SUPERMAN, YODA, CHANGE CRUSADER

ST 20140831  l  Superman, Yoda, Change Crusader

Published in the STRAITS TIMES on 31 Aug 2014

BY SUSAN LONG, SENIOR WRITER

He may be the group president of Singapore sovereign wealth fund GIC, but Mr Lim Siong Guan rides the MRT to work. He alights at Raffles Place, then walks about 20 minutes to GIC’s office in Robinson Road for the exercise.

If he needs a postage stamp or has any errand of a personal nature, he queues for it himself instead of bothering his secretary.

His yearly tour of GIC overseas offices since 2007 – four days around the world: Singapore, San Francisco, New York, London, Singapore; and another four days around Asia: Singapore, Mumbai, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Singapore – is the stuff of corporate legend.

He does not book a single hotel room, sleeps on the plane, refuses a corporate limousine and insists on public transport. He lives out of a small carry-on bag and showers in GIC office gyms. The London office keeps a spare towel for him.

It is a practice the former chairman of the Economic Development Board says he picked up from his EDB days of city-hopping as “check-in luggage increases very significantly the chances of missing connecting flights”.

By all accounts, Mr Lim is an iconoclast. The former head of the Singapore civil service, who served as permanent secretary in the ministries of Defence, Education and Finance, and in the Prime Minister’s Office, is also a hard act to follow.

He sticks out in the financial sector because of his ascetic values, thrift and humility. He owns a Volvo S60, easily the smallest car among his colleagues.

While he won’t spend on hotel rooms, he’s prepared to spend a lot to effect organisational change. Everywhere he goes, he ignites a mini revolution, cutting red tape, operating close to the boundaries and bucking conventions.

Dr Teh Kok Peng, chairman of business space solutions provider Ascendas and formerly president of GIC Special Investments, says: “In the office, some call him ‘Superman’ for his drive, energy and nobility of intention. He demands a lot of himself so he’s in a position to demand a lot from others too.”

His pet phrase is: “Are we ready for the future?” His pet name is Yoda, for his wisdom, long-range thinking and fearlessness in challenging his staff to think, even ahead of their ministers.

He is also known as one of the toughest – because of his formidable intellect and unbending principle – yet nicest bosses to work for in the civil service. His top question to staff is always: “How can I help you do your job better?”

Stories abound of the small and big ways in which he intervened to help others. None of this, of course, will ever be disclosed by the wiry, reticent 67-year-old.

He minimises it all, ascribing it to his yearning for “simplicity” and to “experience what ordinary people have to experience”.

 

Next stop: Honour

Mr Lim might be onto his biggest change platform yet – trying to engineer social and behavioural change in Singapore by promoting a culture of honour. And the futurist has his work cut out for him.

Earlier this month, he founded and launched non-profit organisation Honour (Singapore), which was attacked online for its vagueness and suspected Christian agenda.

It’s easy to to see why as his diffidence makes him a tough interviewee.

He will not lament the deficiency of honour today, beyond saying it is latent in everyone, just not brought to the level of consciousness yet.

He is modest to a fault, not given to laying out bold plans or mission statements. He refuses, too, to make a big deal of honour – imbuing it with an everyday ubiquitous quality. He insists it’s not abstract but part of ordinary living here, such as people offering their seat on the MRT or a taxi driver arriving on time, as promised.

The only thing he is categorical about is that Honour (Singapore) has no right-wing Christian agenda. It has been taken to task online for not declaring that all five members of its board are part of Full Gospel Business (FGB) Singapore, an inter-denominational group of Christian professionals. Additionally, Honour (Singapore)’s executive director and board member Jason Wong is also chairman of Focus on the Family Singapore, a pro-family Christian charity.

For the record, Mr Lim states that Honour has no view on LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues. Neither is it an advocacy group for government policy, which it will not comment on.

