Chan Chun Sing's rally call for more growth.

I thought quite a lot about what Chan Chun Sing (CCS) said on growth, and his "Don't Get Into "Average Is Sufficient" Mode" speech in his recent address to 900 people at the Public Sector Transformation Awards ceremony. 

At the Awards ceremony, one of the prize-winning innovations was a public service app launched last week that performs various functions like "birth registrations, applying to the Baby Bonus scheme, searching for pre-schools and viewing child's immunisation records."

CCS said that he was encouraged by the innovation, and "it showed public servants putting themselves "in the shoes of the people we serve.""

Here comes the extract of his speech which mentioned about how depressing it would be if we are satisfied with 2 to 3 percent economic growth:-

"Many people say that we have reached a certain level of growth, that going forward, it will be 2 to 3 per cent growth on average. That sounds rather depressing. If it's 2 to 3 per cent growth on average, what does it mean for the economy, what does it mean for opportunities for our people? But the truth of it is that even if the average is 2 to 3 per cent, it does not mean that every sector, every industry is 2 to 3 per cent. What it means is that it's 2 to 3 per cent on average, but there is a plus 5 per cent for various sectors and there's a minus 5 per cent for other sectors."

CCS then said that settling for the average is not sufficient for Singaporeans. He warned about harbouring low expectations and embedding ourselves in comfort zones. He's advocating for higher growth. 

Here is the aspirational goals he had set for the public/civil service:-

"Our job is to make sure that we keep creating the conditions for the 2 to 3 per cent (and higher). Our job is to make sure that those sectors that are minus 5 continue to be helped to adjust to get out of the minus 5. That is our job in the civil service. If each of us continues to aspire in our respective sectors to work on the plus 5 per cent, then actually there is no reason to believe that we will be always 2 to 3 per cent. I say this with a heavy heart because we should not get into a mode whereby we think that the average is sufficient."

Personally, I know where CCS is coming from. His heart is heavy because he is concerned that Singaporeans might just settle for mediocrity. That, to him, is depressing. 

So, whichever way you look at it (that is, the spirit of what CCS is saying in the above extract), it is all about growth, measurable growth, higher growth.

Against the background of the Awards ceremony, it is growth in digital skills. Growth in learning and applying system thinking, "which is the practice of drawing up processes based on the end-users" experience". And growth in working with Singaporeans by "gathering ideas from the whole nation to tackle Singapore's problems."

These are all noble, worthwhile pursuits and I can relate to them in general.

But, and there is always a but here, if the sole yardstick is economic growth, that is, measurable economic growth, what does it translate into for the average working household? What can the average Singaporean expect since our technocratic and efficient government has been pursuing growth since Independence?

Can we expect a fairer distribution of the fruits of our collective labour as Singaporeans working together? Can we expect the social/income inequality gap to narrow within acceptable range over time and not widen even more? 

Can we hope to see a discernible reduction in the stress and anxiety levels? Will we be able to enjoy the fruits of our labour and not work into the twilight years worrying about medical and daily living costs outpacing income and savings? Will the right moral values be pursued and nurtured? In other words, will we be happier, less materialistic, less consumerist-centered, and more contented with what we have?

More pointedly, will the majority of us have enough for our retirement and a home not in danger of losing its value? Will our children and their children be able to catch up with the high, or by then, even higher cost of living, with prices of basic necessities increasing as I write this and income not growing to match?

By focusing on growth that CCS insists we chase after, whether it is 5 per cent or even more, will he and his ministry be able to pause at some point to consider going beyond the GDP numbers towards a more people-centric, moral based direction? Because not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted, right?

And this direction is well captured in the words of MP Seah in his recent speech about the controversial teachers' parking.

"...But economic reasoning is empty without a moral foundation. Such foundations cannot and do not exist without a conversation about values. Not just what is cheap, but what is right. Not just about generating income, but about giving meaning."

Let's stop here for a bit and talk about value(s). 

What conversation can we have with the government about value? Will such conversation be centered on maximizing shareholder value, which includes influential large multinational corporations invested here? Or, will it be values MP Seah refers to above, that is, moving from not just "generating income" to "giving meaning", from a strictly metric approach to growth to a more human-approach to growth? 

