5) Have a healthy political system

We all can agree that Singapore is a model city-state. We have top class infrastructure, education, workforce and a healthy economy. Many in the world envy our success and today Singaporeans are more looked up to compared to fellow Singaporeans a generation ago.

So why is it that John R.Bradley, in his book ‘After The Arab Spring’, compares the toppled Tunisian regime to Singapore’s governance? In his book, Bradley wrote that the Tunisian regime had dramatically increased the living standards of its people while demanding political acquiescence. The historic argument of the regime was that, in the chaos and vulnerability of newly independent societies, stability is imperative if progress is to be achieved. This Tunisian concept was said to be “loosely based on the Singapore model of governance”.

Is this how the western world views Singapore? A politically suppressive regime? An autocratic nation built around one man and his family? Surely, many people still equate Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of Singapore, as the face of Singapore. In Japanese newspapers, when an article mentions Singapore, it almost always features an interview with the man, or his son Mr. Lee Hsien Loong. Is Singapore’s political scene still stuck in the medieval era, where a ruling family holds the rein? Is the rest of world seeing Singapore as a democracy, or an autocratic society? When our leaders speak on the world stage about good governance, do we get applauded or dismissed?

I still remember those days when there were rumors of how people would get discriminated if they had not voted for the PAP in elections. I am sure many older Singaporeans still shy away from criticizing the PAP in fear of retaliation. But to compare the PAP to a regime is too overboard. Like Tunisia, we cherish political stability over democracy. Back during our youthful years, we were fighting the Communists and extremists. Our leaders had learnt to be tough in the face of opposition. Like the people of Tunisia, Singaporeans are willing to give up certain rights and freedom of speech for economic success. We have risen from a little unknown island to a nation recognized worldwide. Our GDP per person has risen over the years and is said to have topped that of the average Japanese. But unlike Tunisia, our government is not corrupt. It is not channeling money to personal accounts, nor is it fattening a closely knit circle of family and friends. Our government is one of the cleanest in the world. Nepotism is not a common practice. There is sufficient transparency in the political and business arena for Singapore to be consistently listed as one of the most attractive nation to invest in.

No doubt we Singaporeans have everything to thank Mr. Lee Kuan Yew for. Without him, there will not be a Singapore today. If you read his memoir, The Singapore Story, you will love the man. But respect and gratitude aside, it is time we move on. A successful company cannot be a one-man show. Likewise, a nation, to be strong, must not revolve on the cult of one man. There must be continuity in a country when a leader moves on (read – retire, not behind the scene). No doubt, we have had more than 10 years of rule by two prime ministers other than Mr. Lee Kuan Yee. But, Mr. Lee Kuan Yee and former prime minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong, are still politically active. It is time we set a retirement age for politicians, like that in the private sector. When people stay around for too long, especially when they have contributed tremendously to the success of a place, they tend to feel that they own the place and are indispensable.

A nation must be run with the future in mind, and it is only the young who can decide what they want in the future because they are the ones who will be around to face the music. I am a strong believer of delegating responsibility and power to the young. When you leave the governing of a nation to a group of seniors, who are way past their prime, you end up with a system which is short-sighted because these leaders cannot perceive a future decades away when they will all be gone. Like a loving parent who must let his child go so that he can spread his wings, a leader must learn to leave so that others can take over. As long as the father is still around, the son will not be taken seriously.

To be taken seriously on the world stage, we must also have a healthy opposition in our political scene. Our opposition parties are pathetic. Our election rallies are like soap operas, watched amusingly, but not seriously. In the last election, where PAP lost considerable support to the oppositions, many applauded that Singapore is finally entering an era of real democracy where the majority exercises their right to oppose. On closer scrutiny, the election results reflect more an anger of the people on certain issues, than on the attractiveness of the opposition parties. No Singaporean, in the right frame of mind, would truly believe that an opposition party in Singapore is capable of running our nation today.