After 37 years in the civil service, he says he understands the “extreme sensitivity” of race and religion. “Our intentions are very narrowly promoting a culture of honour and honouring. Clearly, Honour is not a Christian organisation. It can’t be if you’re trying to do something which has national value,” he says.

He adds that it would be impossible to advocate Christian work when it has a panel of 10 community advisers of differing religions, including Muslims and Buddhists, such as Haji Mohammad Alami Musa, president of the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore or Muis; Mr Chua Thian Poh, chairman of Ho Bee Land; and Ms Claire Chiang, senior vice-president of Banyan Tree Holdings.

But what about the worry expressed by netizens that his board’s overwhelming religious affiliation will lead to the imposition of Christian values of honour?

He says teachings like doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, honouring your parents and loving your neighbours are common to many religions. He cites humanitarian organisations started as an expression of faith such as Mercy Relief, started by Muslim group Perdaus in 2001, and St Andrew’s Mission Hospital, set up by the Anglican Church in 1913, which are now multiracial, multi-religious and secular in nature.

What about talk that Honour was set up at the behest of the Prime Minister to be a counter to the liberal tide out there and exemplify a more respectful response to the shrill voices out there?

Mr Lim seems affronted at this suggestion and says: “Absolutely not, he never spoke to me about it.”

As for the seeming haste to set up Honour, which led to it being registered under the same address as FGB, as well as to save costs, he says it is because the 50th year of Singapore’s Independence started on the 10th of August this year. “We thought that we ought to try to make it before the start of the 50th year,” he says, with his characteristic sense of urgency.

Use it or lose it

Honour (Singapore) is his practical-minded reaction to the treacly nostalgia of the SG50 celebrations, to mark Singapore’s 50th year of Independence next year.

Reading about the publicity on SG50, he felt it was overwhelmingly about celebration, honouring the pioneer generation and the past, which was good.

But he says: “The value of the past is to extract that which is critical that has brought us success, and to make sure that we don’t lose it as we think about the future.

“Every time people visit Singapore, we show them our Housing Board flats, CPF, education system, we talk about our strong leadership and political will – all of which are important. But if I were to ask myself, so what is the brand image of Singapore? What made us succeed? What is the defining characteristic of Singapore?

“It is trustworthiness. That’s why corporations plonk billions here and are prepared to wait 10 or 20 years to recover their investments. That’s why so many Singaporeans work in China as financial controllers and accountants, jobs which require total integrity and honesty.”

At the same time, he saw the fractious way public debates were being conducted here. So about four months ago, he rounded up a few friends to set up Honour (Singapore) to focus on the practice of honour – honouring our word and each other.

He believes this will help Singapore continue to succeed and stand out among nations. “Otherwise countries, like organisations, after a period of success, may end up with generations who are not aware or conscious about what has brought about that success,” he warns, adding that none of those invited to sit on his board or panel refused.

“If you look at the atlas of the world, Singapore fits within the letter ‘O’ of the name of the country. The reality is no one owes us a living. You matter if you succeed, you don’t matter if you fail.”

The closest thing he’s done to promote honour is introducing the concept of Total Defence in 1984, during his stint as permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence.

That exercise was about getting people to think of defence beyond the hardware of military, civil and economic defence, to the softer factors of social defence and psychological defence, which “is about how people relate to each other and how people think about their home”.

“It’s very difficult to do something to bring about a new conviction in people. What you’re trying to do is take something already there and make it a conscious part of you,” he describes.

The difference today, he concedes, is that in his previous change-making roles, he was just doing his job. This is the first one he has given himself.

“Maybe it’s a reflection of my old age, a desire to do something while I can, before I fade from the scene,” lets on the author of the recent bestseller, The Leader, The Teacher & You. “I’ve got grandchildren, so I’m thinking about what kind of future I am leaving for them.”

He is also up against the fact that no such value-based organisation like Honour exists in the world as yet, hence all the speculations.

