Debate on President's Address

Two months ago, Prof Tommy Koh invited me to speak on a panel at Tembusu College, discussing Singapore’s hopes for the next Prime Minister. The College had also selected a student leader to speak on behalf of his cohort. And to prepare, this student leader spent a whole month running focus groups and surveying his peers. That night, he read out an open letter addressed to the future prime minister that summarised the themes emerging from his research. Prof Koh, who chaired the discussion, and the rest of us panelists recognised it as the best speech of the night.

You might have already seen that speech online that went viral and, if you have not, here is the printed version.

Three weeks ago, those precocious students hand-delivered 16 letters to my office – one for each of the fourth generation leaders – hoping that I would bring them to Parliament on their behalf. I will keep that promise and pass these to the Clerk for the team. Many have already weighed in on this letter online and some praise it for being inspiring but others have slammed it for being naive. And whatever your inclination, it is worth a read because it reflects the perspective of a new generation of voters that will be making themselves heard, regardless, at the ballot boxes in the next few years.

I was nominated into Parliament to give insight into youths’ concerns. So, I will thus orient what is probably my last major speech around the three big questions in the students’ letter for they resonate with the themes brought up by Mdm President last week.

The students’ first question for their future prime minister is, “How much do you trust us?” This echoes Mdm President’s concern about the future leadership’s ability to listen to, trust and work with the people, particularly those with dissenting views. Their second and third questions for their future prime minister are: “How will you unite Singapore?” and “What is Singapore to you?”. This ties in with Mdm President’s call for leadership to deal with social inequality and cast a more inclusive future vision that can “fire up…the spirit of young Singaporeans”.

I will explore the questions and make suggestions that I hope are respectful enough of Mdm President’s call for bold changes versus marginal tweaking.

First, “How much do you trust us?” In their letter, the students shared their uncertainty about whether their voice in the public square would be welcomed if they did not share pro-establishment views. They wrote: “Do you see us as equal partners, leaders you want to empower, or as citizens you need to govern? What kind of role do you trust us to play? We are prompted in school to think critically and voice our opinions, but we see some naysayers being treated negatively. We are encouraged to push boundaries…yet, those of us who write articles online are reminded to respect existing boundaries. And we are taught it is important to learn our history, but are certain narratives preferred over others?” The youths believe that having dissenting views does not mean they are any less passionate for Singapore’s good or less loyal to Singapore’s interests. They speak out because they care and they want to see their leaders model curiosity and compassion in their engagement with divergent views.

And lest we brush aside these dissenting young people as just part of a “vocal minority” that can be ignored, I find their youthful opinion matches the sentiments I hear from a number of 20- to 40-something professionals from the quieter middle ground.

My own sense of the ground, and I could be wrong and you may disagree with me, is that there are more people who have dissenting views about what is going on in our country than Government-commissioned opinion polls reveal. This is partly because many people in this segment are unlikely to answer such polls in the first place. They do not like registering their dissent openly, be it on survey or social media or any form of record. The reasons why these people keep their dissent to themselves vary. Some honestly assume that their opinion is unimportant or unqualified; some like getting along and fear that their honesty will invite an open rebuke or a cold shoulder from the establishment; and others say it is just self-preservation based on their past experiences. Whatever it is, their quiet dissent is real and such withholding of views may give the leadership the wrong impression that all is quiet on the western front.

The shock at the electoral results in the UK, US and Malaysia has shown that some leaders can live in an unfortunate bubble and, sometimes, it is not one entirely of your own making. It is a well-known phenomenon that one unintended effect of being in a powerful leadership position is that people surrounding you may start to presume, wrongly or rightly, that their job is to tell you what you want to hear, rather than what you need to hear.

One of the most poignant reflections I read about this problem was from former US Secretary of State General Colin Powell. To ensure he always had a clear picture of the ground, Powell said that he made his staffers stick to four simple rules: “Tell me what you know. Tell me what you don’t know. Then tell me what you think. And always distinguish which is which."

But even so, those four good rules still could not prevent the issue of withheld dissent which caused him, and his country, to make an astronomical mistake. He recounted, “There is nothing worse than a leader believing he has accurate information when folks who know he doesn’t, don’t tell him that he doesn’t. I found myself in trouble on more than one occasion because people kept silent when they should have spoken up. My infamous speech at the United Nations in 2003 about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction programmes was not based on facts, though I thought it was…A number of senior analysts had big “don’t knows” that they never passed on. Some of these same analysts later wrote books claiming they were shocked that I had relied on such deeply flawed evidence…So, why did no one stand up and speak out during the intense hours that we worked on the speech?…It takes courage to do that, especially if you are standing up to a view strongly held by a superior or to the generally prevailing view, or if you really don’t want to acknowledge ignorance when your boss is demanding answers. The leader can’t be let off without blame in these situations…He has to relentlessly cross-examine the analysts until he is satisfied he’s got what they know and…what they don’t know. At the same time, the leader must realise that it takes courage for someone to stand up and say to him, “That’s wrong.” “You’re wrong.” Or: “We really don’t know that.” The leader should never shoot the messenger. Everybody is working together to find the right answer. And if they’re not, then you’ve got even more serious problems.”