Oppositions are an important part of a matured society. No one group of elite should be left with full control of a country. Human beings are not competent to exercise unlimited power with discretion. “….when I see that the right and the means of absolute command are conferred on any power whatever, be it called a people or a king, an aristocracy or a democracy, a monarchy or a republic, I say there is the germ of tyranny.” ➂

Legitimacy of a government is gained through debating and convincing oppositions to reach a consensus, and not through snubbing them out. Singapore should cultivate good opposition parties (not the bickering type) to represent the people’s varied interests and concerns. The government must not be a one party affair, it should be an alliance of different parties (albeit with PAP holding the majority) acting as checks and counter checks. Only when we stop making a laughing stock of our opposition parties will we be able to truly stand tall and be proud of our political system.

➂ Alexis De Tocqueville, in his book ‘Democracy in America’

4) Keep the 99% Happy

We have seen how an angry 99% of the population can cause havoc throughout the world. From the Occupy Wall Street movement, to the many other copycat Occupy movements around the world, and to a certain extent the ‘Arab Spring’, we have seen how the majority can cause much disturbances, both politically and economically.

A widening income gap between the haves and have-nots is the main driving force behind the anger displayed in these outbursts. In a 2011 report, the OECD said that the level of income inequality in the 22 member nations it studied increased by 10% since the mid-1980s, with conditions deteriorating in 17 of them. Another recent report further highlighted this point. Conducted by the Institute for Policy Studies, a Washington based think tank, the report found that CEOs at large US firms earned, on average, $10.8m in 2010, a 28% increase from the year before, while the average worker took home $33,121, a mere 3% more. At that level, CEO’s paychecks are 325 times bigger than their employees’.①

With the wake of the 2008 financial crises, and the current on-going European crisis, many have put the blame of the massive income inequalities experienced worldwide, squarely on Capitalism. Globalization has also come under attack. More and more people want economic protection by their governments when faced with challenges posed by emerging markets. The poor want to penalize the rich in one way or another. With the increasing spread of the internet, people are able to compare their standard of lives to the rest of the world and to voice their anger and unhappiness loud and clear.

So, what can a responsible government do to address the concerns of the majority? As Kishore Mahbubani in his book ‘Can Asians think?’ wrote, “Societies should ultimately be judged on their ability to deliver most of their citizen’s human needs: food, shelter, health, education, a clean environment, a sense of community, and a sense of purpose in life.” A good government should do just that. In other words, keep the 99% of a nation happy. Only when the majority is happy, will a society be peaceful and prosperous.

A legitimate government, which wants to continue to remain in power, must rule with the majority in mind. This can only be done through a good mix of democracy, capitalism and meritocracy. Let me explain. A democracy is described as a form of government in which the majority has a say in who should hold power and how it should be used. On the other hand, capitalism, often than not, brings about a society which is controlled by a minority of elites and privileged through a meritocratic system. At the end of the day, a meritocracy can only reward a small number of people to keep its rewards attractive. If a whole society is equally ‘rich’, then nobody will be encouraged to work harder. The basic idea behind meritocracy is the premise of a ‘privilege and elite’ status if one shows merit. Capitalism, being a system controlled by the private sector driven by results, must at the end of the day, results in the formation of a small circle of elites which are in control of things.

But we are not about to dump capitalism and meritocracy for socialism yet. Capitalism has been said to have eradicated poverty by propelling innovation and growth. What I am suggesting is a good mix of these three ideals to create a society where the majority 99% is contended and the dream of becoming the top 1% continues to burn. To enable a government to keep the majority happy, it must be willing to take control of some parts of the country’s economy and resources. A democratic government should never leave all control of its economy and resources to the private sector. The private sector cannot be responsible for looking after the majority.

Just look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the US.② When left to their own devises, top management has once and again proven to be unscrupulous, folks greedy for personal wealth and are not concerned about the well-being of the average citizen. Industries as important as the mortgage industry and finance industry must be closely monitored to protect the majority 99% of the nation.