But he bids you judge it by what Honour (Singapore) will do. Right now, it runs a website with a weekly blog to inspire honouring behaviour. Soon, it will do talks on “leading, learning, loving and living with honour” and take part in conferences – by invitation only – in schools, businesses and community groups.

Mr Lim, who says he is on a year-to-year renewable contract with GIC and intends to stay only as long as he is “useful”, will kick off these talks himself. He will take leave from GIC to do so, just as he has conscientiously taken leave to do this three-hour interview with The Sunday Times.

Achieving transcendence

He was the eldest son of a taxi driver and teacher who got only two new sets of clothes a year – during Chinese New Year and at Christmas. Home was a rent-controlled compound house in Upper Serangoon shared with 20 other relatives.

His biggest thrill was when his father swung by in his taxi to pick him up from Paya Lebar Methodist Afternoon School. The bright boy, who transferred to Anglo-Chinese School at Primary 5, worked hard to attain the highest rank of Colour Sergeant with the Boys’ Brigade, struggling only with Chinese.

Whenever he or his three younger siblings failed in any endeavour, after putting in their best effort, his parents would take them out for a picnic. The value he caught was that: “The team that loses is the one that needs to be taken to McDonald’s, not the winners. They need to be encouraged to go down to the football pitch next week to fight again.”

He also learnt to treat everyone – regardless of station – with kindness. His mother had such a rapport with their Malay washerwoman, who lived in a nearby Malay kampung, that when the racial tensions broke out in the 1960s, she became their “guardian”.

A university education was beyond his family’s means. But he won the President’s Scholarship to study at the University of Adelaide and graduated with first class honours in mechanical engineering in 1969, which gave him his clear-eyed, problem-solving approach to life.

He started work here as a mechanical engineer at sewage treatment plants where he got his hands dirty. From 1978 to 1981, he was the first principal private secretary to then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who, along with the late former deputy prime minister Goh Keng Swee, he considers his “master teachers”.

He then became permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence from 1981 to 1994, where he raised the morale of the Singapore Armed Forces with a public campaign that positioned soldiers as defenders of the nation. From 1994 to 1998, as permanent secretary at the Prime Minister’s Office, then head of the civil service from 1999 to 2005, he championed the PS21 reformation, leading the public service to become more performance-driven, customer-focused, responsive to change and among the most admired in the world.

At the Ministry of Education (1997 to 1999), he was the architect of the “Thinking schools, learning nation” initiative. He introduced national education in schools and the President’s Award for Teachers to restore the honour traditionally accorded to them.

At the Ministry of Finance (1999 to 2006), he is credited for transforming the Government’s financial management system, promoting e-government and leading the ministry to reduce income tax rates and nhance Singapore’s tax competitiveness. He even introduced an award, called the ERRward, to recognise failure, a reflection of his belief that innovation involves experimentation and failures.

Upon his retirement in 2006, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong paid tribute to his “unbroken record of understanding Singapore’s challenges and developing a vision of how the public service should respond to these challenges”.

From 2006 to 2009, he went on to chair the EDB, then preside over GIC from 2007, where he continued his bruising momentum of change and organisational overhaul to help them meet the future. Dr Beh Swan Gin, Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Law, remembers: “When he first came to EDB, officers asked him about his vision for EDB, and his reply was that he had no vision aside from making possible the collective vision of EDB officers. That answer was very empowering.”

Most of all, his staff – past and present – remember how he treats people, how he bothers to reply and thank by name the clerks who send out mass e-mail reports to the whole organisation.

They also hail him as an unstinting mentor with an openness of spirit to engage anyone – no matter how junior – and a consummate teacher whose homilies are peppered with children’s stories, song lyrics and poems.

Indeed, the change that Mr Lim is proudest of is what he has wrought in other peoples’ lives. The otherwise unforthcoming father of three grown children – a paediatric anaesthetist, civil servant and branding consultant – and grandfather of five pipes up: “I know what makes me feel happy – when people tell me that I helped them realise their potential in some way. To me, leadership is about transcendence, it is about what do you do for other people.”