Now, returning to what MP Seah said:-

"For too long we’ve made decisions that is more on an economic compass, as if the use of one dollar is the moral equivalence of the loss of another...it is time we recognize that money is merely a proxy for value. And at times, a very bad one. We need regulations on responsible use of funds and fiscal prudence, good procurement but equally, we ought to be having a conversation about reciprocity, trust and relationships."

To me, CCS seems to have place too much emphasis on the growth mandate. I gather this from the way he rallied the civil service to work together to encourage more innovations in the face of intense global competition with this warning: "If we keep doing things the same way, we will do injustice to ourselves and our country. If we are not careful, we will be left behind in the dustbin of history." In other words, he doesn't want Singapore to be left behind in this all-defining growth race.

But this is where I get mixed signals from the government. 

At one point, they are bent on building "reciprocity, trust and relationships" by attempting to close the income gap and encouraging mixing of different status groups with more organised outings and activities - its effectiveness notwithstanding. And at other times, I get the feeling that growing the economy in a tangible, GDP-ish way is their main preoccupation or their raison d’état.

At the risk of oversimplifying, one creates meaning and the other generates income. 

But don't get me wrong, those two activities are not mutually exclusive. To some extent, they are complementary. They can run in parallel. 

However, at some point, I believe the pursuit of growth risks outstripping or overshadowing the creation of meaning, or at least subordinating the latter (meaning) in favour of the former (growth) with less-than-satisfactory results.

In other words, at some point, I believe such pursuit tends to measure everything in dollar terms as MP Seah forewarned against. It also enriches some disproportionately at the expense of many. It further relegates, or even neutralises, values and meaning that bring more lasting satisfaction to the community.

And all that inevitably brings about the widening of the income and social gaps that is the root cause of most of our social ills today. 

So, what is truly depressing may not be the 2 or 3 per cent growth that CCS cautioned us to work against (that is, not to rest on our laurels), but the very thing that he is advocating, that is, gunning for even higher growth (almost by way of a reflex response). 

While I am not against measurable growth, I am however wary about growth that over-represents, misrepresents, or even exaggerates our economic and social well being giving us a false sense of existential contentment.

It is undeniable that we are a first world economy but if you ask around, just take a sample poll in the street, I believe many would not say that they feel that way. That is, they don't feel "first world" or "first class" but a groping class of people herded in a trance by the Pipe Piper's tune for exponential growth.

Somehow, something is just not registering in the hearts of Singaporeans when they look at what the government is telling them about growth and the economic and social struggles they are confronting at home and in the workplace.

This dissonance or disconnect is best captured in the words of the founder of the United States' first industrial union, Bill Haywood:-

"The barbarous gold barons - they did not find the gold, they did not mine the gold, they did not mill the gold, but by some weird alchemy all the gold belonged to them."

Likewise, I guess many of us are wondering why the rich amongst us are riding on the growth wave the government is promoting to become the direct beneficaries of largely unearned income (that is, economic rent), while the majority of us are working with no end in sight and yet still struggling to make ends meet. 

Is this the result of unfair distribution? Is this the result of greater exploitation from the top? Is this the effect of government policies favouring the haves to have even more? Is this the hoarding power of the moneyed class in society? And are all these the symptoms of an aggressive growth policy that put money before meaning, profit before purpose and enriching the top at the expense of the community?

After all said, I think that CCS's rally call for more growth may require a deeper rethink when he challenged his 900-strong to "not get into a mode whereby we think that average is sufficient."

Maybe the true challenge should be one that is thrown back to our government to return to the drawing board to reevaluate and re-prioritise the values that are truly important and enduring for Singaporeans as a whole and in the long run. 

That is, not just to pursue economic growth in higher percentage brackets, but to be able to admit to or acknowledge the dissonance/disconnect the people are feeling and give pause to consider these concluding words by MP Seah about the parking issue, which is also relevant here:-

"But some things still sits uncomfortably on this matter for me.

And I want to address this squarely. Not all government policy has a complete recourse to dollars and cents. We need within our current structures to make more room for the lexicon of morality, duty, relationships and trust.