Another example of why key industries must not be run purely by the private sector can be seen in the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), which runs the nuclear plant in Fukushima. TEPCO is a private company which has to report to shareholders and its board of directors. As in all private enterprises, its main purpose is to create profit. When the company failed to ensure the safety of the nuclear plant in the wake of the tsunamis, an entire nation has to fork out a large amount of money to help clear up the mess. Then the company turns around and raises the electricity bills of the average citizens in the name of staying afloat. The government, having spent much of the taxpayers’ money in dealing with the situation, is in the red and has to increase taxes to pay its bills. All these extra burden on the average citizen while the politicians and executives of TEPCO continue to get paid (much more than the average citizen).

In Singapore, we see the example of the failures of SMRT. In my comment on TODAYonline, I had questioned why the SMRT, which is responsible for operating the lifeline of the majority 99% of the nation, is run like a business unit, its performance measured by the amount of profit it generates. A public system should be run with the public in mind, not shareholders or management.

Having quoted the above three examples, I, contrarily, do not reject meritocracy. Meritocracy is the tonic that drives people to work hard and excel. It is the dream that keeps the young in believing in a better tomorrow. The goal of becoming the elite 1% of the population is the driving force behind a nation’s prowl. Neither do I reject Capitalism too. I will like to think that Capitalism cannot succeed by itself. A healthy nation must maintain a balance between its private and public sectors. A good government’s bottom line must be to keep its 99% majority happy by providing dependable infrastructure, affordable housing and quality education. It must then drive its citizen to excel by dangling the 1% elite status as the carrot. Capitalism, coupled by Meritocracy and government participation, must be the best answer in moving our nation forward.

①Source taken from an article written by Michael Schuman, in Time Magazine, Jan 30 2012

②Reckless Endangerment, How outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption led to Economic Armageddon, written by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.

3) Be Mother-friendly

In my article ‘The Curse of Equality’, I had written about how women nowadays are caught between their careers and their families. I had argued that while society provides equal opportunities for both sexes, it must also find ways to support the womenfolk better as women have the extra responsibility of bearing children.

So, what are some of the concrete solutions we can offer to support working mothers? I have these ideas:-

l   Have better childcare services

The key word here is ‘better’, not ‘more’. Let’s have a proper training system for all childcare service providers. In Japan, nursery and kindergarten teachers must be licensed. Would-be nursery and kindergarten teachers spend 2-3 years in a vocational university after high school, learning about teaching young kids. Nursery and kindergarten teaching is a well-respected profession among women. Professional teachers are better equipped to handle our young and provide proper guidance. Mothers can feel at ease leaving their kids with professionals, and can concentrate on their work better.

l   Have flexible working hours

If a working mother can send her kid to a nursery/kindergarten/school before she goes to work, and can end her work in time to pick up her kid, she will be able to fulfill her responsibilities as a mother while continuing with her work. I propose that all mothers be allowed to work from 10am to 4pm, at least until their children enter secondary school. The most common distress of working mothers must be that they cannot be home for their kids as much as possible. Therefore, to be able to work only during the hours when their children are in school must be a great relief. Also, with mothers more involved with their kids, and around the house more, we can expect less juvenile delinquency in the long run.

l   Provide for Father’s leave

Of course the looking after of children must not be just the job of the mother. Husbands must be made to do their part as a parent too. Men must be able to take leave from their work to look after their children. Fathers must be able to do whatever (if not better) a mother can do (besides breast-feeding, of course). Better still, instead of giving 4 months maternity leave all to the mother, I suggest to give half of it to the father as paternity leave. Let’s be frank, most employers are not happy when a female staff has to go on 4 months paid maternity leave. Which employer will not prejudiced against a married woman in a job interview? So, if men are required to take 2 months paternity leave when his child is born, then the prejudice against married women is gone! This is the ultimate equality for a woman!

On the other hand, if a woman decides to devote all her time to her child/children by being a stay-home mother, what can society as a whole do to support her? For one, stop thinking that she is ‘free’ and has lots of time to spare. More often than not, society sees a full-time housewife as someone who takes her life easy, has little stress, a lot of free time and can afford to watch a lot of TV at home.