So, I do worry when I read surveys that seem to present too positive an assessment of public opinion on controversial issues like transport or water prices. I believe such polls may cause an unintended widening of the communication gap between leaders and the ground.

In a recent Straits Times interview regarding whether the ground cared about the six-hour questioning of Dr PJ Thum by the Select Committee, I saw this quote, “We went to the grassroots, into the constituency, door to door, and nobody asked about it, nobody wanted to talk about it and nobody was the least bit concerned about it.” And perhaps, but I respectfully offer you my observation that this has not been my own experience of the ground.

In my work, I do get to talk to a considerable number of youths and white-collar working professionals. There were definitely some people asking about it, wanting to talk about it and showing concern about the general handling of dissenters. So, I do not think it is a case of "nobody" cared.

Many of these lay observers, even those who were more establishment-leaning, did express their deepening discomfort with watching the establishment go for, what they perceived, as over-kill when it came to dealing with naysayers from the Opposition, from civil society and even from within the establishment’s own ranks. And now, these observers were not saying let us go soft on dissenters who are clearly professional agitators.

But they were asking: how far do we really have to go to bring down people with political opinions that may be different from our own? What do we gain and what do we lose when we win the argument but display clear contempt of the other person? Must it always be a zero-sum game in dealing with dissenters or can we work towards a win-win? And these are not simply questions they are pinning onto political leadership alone but questions they are reflecting for themselves. Because many of them are leaders, too – from non-profits, corporations, public service. They do work that does require them to work with dissenting stakeholders. So, they are always looking for inspiration and role-modelling.

One of Mdm President’s most memorable observations in her speech was about how the new leadership “will need to listen to the views and feelings of the people, and by their words and deeds, show that they have heard…And this is how they will earn the right to lead…In each generation, the people and leaders must work with one another…and forge their own bonds afresh”.

The student’s letter shows us how a new generation of voters would like to work with the new generation of leaders who desire the right to lead them. They say, “We want you to trust that we do not disagree for dissent’s sake and that we can find unity even in the face of our differences with you…Disagreement is not weakness and your appointment is a chance for a new way for our differences to be received. We truly believe that it is only in facing our differences together openly, honestly and fearlessly that our discourse can be strengthened, outcomes can be sharpened and our relationship can be deepened.”

I train people in how to build trust through conversations and we have a simple rule of thumb. In every argument, we really only have two end-games to play: you can either prioritise being right, or you can prioritise retaining the relationship and the results that come through that relationship. This applies as much to arguing with your family as much as it does to arguing with stakeholders. When you prioritise retaining relationship over being right, what you gain is new ground to work together towards doing what is right anyway, towards the results you care for. Together is the superior end-game.

We can avoid unnecessarily adversarial relationships with our dissenters if we choose to be slow to speak and quick to listen for the truths our naysayers are offering. The purposeful inclusion of more thoughtful voices who are unafraid of challenging establishment views will make our system stronger. So, can I suggest that we intentionally seek out more non-establishment types to participate in our national level focus groups, committees, boards, Ministries and Parliament? If we want our system to be resilient, we need to boldly open up our echo chambers and learn to ask both friends and detractors, “Tell me what you know. Tell me what you don’t know. Then tell me what you think. And help me distinguish which is which.”

And if we have power, let us be aware of its silencing effects on people so that we can learn to lay it down purposefully to help others feel they have permission and safety to share their truths. As the founding Minister S Rajaratnam once said, “Don’t tell me things you think I want to hear; tell me things I should hear even if they make me feel uncomfortable.”

I will now move on to my second point on income inequality. Mdm President warned of dire consequences if we do not deal with it "vigorously". In their letter, the youths echoed: "We are very worried that social inequality is becoming an issue that is dividing Singaporeans faster than we can mitigate it." As we zero in on meeting the needs of children from lower income homes, I hope we do not neglect their parents' needs. We must not operate from a subconscious mindset of "save the children because the adults are a gone case". Because a child's well-being is tied to their parent's well-being. Children's needs are tied to parents' needs, children's problems are tied to parents' problems. And that is how family works. That is how country works. Everyone is linked up, for better or for worse, for richer or poorer. Parent and child are a package deal. If we want to help the child, we help the parent too. Their children would say the same thing, because that is what love says. We want to be in this together.