This is not an appeal to populism, rather it is an appeal to the ideas of justice and community that have informed Singapore public policy making at the start of our journey 53 years ago."

Now, that is a speech that CCS ought to consider exploring in his next address, that is, not just about more growth, but more meaning in growth - even if it means freeing more resources to pursue activities that do not factor into our GDP metric. Cheerz. 

Hot-button issues: Ministerial Pay.

This is a hot button issue: ministerial pay. And our neighbour across the causeway is pressing it. They are taking a pay cut of 10%. 

Mahathir said: "We are concerned about the country's financial problems. We find that ministers' salaries are lower than (that of) high ranking civil servants. (But) we will reduce ministers' salaries by 10 per cent."

He added: "When I was first appointed PM way back in 1981, the first thing I did was to cut the salaries of ministers and senior civil servants."

Well, as it is, our counterpart are not earning much, comparatively speaking. 

It reports that "the Prime Minister of Malaysia makes RM22,826.65 a month, while a minister earns a monthly salary of RM14,907.20".

Alas, this always brings us back to the moneyed elephant in our own cabinet room. 

It is a fact that our ministers' pay are the highest in the world. They are like international CEOs running Singapore Inc driven by the profit/ economic motive or ensuring their stakeholders are properly compensated. 

But then, who are their stakeholders then? 

If it is the hoi polloi, then it can't be denied that there are old folks amongst us still pushing carts and selling discarded cardboards in public to make a living and families struggling to make ends meet after being fired from their jobs. 

Am I being sensationalistic with anecdotal evidence here just for effect? Maybe, but my point goes deeper than that. 

The late opposition politician J. B. Jeyaretnam once said that "public office should never be compared to the private sector because the former is an honour, duty, and service that must not be demeaned with a price tag."

However, our founder Lee Kuan Yew rebutted that with this: -

“But they are of a different generation, and I am not saying that they would not have made the same sacrifices. I could still pay them on the old rates, but would I be doing the right thing by them and by the country? For my generation, it does not matter.”

Lee added:-

"For the generation that knows my colleagues and I, I do not have to prove anything. But perhaps for the younger generation I ought to mention that I do not believe Singapore is wise in demanding of my younger colleagues that same total, absolute dedication to a cause. I am not saying they are not, but I am saying I do not want to put them to that stress.”

Mm...maybe it is time to review the above statement in the light of our 4G leaders' recent unwavering commitment and manifesto to ensure that they do their earnest part to bridge the income gap and social divide? 

Maybe, action speaks louder than words and the first thing our ministers should consider or reflect is this:-

"How are they going to bridge the gap (as an example) when the income they take home is much more than they will ever need, the houses they own and stay in are in neighbourhoods that are generally exclusive to the rest of the population, and their children gets the best tuition and the most conducive and protected environment for growth with the education their kids receive, whether local or overseas, amongst the top?"

Now, let's be fair, none of this is their fault. 

They are an industrious lot, smart and sincere. They are competent administratively and work the ground quite tirelessly to bridge the gap. And generally, I choose to believe they are principled leaders. 

But surely, they are principled not because they are paid handsomely right?

In other words, it doesn't mean that once you shave off the creamy portion of their pay, they lose their ethics and morals right? 

Mind you, I am not saying that they ought to reduce their pay to the "pathetic" level of the Malaysian leaders. 

However, I do admit that that's a simplistic equation, that is, equating ethics with pay. 

So, here's the more deeply-reflective one and it is hidden in the words of the fiery David Marshall. 

He once said: "I've got nothing against money. I'd like to have money myself. I'd like to have a house and a garden and dogs and a car and a chauffeur, but look, I've got a flat. I've got a swimmmg pool attached to the flat. I do not have a car but I use taxis. I have a dignified way of life without being wealthy."

That's the word I am looking for: Dignity. Mr Marshall had a dignified way of life without being wealthy. 

The point is not so much about wealth and its corrupt effect on the unsuspecting, but it is about dignity and the character that no money can buy. 

And incidentally, in the papers today, it is reported that million of dollars of bribe money were allegedly offered to investigators of the 1MDB to entice them to drop the case against Najib. 