I beg to differ. Stay-home moms are not ‘tai-tais’ (except for those who are really REALLY rich), we are the maid cum nanny. We wake up early to prepare breakfast for our husband and children, we clean up the house, do the laundry, do marketing, cook and monitor our kids’ homework. Since we are at home most of the time, our husband and children expect us to clean and wash more, cook better, and do a lot of extra things that a working mother cannot afford to do. People expect us to spend quality time with our children. Schools expect us to contribute more of our time in schools’ events since we are ‘not working’. Our siblings expect us to be the one to look after our old parents since we are ‘not working’. Family members expect us to be the one running errands since we are ‘not working’. At the end of the day, a full-time housewife just does not have much time left for anything else. We feel guilty when we take a break to watch TV; we feel guilty when we go lunch with friends; we feel guilty when we fall ill and have to lie in bed for a day or two.

So, society please, a full-time housewife/a stay-home mother IS working. We have stress too. We are tired too. We need a rest too. Stop thinking that a working mother is having the time of her life. She is not.

l   Pay housewife salary

When a mother chooses to stay at home to look after her children, she is foregoing a lot in terms of monetary rewards, career, and social life. Her most productive years biologically, are also her most productive years economically. She is missing out a lot by choosing to stay home. There is not much of a social life too, not unless a whole bunch of her friends are stay-home mothers too. A woman, not working, will have to depend on her husband for all her expenses. She will have to cut down on personal expenditures. A salon visit; a new dress; cosmetics; lunch out with friends, personal items and recreations are now courtesy of her husband.

A financially dependent woman is a helpless woman. Therefore, I propose paying stay-home mothers a salary to keep the balance between a husband and wife healthy. Let’s devise a system where we can transfer a portion of the husband’s salary into the wife’s bank account. He will have to pay for a maid anyway if his wife goes to work. Let the government pick up the rest of the tab. Stay home mothers are effectively helping society by keeping juvenile delinquency in check. Instead of paying baby bonuses, the government should pay stay-home mothers for looking after their children.

l   Re-training

When these stay-home mothers are able to join the workforce again at an older age, society must offer more support for them. Providing subsidized re-training programs is one way. Companies must be encouraged to take on these ‘older workers’. The tax bracket for these workers could be lowered. Staying at home for a number of years should not handicap a woman.

2) Promote Social Responsibility

In that ‘Poser on Handicapped Parking’ letter, Mr. Adnan complained about how some Singaporeans abuse facilities for the disabled, namely parking their cars in lots reserved for the handicapped. He recommends legal penalties and mandatory enforcements by the relevant authorities to instill social responsibility. He also noted that social grace is not part of a Singaporean’s nature.

Mr. Adnan cannot be more right about the lack of social responsibility in Singaporeans. However, I do not agree that legal penalties and mandatory enforcements will solve the problem. As it is, Singaporeans are so used to being restricted and regulated by the laws that unless there is threat of a fine, no Singaporeans in their right mind will follow a sign that states ‘do this’ or ‘do that’, much less an unwritten code of conduct.

Social responsibility has to be nurtured. People must see themselves as an inherent part of a larger society to want to willingly do something necessary even if it means a little personal inconvenience. The biggest hurdle for a Singaporean to show responsibility to society is his sense of Kiasu-ism. We all know what it is. Even if I don’t park my car here, someone else will come along to do it! Even if I don’t litter, someone else will litter! Being Kiasu, a Singaporean believes that instead of someone else, he must be first, even if it means committing an offence. What the heck, one is not guilty unless caught. Illegal parking, littering, stealing, and anything unethical-if one can get away if it, then all the better!

While we are talking about social responsibility, let’s also talk about being environmentally conscious. I believe being environmentally conscious is a integral part of being socially responsible. If we feel responsible to society as a whole, then we will want to save it from an imminent disaster and do our part at reuse, reduce and recycle. Here is one thing Singapore can learn from Japan. Having lived seven years in Japan, I can vouch that Japanese is the most socially responsible and environmentally conscious people on earth.