So, as we provide education subsidies to support a child at school, let us simultaneously provide secure affordable housing to his unwed mother. Stable housing with longer term tenancies and less crowded rooming conditions through the child's crucial schooling years will give these kids a fighting chance with kids from the richer households. There should be no favouritism. The same dignities we accord to middle- or upper-income families should be accorded to the lower income. If we do not think it is culturally dignified or politically viable to tell two single, unrelated upper income individuals or a middle-income family of five to share one HDB room together, then let it be just as inappropriate to tell lower income people that they have to do so, and still achieve great outcomes.

Inequality has to be approached on a whole-of-Government examination of policy. Because it is never just about income but power disparity as well. The power gap is entrenched in policies about housing, healthcare, education across Ministries, because policy is, after all, power frozen in place. For instance, when policy declares, you and the child that you gave birth to cannot be officially defined as a family nucleus even if logically that is what you are, you are frozen out of the system and quite powerless to access certain good choices. You depend on access through more powerful individuals like a Member of Parliament or social worker to advocate for you on a "case-by-case basis". How much better would it be to go for a policy change that can let power thaw, flow and refreeze into a new, hopefully more empowering place, one where the previously disempowered can now help themselves and independently access the options they need to move ahead in life. There, but for the grace of God, go we.

Who is to say one day we, too, may not come into a similar station in life? Is it that unthinkable? Because if we lost it all and became the powerless ones, how would we want the system to work with us? I hope, some day, we can consider looking beyond just Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of our success and implement a companion measure of holistic progress along. Income is a vital and necessary indicator of well-being but it is not all-sufficient nor is it conclusive.

In 2012, economists Yeoh Lam Keong and Manu Bhaskaran talked about how GDP growth must not become the be-all and end-all for Singapore. They proposed alternative indicators, such as measuring income inequality, the proportion of citizens’ "out of pocket" healthcare expenses and the breadth of outreach of our public hospitals. There are, currently, a few alternative indicators out there in the world: Bhutan's Gross National Happiness, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Better Life Index. And if we think these indicators or others like Gini coefficient are flawed or not applicable to our Singapore context, then why not create one of our own? A uniquely Singapore system of meaningful measures for well-being would help the people and the Government better communicate where we are and where we want to go.

We can raise our collective level of well-being if we knew which metrics mattered most. We manage what we measure. We chase what we measure. We get what we measure. What we do not measure will always be treated as something lesser. We can criticise Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index, but we cannot dismiss the effect it had in kickstarting the world's thinking for years about what it means for economies to work on the things that matter most to people. Canada's Well-being Index chooses to measure things like community vitality, culture and time use. But we can base our well-being index: on what we believe reflects our unique values: unity between different races and religions, democratic participation, justice, equality, happiness and, of course, economic prosperity and progress.

The third and final question the youths had "What is Singapore to you?" is a provocative question to pose not just to leadership but to ourselves as an electorate. Who do we want Singapore to be? For our country is in our hands. The votes we cast, or do not cast. The positions we support, or do not support. The donations we give, or do not give. The risks we take, or do not take. The people that we serve, or do not serve. Singapore is as bold, and as kind, as inclusive, as original, and as vital as we make her to be.

Our country is us, the sum total of all our choices. And that is the power of a people. The Prime Minister quoted Ecclesiastes yesterday. It made me consider, much as we love our Pioneers and admire the times our country came from, we cannot go back. For they say, “The past is like a foreign country: they do things differently there." Where it was their time to plant, perhaps now is our time to uproot. Where it was their time to tear down, perhaps now is our time to build up. Where it was their time to keep silent, perhaps now is our time to speak. There is a time for everything and a season for every one of us, under the heavens.

This is our time. And we must make of it what we will. We are not Lee Kuan Yews, Goh Keng Swees or Rajaratnams. And we need not pretend to be. They were who they were and they were who they had to be. Those times and their times are past, but our time is now. We each must learn to be bold enough to live out who we are and dare to challenge who we could be. We need only be the best of ourselves, seizing the most of our times, steering our country our way. And if we are scared, then let the words of Mr Chiam See Tong, Singapore's longest-serving Opposition Member, give us courage. When people praised him for being brave in stepping up to serve despite being perceived as too ordinary, he said, "I am not actually a brave man, but I love Singapore and I love Singaporeans." So, let our love find the way forward out of here. I support the Motion and the future of our country. [Applause.]