This could be why his past and present staff remain fiercely loyal.

Mr Yeoh Keat Chuan, managing director of EDB, counts him as one of the “most selfless” leaders he has ever known. “He is always willing to give up his personal time to help others even though I know he would dearly like to spend more time with his grandchildren.”

Accountant-General Chua Geok Wah, who witnessed the transformation of the civil service under Mr Lim, sums up her tribute to him by quoting ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu.

“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say, ‘we did it ourselves’.”

BACKGROUND STORY

Why call it Honour?

“I was asked why don’t we call it Trust or Respect, which are easier to understand and have less ambiguity. But it would have lost a very important point about ‘honour’. Honour is something we offer unconditionally on our own initiative, whereas trust or respect is our reaction to someone who behaves in a way that makes us believe in him or her.”

 

His motivation

“All my motivation for change has really been about the future. If you don’t change, are you good enough for the future? That’s the real driver. SG50 is about the past, we have to think about the future. What does the future need? Two things. One is, we need to continue to be a people whose word is our honour. Second, we also need to develop as a people who know how to live with a diversity of views and from all that diversity come to good conclusions as to how we move our way forward.”

suelong@sph.com.sg

CONNECTING THE DOTS

quote_steve-jobs_connecting-the-dots

 

Sometimes, maybe even oftentimes, we look more at our impediments than our possibilities. And if we do not do that to ourselves, we often do that on others. We are more focused on their shortcomings and defects, than look at them more optimistically in terms of how their impediments need not stand in the way of achievement, or sometimes even help them achieve. 

I am reminded of Steve Jobs, the late great creator of new possibilities in Apple, who said that in life, every dot – meaning, every happening – connects. That is, every step we take, every new bit of knowledge or skill we gain, makes possible some future step.

The only thing, however, is that we can only connect the dots looking backwards, and not looking forwards. 

Looking backwards requires good memory, looking forwards requires faith, and that inner desire to make things happen.

Here is a story of not being held back by misfortune or impediment, because we simply do not know the future. Only at the end of our life can we see how the dots connect.

A king had a male servant who, in all circumstances, always said to him, “My king, do not be discouraged, because everything God does is perfect, no mistakes.” 

One day, they went hunting and a wild animal attacked the king. The servant managed to kill the animal, but couldn’t prevent his majesty from losing a finger.

Furious and without showing gratitude, the King said: “If God were good, I would not have been attacked and lost one finger.”

The servant replied: “Despite all these things, I can only tell you that God is good and everything He does is perfect, He is never wrong”. 

Outraged by the response, the king ordered the arrest of his servant. While being taken to prison, he told the king again: “God is Good and Perfect.” 

Another day, the king left alone for another hunt and was captured by savages who used human beings for sacrifice. On the altar, the savages noticed that the king did not have one finger in place. He was released because he was considered “not complete” – not perfect enough –  to be offered to the gods.

On his return to the palace, he ordered the release of his servant and said: “God was really good to me. I was almost killed, but for lack of a single finger, I was let go. But I have a question: If God is so good, why did He allow me to put you in prison?”

His servant replied: “My king, if I had not been put in prison, I would have gone with you, and would have been sacrificed, because I have no missing finger.” 

Often we complain about life, and the negative things that happen to us, forgetting that everything happens for a purpose, even though that purpose might not be plain to us, possibly, for many years.

TATTOOS FOR PROTECTION?

Tattoos for Protection

I spoke to a dance instructor who told me he dealt with many kids who are considered “youth at risk.” 

He thought it extremely unfortunate that they should be labelled as “youth at risk”, because he had found many of them to be honourable, teachable, and desiring to do well just like all other kids. 

He described a boy who turned up at one of his classes with tattoos all over his body. On his asking why all the tattoos, the boy explained it was so that he would not be bullied. He felt that tattoos made him look tough, so having all the tattoos was in self-defence, for deterrence. He was no bully, but he had to take action to avoid being bullied. 