But the investigators refused the honey trap. They rather stand by what is right and reject wealth and its corrupting effect. Surely, they are not handsomely paid as officials of their government, right? 

So, that is what dignity looks like. 

It is therefore not about being wealthy. Not about living large in exclusive estates. Not about bringing home the bacon that can feed their own generations after generations. 

And it's definitely not about promising the country that they will bridge the income and social gap, but alas, the only gap that is closing for them is that golden retirement nest gap where they have been building up so that they can live a life beyond their wildest dream while the rest can only dream about.

Like it or not, there is always a discernible disconnect when a rich man standing on the podium promising the poor man that he has got his back and then, he walks away taking the last tattered shirt off his back. 

This is a hyperbolic example, but I think you get the point about living a dignified life free from the alienating effect of accumulated wealth beyond one's needs as compared to a less than dignified one because one is presumed to be unable to be motivated to serve with "honour, duty, and service" if he or she is not paid commensurate market rates. 

So, I think more debate has to be carried out on this point because our government is not without self-awareness. 

Recently, the recommendation was to raise their pay by 9%, but they rejected it and insisted instead of a pay freeze until 2023 (when our raised GST to 9% may just kick in). 

Let me thus end with an extract of LKY's statement quoted above. 

He said: "But perhaps for the younger generation I ought to mention I do not believe Singapore is wise in demanding of my younger colleagues that same total, absolute dedication to a cause. I am not saying they are not, but I am saying I do not want to put them to that stress.”

Actually, there is a lot of Singaporeans who are put under a lot of stress. 

The high cost of living, the unrelentingly competitive and elitist meritocratic high road, the uncertainty of employment prospect and the issue of not having enough for old age with their flats becoming a market liability are enough to rob many of the soul and confidence to fight on. 

So, compared to that, I think our well-endowed ministers can cope with a little minor adjustment, right? Cheerz.

Irene Chui - the Inspirational Cancer Fighter.

Irene Chui (53) is an inspiration. This is why.

Her parents had 10 children - one boy and nine girls. Irene grew up in her family's three-room flat in Holland Avenue. Her siblings and her lived on hand-me-downs and slept on the floor in her living room.

At 25, she tied the knot and has two children, who are now 27 and 25. She also had a stable job and worked as a secretarial support for multinational companies. 

Everything was going fine for her until she was diagnosed with cancer at 36. She said: "The thought never even entered my head. I thought I was young and healthy."

She added: "I didn't know how to react. Many thoughts came into my head: Will I die? Will my kids lose their mummy? Will my husband remarry?  What did I do to deserve this? I cried bucket." 

At that time, her children were only nine and eleven. But Irene told herself that she would not take it as a death sentence. This is where she fought back and she fought back with amazing gusto.

Going through 15-hour operation, 12 sessions of chemotherapy and 30 sessions of radiation took a year, but Irene braved through them all and returned to work thereafter. 

Then, she quit her job and decided "to trek up the Everest base camp in Nepal, at an altitude of more than 5,300m".

She said: "I wanted to fulfill a dream I'd for a long time. Since I was done with all the treatments, I decided to do something I hadn't done before." Her husband accompanied her for the 21-day trip.

The trip restored her confidence and hope, and cancer didn't stop her from living her life fully. She challenged life further with her next adventure.

Senior writer Wong Kim Hoh in the article wrote that "encouraged by the Breast Cancer Foundation (BCF), she took up dragon boating...(Irene) took to the sport like a duck to water; she has been the captain of the BCF-PIP for three terms and led them to many regattas and competitions here and abroad."

She said: "It changed my life. It's about teamwork and brings together breast cancer survivors and offers them support. It's tiring but the objective is the finishing line, the light at the end of the tunnel. It's a lot like my own cancer journey."

But this journey took a serious turn when in 2007, Irene found out that she had a gene mutation (BRCA1) that increased her risk of breast cancer by 85%. That was where she decided to remove both her breasts. It was an agonizing decision. 

She recalled: "As a woman, losing my breast and my reproductive system was just so hard. Luckily I had an understanding spouse who walked with me."

