Sunday Times Life featured four of them. Abel Ang (46, CEO of Advanced MedTech), Joseph Gan (41, co-founder of V-Key), Christopher Tan (49, CEO of Providend) and Joshua Yim (55, CEO of human resource consultancy Achieve Group).
They all reside in public housing. They join about 80% of the population in their humble abode. And they are in no rush or hurry to move out.
Abel, married with two sons, said: “To me, this is normal living. Ultimately, one’s home and car are personal lifestyle choices.”
Joseph, married with 3 kids and fostering 2, said: “We all choose the lifestyle we want to lead. I am very happy and comfortable with mine...There may come a time when we are forced to move to a bigger place to give our children more individual space as they grow up. But for now, we are very happy living in our cost HDB flat.”
And Christopher, married with 2 kids, said: “The truth is, we don’t care whether we live in a condo or an HDB flat. We don’t have to keep up with the Joneses, and I don’t see why a CEO shouldn’t live in an HDB flat.”
Lesson? Well, there is one, and it is this: if you are rich and can well afford it, people will find it odd that you do not automatically (or instinctively) upgrade to a bigger, more expensive and glamourous private home as a show of your status, wealth and success.
In fact, Abel had been questioned by some in society for his lifestyle choices. He said: “But there were also a few who asked how my family and I could live in such “hardship””.
He added: “They feared that if they were to live in an HDB flat, or drive an inexpensive car, others might feel these indicators do not befit the success of their firms. Some people also asked that CEOs who live in HDB flats are not giving their subordinates enough to aspire to.”
God forbid that a CEO should be caught in a public transport?
Well, I guess for them, it is like a peacock fanning out its glorious tail/feathers with colours galore in public display. So, if you are that peacock (so to speak), rich and famous, and clearly successful in every way, why not spread it out for all to see?
But, let’s be clear, peacock (or male peafowl) spread it out not for vanity, or that they feel insecure or need attention, but because it is a mating call. It is part of sexual selection of the fittest.
However, for us humans, our wealthy tail of success is fanned out for more complicated reasons. Sexual selection is no doubt a part of it. It is undeniable that in this materialistic society, when you have the money, the honey will flock to you.
Like the people Abel encountered, when you have it, it appears that you have a ”moral duty” to flaunt it, to inspire subordinates and to not put your loved ones in such hardship.
But Abel replied: “I’m not saying others are wrong to aspire towards a more expensive home, but living in an HDB flat has worked for me and my family. And it is certainly not a “hardship””.
To put it in another way, these CEOs inspire in other ways.
Joseph, who is a Christian, said: “I did not accept the position of CEO because I wanted to chase after material things. I became a CEO because I wanted to make a difference in what the company can build. I don’t think I need to live in a big house to impress them.”
Christopher said that he hopes his clients are richer than him as “this means (he is) making the best, most cost-effective investments for them.”
And Joshua said: “I understand how CEOs might want to live in a private property just to give their staff something to aspire to, but I don’t think me living in a HDB flat hinders my staff’s aspirations. Everybody has different dreams, and my priorities are my business and the impact I make on the lives of others.”
Alas, you can say that these CEOs “spread their feathers” in other ways and it clearly worked for them and the people they lead.
It is sad that some segment of society feel that living in a 4-room or 5-room HDB flat is seen as living in hardship. I can’t imagine how they would feel about families living in a rented HDB or a 3-room flat.
The last time I checked, our president lives in a HDB flat too (no doubt a jumbo sized one for her family). Nevertheless, it is still government subsidized.
At this juncture, I always wonder, what makes a home a home?
Sure, space is no doubt one of the factors. Location is a consideration too. Some level of comfort is expected.
But beyond that, it is one’s lifestyle choice with his or her family. As such, whether it is a public or private home, it is still a private choice.
We often tell our children not to judge a book by its cover, but the tendency for us adults to jump to conclusions by judging one’s appearance is almost a reflex reaction in this consumerist society.
The rule-of-thumb is to equate success and character with what is easy to process by sight and sound. If you drive a big, expensive car, you are successful. You must be doing something right. If you live in a private mansion, you are wealthy. You must be a man of character worth emulating.
So, if you helm a big company, and live in a government subsidised housing estate, and possibly drive a nondescript Japanese car, the rule-of-thumb is fractured, and they will ask, “How come? What happened?” Somehow, there is something amiss about your lifestyle choices, something irreconcilable.
I feel that this is a very unfortunate result of a narcissistic culture where if you don’t lavish on yourself with wealth or the appearance of wealth (or success), you are just not doing things right. There may even be something abnormal or wrong with you.
As such, self-embellishment is the symbol of success, and when the self is not elevated, that is, above others, that becomes an issue of certain moral or jarring proportion. It is as if one has failed in his or her duty to society.
I fear that this is prevalent in a materialist society. And as individualism is exalted, the community is neglected.
In the 60s or 70s, individualism is equated with the freedom to choose, and such freedom has done society some good under oppressive, authoritarian rule based on illiberal concepts.
But of late, such individualistic tendency has mutated in an affluent society to be equated with the freedom (or desperation) to show others that you are better, wiser and miles ahead of them.
That freedom divides community. It estranges community. It destroys community.
Taken too far, that freedom becomes a tyranny upon itself and society. It becomes self-defining and self-referential and it turns whatever they do with self-glory in mind.
Charity becomes an act. Compassion is for fame. And every tree sap planted, every ribbon cut and every ceremony officiated is to this end, “What is it in for me?”
Alas, to fight such culture, we need the mindset of wealthy people like Abel, Joseph, Christopher and Joshua. They are wealthy not because they live large, drive fancy cars and make themselves known at all costs.
On the contrary, they are wealthy because their hearts are content with the choices they make, and their home is where their heart is. More importantly, their soul makes peace with themselves by giving back to society.
And whether they live in big houses or otherwise is never the issue. The issue has always been the heart.
For the only ”embellishment” the heart needs is to live a life of meaning and purpose beyond oneself. There is no greater and deeper inspiration (for others) than that. Cheerz.