This reminds me of a story about Tommy.  

Tommy simply cannot sit still in kindergarten. During storytelling time, he talks and walks about. He disturbs other children in their work. Instead of taking a nap, he runs around the room. The teacher cannot control him, and thinks he is a real troublemaker. 

On Teachers’ Day, the children gave little present to their teacher. Tommy also had a present for her.  It was a little box, wrapped with pretty coloured paper. She opened the box slowly and carefully. Inside was a caterpillar! The teacher thought it was a naughty trick. She became very angry, scolded Tommy, and threw the box into the wastepaper basket. 

After school, the teacher found a little envelope. It must have dropped from one of the presents. Inside was a letter for her, from Tommy. The letter said: “Dear Teacher, here is a baby butterfly for you. I  hope it will become a pretty butterfly.” 

The teacher felt very bad. Tommy had wanted to do a good thing, but she had thrown away his present and scolded him. Why?  It was because she thought that Tommy was naughty by nature, and thus everything he did must be naughty. 

It is so easy for us to fall into the trap simply of judging people by their looks, or their words, or their behaviours. We need to make the time to listen, to understand, to uncover, and to discover.  

PICNIC FOR FAILING

Picnic for Failing

I recently received an email from an associate of some time back, updating me on an appointment she has just taken on. She made the remark, “I have met a couple of people who come across as being fairly jaded in life, and living on “what it could have been”. 

I am deeply saddened by remarks like these. Life should be lived to the fullest. Life should be lived with optimism.  Life should be lived for the future, and not in the past.  

In many ways, this is a choice. It is a choice to live life not “as it could have been”. That past is gone.  It is a choice to focus on the full part of a glass which is half empty. 

So live life as we can make it. Take the opportunities that come by, do our best, and take comfort that we have done what we could. 

I have been subjected to a number of interviews this past week.  It has caused me to have to think of my younger days, and wonder how I had been shaped by them.  We got to talking of my father, who was a taxi driver and was out of the house most of the time, so as children we did not see that much of him. But we could sense his love.  

I remember how he tried as much as possible to somehow be around my school at dismissal time, so he could pick me home. But this would not happen that often, as of course where he was depended on where his passengers brought him to. Nevertheless it was always a thrill to be picked by him for a ride home, instead of having to take the hour-plus ride on the bus. This was love for him. He also liked to buy nice food home which he came across as he drove around Singapore.  It was yet another act of love from him. 

But perhaps the most remarkable were the times when I did not do well in some school test or other. Sometimes I cried over the poor marks.  Instead of a scolding, he took us children for a picnic at the beach at Tanah Merah. This was love! The kind of love of a father as it ought to be for his son. His only demand was that his children should have tried their best, not more, not less. 

And, I would venture to say, it is also the kind of care a leader ought to have for his people. 

WHAT THE HELL IS WATER?

 

What the hell is water

The late author David Foster Wallace began his commencement address to the graduates of Kenyon College in 2005 with:

There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says “Morning, boys. How’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?”

As Wallace explained, the point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about.

We celebrated our 49th National Day last Saturday 9 August 2014. It also means we are now into our 50th year of independent statehood, our year of Jubilee. I will discuss the significance of Jubilee in some future blog. But in this blog I would simply like to draw our minds to what is the important reality about Singapore that is possibly, or even probably, hard “to see and talk about”.

What is the reason for Singapore’s economic success all these years, when Singapore had to strike its own path of success and survival after giving up the idea of needing to have an economic hinterland next door, which was the reason for Singapore’s desire to merge with the Malayan peninsula to its north and thus had been part of Malaysia? 

In terms of strategies and schemes, Singapore had decided to “leapfrog the region” and reach out to the whole world as its “hinterland”, the source of investment capital, management capability, technology, and, most of all, markets. There was massive investment in education and training, a major thrust in home ownership through the work of the Housing and Development Board and the Central Provident Fund scheme to create stakes for everyone, and a global push for investments through the Economic Development Board. But this focus on schemes and policies, exactly, could cause us to miss the critical point.