Eco’ is a huge theme in the Japanese way of life. From a young age, Japanese are taught about the necessity of recycling, use and reuse. Household rubbish has to be separated and brought out to the collection stations. In schools, recycling drives are carried out regularly. In supermarkets and departmental stores, in fast food restaurants, at train stations, in parks, at cinemas, almost everywhere, there are recycling bins! They are part and parcel of the Japanese way of life. Seven years living in Japan, and I am so accustomed to this way of life that each time I go back to Singapore, I had a hard time convincing myself that it is OK to throw my drink bottle down the rubbish chute together with all the other rubbish.

Japanese are people who respect their surroundings and public properties. When I first started life in Japan, I was often amazed by the fact that there are open taps in most neighborhood playgrounds, not to mention public toilets in many of them. Where I come from, where there is an open tap, you would find people lining up to get their cars washed. I wouldn’t be surprised if people start to carry pails of water back home! This is the reason why all public taps (for washing of the streets) are kept padlocked in Singapore. But in Japan, the taps were never misused. Even the toilets at the playground were so clean, considering the fact that there are no regular cleaners for them. The local neighborhood committee takes charge of cleaning the playground and its toilets. I have to take my hat off to the Japanese when it comes to respect for both public and personal properties. It is this respect that stop Japanese from illegally copying someone else’s work. There is very little copyright infringement in Japan compared to the other parts of Asia, where copyright infringement is rampant. One cannot find an illegally copied CD, DVD or CD-Rom sold on the streets of Japan.

I have never seen a street cleaner in my neighborhood. In fact, I have never seen a street cleaner on the streets of Yamagata. People here take personal responsibility in cleaning up their own streets. Every household is in charge of the street in front of its house and a number of times a year, the neighborhood committee will organize cleaning campaigns to clean up the streets in the neighborhood and to ‘pull up’ grasses in the neighborhood playground. In Spring and Summer, residents turn up in campaigns to rid the local playground of grasses. Grasses are pulled up and rubbish is collected. In Autumn, residents participated in sweeping up fallen leaves at the playground. Mind you, these are voluntary efforts, not enforced. Residents see it as their responsibility in helping to keep their neighborhood clean and pleasant.

I hope this community attitude of the Japanese can be spread back home. Singapore is well known for its clean streets. But I must say that the cleanliness is not so much an effort of the people but the effort of the army of sweepers and cleaners employed to heap away the rubbish Singaporeans throw mindlessly. Singaporeans take these cleaners for granted and know that whatever rubbish and mess left behind would be cleaned up. Take away these cleaners, and I am sure the garden city would turn into a rotting dump in a few days. The last time I went back to Singapore, I was horrified by the sight of recycling bins filled with all kinds of rubbish. Instead of plastic bottles, paper and cans deposited at the respective bins, I saw unwanted food, discarded personal items and what have you, dumped mercilessly into the bins. Being a hot and humid country, the recycling bins stank and were swamped with flies.

So what makes the Japanese different? I am sure it is not just because they are rich and can afford it. Many Singaporeans earn higher wages than the average Japanese. Nowadays even Chinese are richer than the Japanese. I happen to think that education plays a huge part, although I must admit that personality has a lot to do with it too. Without a system of fines or arrests, Japanese are able to manage their rubbish disposal and to keep their cities clean. Japanese see themselves more as part of a larger society than as an individual. Perhaps if the rest of the world were to learn from the Japanese, we would have lesser problems with resource depletion and global warming.

As a start, let’s start educating our kids about social responsibility in schools. Let’s have more grassroots activities and events that involve the local residents. Make people feel that they are part of a bigger picture. Let us just stop being kaisu and boh-chap! Let’s give each other a tight slap so that we can all stop being so childish and selfish.

Grow up, my fellow Singaporeans! Stop Kiasu-ism! AND stop calling those law-abiding folks ‘Kiasi’!

