Chan Chun Sing - RVHS Incident.

 

In Minister Chan’s recounting of the RVHS Incident yesterday, one thing stood out for me. This is his narration. 

“”Towards the end of lunch break, a group of students encounters a Sec 4 student outside a toilet. He is holding an axe and asks them to call the police. The Sec 4 student asks another group of students in the classroom next to the toilet to call the police.””

That was to me not just a call to alert the police, but a cry for help. It was a cry for help after the realisation that he had done a terrible act, one that has left someone whom he doesn’t know lying motionless on the toilet floor. 

Still holding the axe in his hand, the 16-year old pleaded twice to the students to call the police. One group were passers-by and the others were in another classroom. At that time, the boy just wanted help, help for the boy in the toilet and help for himself. And in that moment of clarity, the axe he held in his hand was turned to ploughshare. 

As I read the account, I realised that that fateful morning, there were two strangers in the 16-year old boy’s life; one was the boy lying in the toilet and the other was himself. For a moment, that person who committed the act was not the same person who asked for help. The former was someone the latter had been struggling with for many years. Most tragically, it was a fight that costs an innocent stranger his life. 

My heart truly goes out to that innocent life, a life who is dearly missed by many, his parents and friends. A life who was full of potential, of hope and of unsurpassed joy to his loved ones. 

Minister Chan also recounted what happened in the aftermath. He was approached by the 16-year-old boy’s classmates. They too were asking for help from the minister. “Amidst their pain and confusion as to what had happened...they just had one simple request: “Minister, please help our friend. Please take care of him.””

Minister Chan said: “I saw grace, I saw compassion, I saw solidarity among the students and the staff of River Valley High. The way they carried themselves, the way they responded to the incident, will be etched in my mind forever.”

I believe that that call for help was one made by his classmates because they know him. For 4 years, he was a student in the school, and a friend to them. I would also guess that they know him as someone who had his own demons to fight. And two years ago, he nearly gave his own life in that struggle for sanity to save himself. Alas, it was no less one tragedy compounded by another tragedy, yet Minister Chan saw grace and compassion, in the aftermath. 

Let me go out on a limb here to say that unlike the shootings in US and NZ, where people saw only hate and disunity, this incident however, I see what Minister Chan saw too...I see compassion, I see grace. And it was indeed a cry for help, community and unity. It was a solidarity or a bond, however broken and tragic, that has stood on both sides of the divide, one holding the axe and the other lying on the floor, yet this bond seeks to unite bleeding hearts, and heal broken souls. 

I therefore earnestly pray for the victim and the assailant, both too young, for our schools and for our community, and for RVHS. May we all grow wiser and stronger and never let go of the lesson learned from this tragic incident. 

And by the way, I just want to say that River Valley High is a name with an inspiring juxtaposition, a name that speaks about a river running through a valley. That river represents life, resilient life, amidst a valley that challenges us all to rise above to greater heights. It is also a reminder that we are stronger than this, and we will overcome. These are the ideals we hold on to, and they allow our feet to remain grounded. 

In another part of his speech, Minister Chan reminded us parents about how we ought to define success. It made a lot of sense to me too. You can read it up yourself. Maybe, I will leave that part for my post tomorrow morning.

For now, I wish to end with the lyrics of a song titled “Scars In Heaven” by Casting Crown. It is a song about grace. Journalist Grace Ho highlighted it in the papers this morning. And it is said (via online rumour) that this song was played by the boy’s father in his wake. Here is the chorus: -

“The only scars in heaven, they won’t belong to me and you;

There’ll be no such thing as broken, and all the old will be made new;

And the thought that makes me smile now, even as the tears fall down;

Is that the only scars in heaven are on the hands that hold you now.”

Indeed, that is grace, an amazing grace whose scarred hand has never let us go.

 

Meritocracy's dark side.

Our education minister Chan has got all the right words at the right place about meritocracy. I am sure his heart is at the right place too. 

He was addressing a virtual audience of 6000 educators at a Teachers’ Conference and he knew what to say about the loaded 11-letter word “meritocracy”. He started by reminding educators to keep the definition of meritocracy broad. “It means ensuring that meritocracy is continuous rather than having “one high-stake exam...define anyone for life.””

He added: “People develop different strengths at different stages of life. We must keep enabling porosity (that is, keeping society porous so as to allow for social mobility) and look out for opportunities to allow different talents to develop at different paces. Even the successful must never be complacent.”

He said those who are privileged “have a responsibility to pay it forward to those with less, for Singapore to be more inclusive.”

Well, I guess the benchmark of merit is far better than leaving such measurement of one’s fortune in life to a system based on hereditary rights, right? It used to be that where you are placed in the society all depends on your family bloodline. So, with meritocracy, gone are the days where you are born a future king, princess, duke or baron. 

Mind you, such an inequitable treatment is liken to the birth canal acting as the christening of your genetic fate, without you lifting a finger to earn it. In other words, you were pushed by an external force into being, not of your own will and control. 

But, if you think about it, aren’t the descendants of the rich and powerful entrepreneurs in this world, a variant form of royalty or aristocracy of days gone by? In fact, I hasten to add that the kids of Gates and Bezos and the princelings of China billionaires are far richer than the kids of royalty. 