Why should companies invest billions of dollars in Singapore knowing they would need tens of years to recover their investments? They have done so because they have found the people and government of Singapore to be trustworthy. We could be relied on to work hard and to deliver on our promises, even if we faced unexpected difficulties and many obstacles along the way. Singapore’s perspective was that of long-term business and personal relationships, the type of relationship which could only survive where trust and credibility are never in question.

Singapore is an artificial construct: We are the result of human effort and invention. We have a reputation for honouring our word as manifested in integrity, incorruptibility, hard work, imagination in solving problems, and future-orientedness.  It is easy to forget that Singapore is the product of human ingenuity and trustworthiness, which can be easily lost if not understood and sustained by Singaporeans.

A Harvard University professor visiting Singapore for the first time remarked he found honour even in the simplest behaviours among Singaporeans, as he saw in the taxi driver who arrived to pick him up exactly at the time promised. To him this was a demonstration of the taxi driver honouring his word. 

Singaporeans run the danger of saying, as the fish at the beginning of this story, “What the hell is water?” without recognizing that “Singapore water” is honour and trustworthiness built up over many years through consistent behaviour, predictable policy, social stability, and national unity.

These attributes have certainly made Singapore unique among the many developing countries of the world…the important question is: Are we able to sustain this uniqueness to not only survive, but thrive? 

HONOUR GETS THE TURNIP OUT

Giant Turnip

Honour (Singapore), a non-profit enterprise that seeks the well-being of Singapore by promoting a culture of honour and honouring, was launched by Minister for Education Heng Swee Keat last Tuesday, 5 August 2014.  It seems a fitting lead-in to National Day, which we will celebrate tomorrow, by reminding everyone to honour Singapore.

Honour carries the dual message of

  • being a people who honour our word
  • being a people who honour each other despite possibly having widely different views on issues

Perhaps a good way to appreciate the message can be found in the well-known Russian folk tale about The Great Turnip.

The story is about a farmer who planted a turnip that kept growing…and growing…and growing until it became a real giant of a turnip.  One day he decided to pull the turnip out of the ground.  He pulled and pulled, but it would not come out.

He asked his wife to help.  The wife and the farmer pulled and pulled, but the turnip still would not come out.

The wife asked a boy to help.  So the boy and the wife and the farmer pulled and pulled, but the turnip was still stuck in the ground.

And so the story carried on.  The boy called the girl, who then called the dog, who called the cat.  And the cat and the dog and the girl and the boy and the wife and the farmer pulled and pulled, but the turnip would not come out.

The cat next called the rat to help out.  And the rat and the cat and the dog and the girl and the boy and the wife and the farmer pulled and pulled…and finally the turnip came out of the ground.

The wife then cooked the turnip and everyone had wonderful turnip soup for dinner.

Often the story is told to illustrate the value of teamwork.  But in fact we could find not just one, but a total of five morals in the story.

  • The first moral is that if we all pull together (in the same direction), we can get things done which we will not be able to do individually. Yes, it is about the value of teamwork and synergy.
  • The second moral is that even natural enemies, like the cat the dog, and the mouse and the cat, can find it worth their while to work together. It is a matter of “enlightened self-interest”, a valuable idea for the workplace and the classroom.
  • The third moral is that until the rat, the smallest of them all, joined in, the turnip would not come out. It shows that everyone is important and valuable, even the smallest member of the team.  We must appreciate everyone one…no matter how small.
  • The fourth moral is that there is fair and just reward after the job is done. The farmer’s wife gave turnip soup to everyone, and not just her favourites. “Reward for work and work for reward” is an important principle.
  • And, finally, the fifth moral is: we must honour our word (give fair and just reward) and honour each other (respect and value every effort and every one).  It is a good way to conduct ourselves in life.

Honour is the foundation of trust, and trust is critical for long-term, beneficial relationships, whether the relationships be personal or business.