Irene's marriage is another inspiration. 

Being a fighter, she had always made choices to live her life to the fullest. In other words, she had always denied cancer's hold on her, refusing to give in to the dreadedness.

But when her husband was diagnosed with adenoid cystic carcinoma, or cancer of the salivary glands, Irene had to fight with cancer outside of her, that is, cancer that threatened her loved one. It was a fight that took her to a new terrain of struggles since the roles are now reversed.

She said: "From patient, I became caregiver. Actually, he was far better caregiver than I was." Guys, that's love in a word and resilience in another. 

Truly, a marriage like Irene's can overcome anything that life throws at her and her husband. They held hands together and joined hearts with family members and friends as her husband "undergo reconstructive surgery and speech therapy."

Irene said that she had lots of support from loved ones, relatives and employers. Her bosses at SAP were very understanding. She said: "I really felt the power of love. I had so many pillars of support."

Lesson...? 

Sometimes, in life you need people like Irene to nudge you in the right direction, to remind you - who are still in the pink of health - to not take anything for granted.

Her actions spoke so much louder than words. Her life shines through despite the medical setbacks one after another. She may not come in great numbers in this world, but she is still a burning light in one of humanity's darkest tunnels. Such light only needs a few to brighten the world.

And this light never runs out because of the "power of love" in an overcoming life. 

Any lesson I have this morning rides completely on her own triumphant words with an amazing life to back them up:- 

"I've learnt from my journey and I use my experiences to teach others how to bounce back. I learnt how to let go. It's okay to fail, it's okay not to be perfect, it's okay to lose and cry. But we must also take charge, and continue living with what's in front of us. We must continue to live, love and laugh."

There is no doubt that cancer strikes fear into its patient, but Irene refused to give in to it. It also strikes hopelessness, but Irene transformed it to beaming hope as she put aside her own pain to reach out to others. And it also strikes anger, disappointment and bitterness, but Irene allowed the empowering light of love to guide her steps and to refresh her journey, one agonizing yet determined step at a time. 

Every time cancer forced her into what seems like the darkest tunnel at that time of her life, Irene admitted that she may shed tears, but she never shed hope. She may fall and stumble, but she never stayed down. She may be beaten by that unexpected punch, but she always bounced back, that is, stronger even if not more determined to pursue that light at the end of the tunnel. 

She said that we must continue to live, love and laugh because I believe cancer casts a long dark shadow on things in front of us. But Irene saw different. She saw even more clearly with cancer than she would ever see without. She saw the love of family, the strength of marriage, the hope of living, the transforming touch of loved ones, and the deep savour of the things we often take for granted. 

Indeed, in unsurpassing courage, Irene never took life for grant because she never wastes a cancer. Every trial she confronts open up a refreshing and empowering perspective of living for her. 

She saw what's most important, that is, what remains when the riches and fame are gone, and what stays faithful to the very end. For her, love stays faithful to the very end. And because of enduring love, hope, perseverance and joy fill her days, one treasured day at a time.  

Indeed, we must continue to live, love and laugh because cancer is not a death sentence. It is a new life, a new birth, and what a life it is when we take nothing for granted, allow love to transform us from within and savour the joy that can never be taken from us. 

Irene is a living testament to all that and I am duly and fully nudged on this beautiful Sunday morning.  Cheerz.

A love unmatched: David Lang and family.

David Lang is a lecturer at Singapore Bible College.He is married with three children. 

Justina was born in 1991. Timothy came in 1993. Then Titus arrived in 1996.

They are a bundle of joy for any parent. 

Justina was bubbly and loved reading and singing. At one, "she could name 100 objects from a picture book."

Same goes for Timothy. 

Calvin Yang, the journalist who followed the story, wrote: "Timothy was a keen learner who played the violin. When he was three, he could climb a monkey bar more than 20 times without getting tired."

Titus was another gifted child. He could "solve primary school maths questions two years above his level."

Then, things began to change when Justina was five. "She started having seizures, spoke less and started to walk with difficulty. She seemed to be very lost in school," David recalled. 

Subsequently, she was "placed in a school for children with special needs." At that time, the doctors could not come up with a name for her condition. 