1) Stop looking for a Singaporean Identity

In a separate article titled ‘Singapore Inc.’, I had argued that the Singapore government should stop promoting a Singaporean Identity. This is what I had written:-

In the 70s and 80s, when I was still a kid growing up in Singapore, the government was very keen at promoting a Singapore Identity. Having separated from Malaysia in 1965, we were still a very young country trying very hard to be recognized. During those early years, the National Day celebration was a grueling parade of armies, service men, artilleries and civil servants who had to march many hours through the housing estates in show of their patriotism. As kids, my siblings and I had stood along the road where the parade passed by and waved our flags. Later on, the long hours of marching were done away and National Day Parades were held inside the National Stadium. Every year, my family watched the live telecast of each National Day Parade faithfully. At these times, patriotism became magnified, and I was always so proud of my nation and to be a part of it.

In the mid-80s, the Singapore government, in wanting to promote unity and patriotism, started encouraging locally written nationalistic songs to be made. These songs became National Day Parade theme songs. It was during these years that many of the songs like ‘Stand Up for Singapore’, ‘We are Singapore’, ‘Count On Me, Singapore’, ‘One people, One Nation, One Singapore’, became a household hit. Growing up singing these songs, I would like to think that people of my generation truly believe that there is something unique about being a Singaporean. Throughout the 80s and 90s, as Singapore became more and more affluent and developed, the sense of pride at being a Singaporean got deeper. Once ashamed, we were proud of our Singlish. Once divided, we stood side by side our fellow Singaporeans of all races. My generation, people in their 30s and 40s now, (I’d like to call myself the ‘golden’ generation) grew up searching, then finding and becoming proud of who we are. We all had this common identity, the Singapore Identity.

Then came the past decade, in which the influx of foreigners seemed to have eroded this sense of identity. A major portion of the Singapore population now does not share the same set of ideals and thoughts that we hold so dearly. Many of them don’t even speak Singlish! Worse, (this is my best part) some don’t even like curry! As the proportion of native Singaporean gets ever smaller, the sense of unity among Singaporeans is bound to break down. Already, there is a clear divide between Us (native Singaporeans) and them (foreigners). As the number of foreigners outweighs the local-breed Singaporeans, social disorder becomes a real threat.

I think the first thing the government should do immediately is to stop promoting a Singapore Identity (it is dead). Promoting a Singaporean identity will only highlight and accentuate the differences between local and imported Singaporeans. Any form of division, be it race or country of origin, should be minimized. A Chinese from China is so different from a native Chinese Singaporean. Likewise, an Indian from India is so different from a native Indian Singaporean. This is true for all the other races. So why bother to categorize the population into races? Country of origin? Does it matter now that these people are holding Singaporean passports? Categorizing people leads to stereotyping and prejudice.

Singaporeans should just be listed as Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. The Singapore government may find itself loosing critical knowledge of the masses and in turn, the tight control that it is used to have over its citizens. But I think, in the long run, the Singapore population will become less divided. In the future, the Singaporean should evolve into someone who can be of any colour, religion and culture. Multi-nationalism will become the new Singaporean identity. We are anything and everything all rolled into one.

I always boost that Singapore is the only nation in the world in which you can find a Jew next to a Palestinian; an Indian next to a Pakistani; a Christian next to a Muslim; Cambodians next to Vietnamese next to Thais; Americans next to Chinese next to Koreans next to Japanese. We are a nation of all mix and matches. People from all over the world arrived in this small plot of land to seek their fortune and a place where racial, tribal, religious, political, historical and cultural animosity do not exist. It is this cosmopolitan environment that makes us so unique. So why try to draw a line and try to divide between what is Singaporean and what is not? As I had said, we are anything and everything all rolled into one.

We took about 2 generations to build a nation called Singapore. Most of us, adult native Singaporeans, have grandparents from another nation. It was their cultures, practices and beliefs which had been mixed and blended into what we see in Singapore today. We will need another 2 generations to assimilate these ‘imported’ foreigners and evolve into a new Singapore Identity. Be patient. Let nature takes its course, such matters of the heart cannot be rushed and enforced.