MIND YOUR MAP

Map

I came across this commentary by Global Business Network, which illustrates how hard it is to change our beliefs. 

There was a 1701 map of North America by a Dutch cartographer called Herman Moll.  California is shown as an island.  Moll produced the map based on reports from Spanish explorers, who travelled up the western side of the Americas to the tip of today’s Baja Peninsula.  Around 1635, the Spanish had sailed further north to Puget Sound.  It seemed logical to the cartesians then to connect the northern and southern points, and the Isle of California was born! 

Years later, some missionaries landed to go inland to bring the Word of God to the American Indians.  Relying on Moll’s map, the missionaries disassembled their boats, packed them on mules, hauled them across California, up the Sierra Nevada mountain range, and down the other side – only to find no beach but just a lot of sand that went on, and on, and on.  They finally realized they were in the middle of a desert.

They then wrote to the Spanish map-makers, saying, “There’s no Island of California; your map is wrong!”  The map-makers replied, “No!  You’re in the wrong place; the map is right!”  The Spanish finally changed their maps in 1685, while Herman Moll continued to defend his Isle of California until 1721. 

The point is: if you get your facts wrong, you get your map wrong. If you get your map wrong, you do the wrong things.  Once you believe a map, it is very, very hard to change. 

Everyone has deeply ingrained maps, especially successful executives. However, the map that got them to the top is unlikely to be the map that they need for the future.  

People, especially top executives, need to be able to ask themselves difficult and often painful questions about how the future might be different from the recent past.  Failure to do so would be failure to anticipate the future, which is the most common reason for fatal outcomes for organisations and campaigns. 

THINKING THE FUTURE WITH COMMUNITY LEADERS

Future Ahead

 I had the privilege to address more than 200  community leaders last Sunday.  These are the people who volunteer their time and energy in the various grassroots organisations to serve the community, maintain social harmony, and build relationships and understanding among Singaporeans.  

I started off by saying that if we were to look at an atlas of the world, Singapore fits quite nicely within the letter “o” of the name of our country.  This smallness, if it were not to be an insurmountable impediment to the success and survival of Singapore, and therefore the hopes and aspirations of Singaporeans, must translate into certain ways of thinking and of working together. I quoted Lord Parlmeston, an English statesman of the 19th century, who had said: “Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” 

I outlined what I felt were the three big challenges the world faces and which Singapore cannot avoid: 

  • lack of leadership
  • lack of ideas
  • the rise of relativist secularism 

On the lack of leadership:  I take as my starting point the definition of leadership as “making things happen which on their own would not happen.”  So the leader has to make things happen.  But obviously this definition is not adequate, in that the head of the mafia, for example, would still qualify as a leader, despite the criminal activities associated with the mafia.  So we need to improve the definition by saying “leadership is making good things happen which on their own would not happen.”  But the moment we insert the word “good”, we have entered into the moral and ethical dimension, as we then need to also decide what is good and what is bad, what is right and what is wrong.  So in leading people, we cannot run away from making moral judgments of whether the goals and results of our leadership are good and right for the people we are leading and serving. 

On the lack of ideas:  I said that, in my mind, the greatest danger for our future is when our young, who would be taking up the mantle of leadership in years to come, do not think for ourselves, but instead simply “follow the crowd” or take on the views of people elsewhere without thinking for ourselves as to whether that is the best way to think and to behave which would be beneficial for our long-term well-being.   In today’s world of the social media, it is so easy to just follow whatever we feel comfortable with, rather than to challenge what we read, dig into the data to check for accuracy and truthfulness, and reason things out for ourselves to come to our own convictions.  This way we will not simply fall prey to the loudest voices or the urgings of those who do not have our best interests in mind. 

