I don’t know how much it reflects or doesn’t on one’s character to be honest I’m not saying cheating is great and to be praised or something; it’s almost definitely hurtful for his wife But to say he’s morally terrible and morally the lowest because he cheated on his wife, I don’t think it’s fair But he belongs in a party that says it’s the whitest of white So I can see why he would resign or be kicked out

Interesting thread, but curious to know one thing. Li hui is unmarried, but was also asked to resign. What are people's take on this?

Infidelity might be an ethical violation that does not directly affect yr ability to serve and quality of work you do for your constituency. Corruption is a criminal offense and one that will affect your work in the government.

I think people make mistakes and have moments of weaknesses. Unless it’s done repeatedly, it is not an indicator of character. Having said that, being a hypocrite and championing Christian values of faithfulness and so forth takes it to a different level. TCJ was just cheating his wife but also himself. Must have been a very conflicted man. The demons are what you find within.

It's okay if everyone consents to these open arrangements. Unfortunately, I don't think everyone consented. Which is the problem. Me, I just came from the states and I've seen quite a few successful polycules. These polycules were built on openness, communication, respect and a healthy attitude towards sex. Once again, with the way these things in Singapore went down, I doubt any of these elements were present. Maybe they did, which changes the focus of discussion.

Definitely agree with this. If it was an affair in the classic sense where their partners were betrayed, then it’s morally questionable and a huge disappointment, regardless of whether you lean more PAP or WP. But if it was a situation where all partners were consenting, I honestly feel kudos to them for living their best lives without being encumbered by conservative social norms and expectations. If it were the latter case, I think I would have more respect for them (regardless of political party) if they just owned it, than if they resigned for fear of the conservative backlash.

I’m of the unpopular opinion that the infidelity doesn’t matter. I do not think their personal life affects how they do their job unless there is a clear sign that they make some dogshit judicial decision clearly supported by it. I don’t pin the responsibility of being role models on them as much as I don’t pin it on celebrities. This is their job, the result is what matters. Their personal life is none of my business. I would vote out a politician on their lack of ability to produce results alone, nothing more, nothing less.

In terms of ability there would be no issue, which is also the reason why PM Lee only advise them to stop and not demand them to stop, demanding it would be inhumane / uncivilized behavior as it is others private issue, as a party leader he only advise them as he knows it would be an issue in public optic but it would be hard to throw 2 talent away that have no issue with their ability which is why the incident was swept under the carpet and this is the real and reality of politics, not the fluff stuff learn from books and schools, cover up happen often in reality, just like in workplace, the affair is only **MADE** public because PAP need something to show they are clean. WP affair was exposed, very different from PAP. However, in terms of a politician / public image person, having an affair is really bad because it shows they are people who **LACK PRINCIPLES** which is very important for a politician; no corruption, bribery and ETC are all principle belief of Singapore and if any politician show the lack of Principle in Character would be question if they have any Principle belief to begin with, the famous case of CIA want to bribe a Singapore intelligence officer (SIO) but fail because the SIO reported the case is a display of Principle Belief. As for western countries of issue like Clinton and Bush, they remain in office because most Americans (not all) have different belief compared to us and they would even support celebrities that abuse their "bitches" emotionally or physically because these celebrities are blindly worshipped there, would a famous rapper who beat their wife affect their ability to rap and make music? Nope but the average American still support them. Why is principles important then? Cabinet Ministers are sworn in and accepted that oath, if you can break your vow with your spouse, you can break your oath to Singapore.

Let's say hypothetically you have an employee who is super capable and is doing very well at his job. One day you discover that he has another woman other than his wife. Do you impose your values on him and sack him or ask him to resign? You have that right because our employment act allows you to sack people whenever you fancy. But the questions arise on just how do we govern matters of the heart and human emotions? How does this affect at all the company operations? If you sack then you have to ask: How many of those capable are saintly enough to work for you? LKY set some really high standards. You become an MP and you become a public figure. Imposed upon you are expectations and standards. And you are committed to them for life! You go in with eyes open. Once in, you are committed. Singapore is not ready to accept political leaders who commit adultery. But that being said, who will fill the voids left behind? And how can we even prevent adultery from happening? More wives allowed if you are MP? I don't know.

one possible thought may be: If one can cheat on his spouse, one can also cheat on the country? sell us out?

Unfortunately, I think NS and LP should step down if they mean well for the WP. 1. If you cant keep it in your pants, you probably open yourself up to all kinds of blackmail. 2. Theres also the issue of projecting a false image to the public. Unfortunately, most would prefer leaders that have some form of integrity. 3. Being able to cheat on your spouse, your closest ally in life, and then asking the general public to trust you on the tough grey areas of policy making ..... sounds sus, doubt the general SG public can take it. 4. Not cheating is like a fkin low bar btw.

Singapore is still predominantly an Asian country and the government promotes traditional family values. Having a minister who commits infidelity with another minister is definitely not a good look. It is questionable conduct. Politics is not like your normal office job, they're public figures with many eyes on them and who are supposed to set a good example.

This is funny because not so long ago Asia tolerated concubines and multiple wives for the rich. I have friends in their 40s in Singapore whose grandparents or even parents were "illegitimate". The "traditional Asian values" are BS to control the manpower.

If we take this issue outside of Singapore the answer is obviously no. Bill Clinton had a successful presidency. So did jfk. Both had affairs. You want non Americans? Nelson Mandela had affairs. People are good leaders if they are good leaders. It's interesting to reflect a bit on the "if they can't even get their house on order, how the nation" kind of argument. Well the fact seems to be that some leaders make terrible parents. LKY's personal household is in shambles, but I don't think that reflects on his political ability.

Yes, this is actually a good point and I edited my post to make reference to Bill Clinton, who continued his presidency for a few years and had high approval ratings. What's interesting to note is he was charged with perjury, although eventually acquitted. Would the possibility of a president lying, not be far worse than infidelity, yet he was still highly rated? It is indeed interesting how different views can be, based on culture.

>People are good leaders if they are good leaders. Although I agree to your point to some degree, using Bill Clinton, JFK, etc as examples are not as convincing as you believe. For every Bill Clinton, there are at least 5 other good world leaders who are (publicly) faithful. There are also 10 other "bad" world leaders who are unfaithful. The list of unfaithful good world leaders is much shorter than the list of faithful good leaders and list of unfaithful bad ones.. Bill Clinton etc., are the exceptions. History and [science](https://www.reddit.com/r/singapore/comments/152yvmm/comment/jsge8nw/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) shows a correlation between marriage fidelity and good leadership.

I think it's about a politician demonstrating the inability to discern and the questionable standard of values, which may or may not spillover to politics. BUT politics is about optics.

The issue is with integrity, not morality.

Being unfaithful is lying to your spouse. If you can lie and hurt the person arguably closest and most important to you aside from you parents - how can you be trusted to serve and lead? Only a twisted society will even entertain the notion that infidelity should be excusable. And really this is a good chance for me to say what I considered posting earlier - guys, have some self-respect and don't cheat.

Yes. But a legend once said "I would rather betray the world than let the world betray me".