Timothy followed soon. He was eight when he too had seizures, often falling when going down steps, and "found swallowing food difficult."

"At a church camp in Johor in 2004, (he) suffered seizures after 

choking on his breakfast. He was rushed to Kulai Hospital and later transferred to Singapore's National University Hospital, where he died after 19 days in coma."

David said: "I miss him dearly, even till this day. He is now in a better place, where there is no more pain."

It was at this time that doctors were able to give a name to the dreaded condition. 

It was known as "Niemann-Pick disease type C". It is a "rare genetic disorder that causes their cognitive and physical functions to degenerate." 

It should be noted that "the autosomal genetic disorder affects about one in 150,000 people. There are around 500 diagnosed cases around the world. When both parents are affected, there is one in four chance that their child will have the disease." 

David said: "To have all three kids affected is extremely rare."

David was referring to his third born, Titus. Like his older siblings, he too was tested positive. 

Taking care of the two of them is equivalent to juggling three full time jobs, 7 days a week, 365. 

Justina, 26, and Titus, 21, "need lung-suctioning round the clock and are put on ventilators when they sleep."

"Their five-room flat in Farrer Road runs like a mini-hospital, fitting with equipment such as blood pressure monitors, ventilators, auction machines and pulse oximeters," the article reported.

David's monthly take home is $5000 but that is barely enough to cover the $7000 to $9000 the family spends on "drugs, utility fees needed to run the equipment, the two helpers' salaries, checkups and expendables like suction catheters and feeding bags."

The family rely on "to two used cars - a 13-year-old Toyota Wish and a 28-year-old Toyota Corolla - to ferry the children and their special tilt wheelchairs around."

David said that they received money and gifts from strangers, and his family cope with "help from family members and church friends."

"It would be great if we can take them for a holiday in the US, but it is just a wishful dream," David added. 

For now, he and wife are soldiering on. He said: "Their ability to smile or respond a little already gives us a lot of joy."

Lesson? 

There is really not much to say here except statistics. Most times, such testimony leaves many speechless and reflecting a lot. 

Now, back to the stats. 

Recall that this rare genetic disorder affects one in 150,000 people, and thus far about 500 suffer from it. 

At the risk of oversimplifying probability, another crude way to look at it is that if you keep the world's population to 149,000 and no more, your offspring might just escape that dreaded condition?

Underscore "might" (as it doesn't strictly work that way). 

My point is that the mutation (subject to the bombardment of changing external circumstances) will happen one way or another in a random manner whether the number is 10 or 150,000. 

Niemann-Pick disease type C might just strike at the 9th or the 150,000th child born to the world.

Or it might strike thrice at one go and leave many births untouched for a long time before striking again.

Or it may be such that at some point of our advancement in medical science, we may just be able to identify, address and reverse that mutation in all threatened births before it manifests full blown in a growing child - like what we did with polio. 

But until that day comes, each of us starting a family will be at the mercy of blind statistics, that is, every birth in 150,000 will risk a mutation that would confront the parent with a choice whose cost would be unthinkable. 

This is where my point comes full circle. From general statistics, I return to David and his family, that is, real lives in the line. 

David said: "I was often angry with people and even God. There were times I felt depressed. But because our children's lives depend on us, and we know God is with us despite what we were going through, we had to carry on."

This is what is so redeeming about humanity, even if they do not exist in the majority. The redemption is not in our invulnerability (for such there is no need for God). It is in our flaws and vulnerability and how we overcome them with a love that is not from this world that saves us from ourselves. 

And while statistics may be impersonal, indifferent and cold, the love of David and his wife is not. It is simply inspiring, and sobering. 

As I write this, I am merely penning my thoughts down. But his family's decades of devotion through the pain and sacrifices go beyond words, theories and philosophizing. 

In the core of such human struggles is a spirit that constantly reminds us of what joins us all together. It is the spirit that needs no embellishments or rhetoric. It is the spirit that can be gleaned from these words: "We had to carry on".

And the only motivation for such devotion is love. A love that cannot and will not let go. A love that will see to its own completion. A love that all of us are indebted to. Cheerz.