And on the rise of relativist secularism:  This is where there are no stable standards in values and beliefs to guide our decisions and behaviours as we make our way into the future.  Instead, people justify their actions on a relative basis.  “I am OK if I lie, so long as the lies I tell are smaller than the lies other people tell.”  Bad behaviours and poor ideas are justified by quoting others with even worse behaviours or poorer ideas.  Contrast this to why Singapore has been able to attract so many large investments where investors will need years to recover their money.  They do so because they see Singaporeans as people whose word is our honour:  people who will deliver on our promises, who are reliable, who will work hard, and who are trustworthy, a people who will deliver despite unexpected difficulties and much effort. 

THE YOUNG NEED TO BE SHAPED

PenguinsThere has been much public discourse in recent days about whether the National Library Board should have removed three books it deemed unsuitable for children.  

That many parents have said the decision on whether the books are suitable should be left to parents is a worthy statement, based on the assumption that all parents who send their young children to the library will be vetting every book their children would be reading.  

Would such an assumption be reasonable? It would probably be reasonable for the parents who have spoken up, but it would not be a reasonable assumption for the majority of parents in Singapore who could possibly be feeling that they are already doing the right thing simply by taking the trouble to take their children to the library once a week or every few days.  

So the public debate should principally be whether the National Library Board has the duty to exercise its judgment – because many parents assume they are actively doing it, and would hold them accountable for it – to ensure that books available in the library are age-appropriate, and the courage to admit and correct any wrong judgment they may have made, including withdrawing books they had cleared but on review feel they should not have cleared. 

All these arguments then lead to the question of how much children need to be shaped in their understanding and character, as opposed to being largely left to develop on their own.  

The Chinese have a saying that one can see the future simply by seeing how the child’s character is like at three years of age. And psychologists have said that by the time a child is four year old, much of his or her beliefs, attitudes and values are already formed for life: This is BEFORE the child turns up in school, which therefore places the responsibility squarely on parents to consciously and deliberately attend to their children’s development of character before they even get to kindergarten

We find the following in Plato’s “Republic”: 

“You know that the beginning is the most important part of any work, especially in the case of a young and tender thing; for that is the time at which the character is being formed and the desired impression is more readily taken. . . shall we just carelessly allow children to hear any casual tales which may be devised by casual persons, and to receive into their minds ideas for the most part the very opposite of those that we should wish them to have when they are grown up? 

“We cannot. . . . anything received into the mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales that the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts. . . . 

“Then will our youth dwell in a land of health, amid fair sights and sounds, and receive the good in everything; and beauty, the effluence of fair works, shall flow into the eye and ear, like a health-giving breeze from a purer region, and insensibly draw the soul from the earliest years into likeness and sympathy with the beauty of reason. 

“There can be no nobler training than that.” 

Or as the Bible states even more succinctly in its book of Proverbs: “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not turn from it.”

Open your hearts to Life

Life in your hands

I was shocked to learn during the course of this week that if a girl less than 16 years old were pregnant, she would not need to get her parent’s consent to abort the baby, but she must get her parent’s consent if she wants to carry the baby to full term or to subsequently put the baby out to adoption. I may have been told the facts of law wrongly, but if true, it is shocking for me to learn that the whole system is skewed towards aborting the baby. For the girl, to abort the baby would at least save her from any scolding at home! 

On a separate issue, I had the special opportunity to visit the charity known as Sanctuary House. Sanctuary House arranges for infants and children up to 16 years old to be put into foster homes. The foster parents take them in on a temporary basis, which may be for a few days, but in exceptional cases could go on to a few months or even years. These are children who need a sanctuary away from their own parents while their parents sort out the issues that trouble the parents.  

It was so heart-warming to learn that there are a fair number of families in Singapore willing to open their homes to these needful children. At the same time, however, it was somewhat disappointing to learn that a clear majority of these willing foster parents are expatriates, while the clear minority are Singaporeans. The cynical call this Asians opening their cheque books while Caucasians open their hearts. It may be an unfair characterization, but the facts of numbers cannot be denied. Perhaps we would get better with heart work as we mature as a country and a society; but then again, perhaps we wouldn’t.