What he did for Indonesia and his eradication of the confrontation mindset are true and we do not begrudge him accolades for what he did because it is right that we give credit where credit is due.

It is also true, as Indonesians themselves will attest to, that he made (unlawful) personal financial gains from the country he was supposed to protect and nurture. There were cronyism, nepotism and rampant corruption which helped to fill his coffers.

There were legal proceedings initiated, before his illness, to bring him to trial to recover the ill-gotten gains. These were dropped or suspended when he fell grievously ill.

Now, herein lies the paradox and the riddle. Does good done in one sector obliterate, or compensate, the bad in another? Does one who brings the country up from economic chaos, into relative stability, earn the concomitant right to take what is not his to take?

If we look at it in a perspective of what is taken is the nation's and, hence, the people's, and, this huge amount could have done very much more to raise the very poor and middling poor from the slums, to a better standard of living, what does this amount to? Does the positive compensate the negative?

By all means, give credit and respect to the good done but in the process do not be oblivious to the bad which has, in tandem, transpired. To do so would be to wilfully not see the wood for the trees.

To the people of Singapore, what is the message sent? You can skim off (illegally) in business, or in any other undertaking, as long as you also do some good in the process.

Dudley Au