I live away from Singapore but have been following recent events especially the Elections and also now the Presidential Elections. I have read your statement and see much to be heartened by it. In particular, I entirely agree that there is a need to recover the sense of public service that has been lost in the kind of 'unbridled' meritocracy that has led to frankly quite obscene ministerial salaries especially when the ordinary working citizen is struggling and trying to cope with the cost of housing and generally the cost of living.
I go back to Singapore for about two months every year and cannot fail to notice that in the last 5 years in particular even hawker centre food prices have risen very noticeably and on the low income of those at the bottom strata of society this is a real struggle as I gather from the taxi drivers who often hold two jobs to keep their families going. For a country that seems so economically successful it is quite shameful that the elderly, the less fortunate and the socially-burdened should have to live the way they do.
I know that you have been active in championing the cause of ordinary people (like those who have lost money in the recent financial scandal) and it certainly appears as if you genuinely do care for the people. I share your principles of honesty and integrity and public service (indeed i think the idea of a 'vocation' or 'calling' is not amiss when thinking about being an MP or being the president of a country; they are 'elected' to REPRESENT the people.
In this regard I would urge you to consider carefully what the 'reserves' of the country is really all about. Whilst I do not disagree about the need to very conservatively 'guard' these reserves I also think that a small proportion of it should be deployed to enhance the wellbeing of the most needy in society and especially the elderly. After all, was it not they who with their thrift, sacrifice and hard work in the 60s, 70s,and 80s especially that has made possible the success that Singapore now is? Should society not now repay them in some small measure for their contribution to its success?
In Britain where I live, people who retire have a small 'state pension' and various allowances (like heating allowance for winter, free healthcare etc.) to help them cope with the cost of living so they can live a modest but dignified life. After all, even those who are not considered 'talent' have still a right to live a dignified and fulfilling life.
So, Mr Tan, should you be elected to the role of President, and I wish you well in this endeavour, would you please consider how to not just safeguard our national reserves but also to wisely deploy it to meaningful use. After all, the accumulation of wealth is not a goal in its own right but a means to fulfilling the average Singaporean dream of living a sufficient, meaningful and fulfilling life in an economically vibrant, gracious, self-confident, well-balanced, and caring society.
In closing I would like to share with you a quote which has inspired me all these years since living away from home. It reminds us that being successful alone is not enough.
‘The motive of success is not enough. It produces a short-sighted world which destroys the sources of its
own prosperity…A great society is a society in which its men of business think greatly about its function. Low thoughts mean low behaviour, and after a brief orgy of exploitation, low behaviour means a descending standard of life’ (Alfred North Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas,1933)
Very best regards
Robert Chia
Professor Robert Chia, PhD FRSAProfessor of Management
Strathclyde Business School
University of Strathclyde
SCOTLAND
7 comments:
Rex comments as follows,
Unfortunately, after reading Prof Jayakumar's urgent statement in the straits times today 10th June, i guess that the writer Prof Chia, is harbouring a false hope.
Because the good Professor (the former) said that the President is not allowed by the consititution to be a separate political force, and all policies and changes to policies are cabinet initiated. In other words, whatever power the president has, is a kind of passive power. For example if the Cabinet decide to do exactly as what Prof Chia suggested, then, the President will have the right to veto it or approve it. That's all. The PResident cannot come down from his office and join in the discussion and start a policy discussion on an pro-active basis - from what i gather from Prof Jayakumar's press statement.
The president's job in "Safeguarding" the reserves is confined to either saying YES or
NO - when asked. nothing else
rex
Rex
Right now, the position is - no change can be made. But, with patience and persistence, change can be achieved.
Ah ! I must agree with "rex" that our political masters only want a "lame" Elected President. At this moment anyway.
As Mr Tan and our Prof Robert Chia hope & believe, we may in future see the EP doing more.I do expect my EP to "do" more. At >S$4Million per year .....
Constitution can be amended to "marginally increase the power" of the President, for the overall benefit of S'pore. The question is whether the Cabinet is prepared to consider this.
rex comments as follows,
Hi mr tan,
As a matter of procedure, because of the deliberate wordings in the constitution, the President can do nothing other than say YES or NO, only when asked. You are right that with patience somethings can change PROVIDED that the cabinet first meets to amend the constitution to give more power to the president other than wat already written. But.. the cabinet = pap majority; therefore, so long as pap majority, the consitituion is unlikely to be ever amended any time soon, hence, the president can do nothing until the consitituion is changed... and also dont forget, the president also has no mandate to request the constitution to be reviewed, because the constitution didnt give the president the power to ask to review the consitution.\\
Perhaps your noble aims Mr Tan, are a bit premature, given the inflexible nature of the constitution by design.... (evil design..) sad but true.
rex
Yes. at this moment, patience and persistence are our two best friends in seeking for a 'change' for the good of our country and the people. I do not think that PAP government is ready for that(high level of transparency and accountability) at this juncture. From time to time, we can sense the nervousness surfacing from their reactions to issues which are affecting their narrow/party self-interest. The recent quick clarifications on "Elected President's legal power" by Prof Jayakumar and the Foreign Minister are a good testimonial to trying to maintain the comfortable 'status-quo'.
Having said that, we, as a loyal citizen of Singapore, must continue to press on by helping our fellow men/women to raise their political awareness. Your blog is one of the important venues that has been positively contributing towards this aim. For that, we thank you.
Change is evitable. Perhaps, to practise an 'Elephant Principle'(also named as a Progressing Principle) of eating it 'little bit a day' is a better approach to achieve an objective of improving our democractic process that will really empower the people of Singapore - A True Master.
Change is 'inevitable'. Sorry for an error.
Mr. Tan, you are right to say that change can be achieved despite the present difficult condition. I share with one of your core values - being 'positive'.
Post a Comment