And isn’t that hereditary rights all over again with meritocracy, save that their first generation worked hard and smart enough for it, and the subsequent generations are born into it, harvesting the fruits of their toil and sweat? Mm...another variant form of birth canal christening by order of genetic fate?

Of course, that is admittedly an oversimplification, but minister Chan’s reminder of not letting that “one high-stake exam” define all is, for all practical purposes, one part of the story; for merit in reality tends to define all, especially the way we as Singaporeans obsessively do merit. 

And yes, “people develop different strengths at different stages of life”, yet our society has little patience for late bloomers because they have not shown the merit needed (or prescribed, largely by the grade metric) to have what it takes. In fact, the message here is quite strident for Singaporeans at a young age: Succeed right now or you will never. 

Alas, and I think the good minister knows it, he is promoting a virtue often being held hostage in a system that represents anything but the effective advancement of it. Or, such promotion is caught in a system that pays only lip service to it, though the heart is undeniably still at the right place. 

For enobled reasons at the start, merit is one of the pillars of our national ethos. Mind you, all our high-achieving cabinet ministers swear by it, and has proven themselves through it. 

They are elected mainly, if not exclusively, by it. Most of them earned their stripes through the gruelling process under the handmaiden of meritocracy. And yes, I say give merit its credit, but to a certain extent. 

Let me end with these words by minister Chan at the Teachers’ Conference, which kept me thinking. He reminded teachers “the importance of values that will anchor future generations as they navigate a complex world”. 

In the same speech, he also mentioned meritocracy as one such value with this caveat: “But it is also important for Singaporeans to be open and inclusive, as well as a trusted and principled people.”

While I would not disagree with merit being a value, it crucially depends on how merit is defined right? And minister Chan was spot on when he told all 6000 educators that its definition has to be broaden to be inclusive - for different people, different strokes, at different stages of life. 

However, as I have written here, the greater relevance (or urgency) is to address the issue of what meritocracy has unwittingly spawned. And its dark side has turned it into less of a value and more of an impediment, if not a growing threat. 

On this, Professor Carol Dweck observed: “I think society is in a crisis. Kids seem more exhausted and brittle today. I’m getting much more fear of failure, fear of evaluation, than I’ve gotten before. I see it in a lot of kids; a desire to play it safe. They don’t want to get into a place of being judged, of having to produce.” She calls it a “crippling fear of failure.” Can we (especially parents) in Singapore identify with that? 

And then, there is the warped sense of entitlement and hubris that comes with the blind pursuit of merit. Max Weber saw that coming more than a hundred years ago. He wrote this: -

“The fortunate (person) is seldom satisfied with the fact of being fortunate. Beyond this, he needs to know that he has a right to his good fortune. He wants to be convinced that he “deserves” it, and above all, that he deserves it in comparison with others. He wishes to be allowed the belief that the less fortunate also merely experience (their) due.”

That subtlety of mindset inevitably destroys society; for it divides society between those who demand others acknowledge their right to good fortune (regardless of how they got it) and those whom they condemn as deserving of their lot (whether openly or privately). And at some point in meritocracy’s development, the drive to reach the top is based not so much on proving ourselves, with noble intent, but on a vindictive streak, because we do not want to be looked down at. It’s payback time.

Yet, not all will make it. No news there. Those who don’t make it, resign to their meritocratic fate. And with a predictable twist of fate, those who happen to make it, they unknowingly become what they once railed against. This vicious cycle goes on and on, endless, driven by intense envy, an entitlement mindset and hubris, all of which arises from the relentless pursuit of merit. 

So, kudos no less to minister Chan for a rallying speech, with personal anecdotes to boot. But, I sometimes wish he would warn us more about its dark side. Because at some point, the bright side has become too glaring for some of us.

 

Chan Chun Seng - Closed-door meeting goes viral.

I wonder, could CCS’s Freudian slip be our Freudian slip? 

But the difference is that in that supposed closed-door session, which went viral due to a leak, it was one where CCS said, “I do not mince my words when presenting hard truths and trade-offs.” It was more of a no-holds-barred speak rather than a Freudian slip. 

Some of us are however pissed with him because a Minister of Parliament, elected by the people and also a former army general shouldn’t act the way he did in the SCCCI meeting, closed-door or open, right?

Why should there be a gap between his public and private personas? Shouldn’t we be the same regardless, at all times?

Where is the decorum? Where is the protocol? Where is the civility?

Calling some Singaporeans “idiots”? Telling others their behaviour “sia suay” us when they use alcohol swabs to clean tables, rushing to hoard toilet paper and instant noodles, and emptying condom shelves? 

Actually, at mediation, a typical closed-door session, divorcing couples or splitting business partners do it all the time. It is meant to be off-the-record because you can’t solve issues if you only deal with the cold-hard facts, without addressing the hot-burning emotions behind it. 

And the only way to solve the impasse is to let the parties ventilate, and at times, be brutally candid in the hope of unraveling their true motives, their hidden hurts, pent-up frustrations and even prejudices, inadequacies and envy.

Most times, you deal directly with the underlying emotions (with no mincing of words) and the knots of the issues will naturally untie themselves. 

At this point, I recall Tom Cruise pushing Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men” to the emotional knife-edge with this memorable phrase, “You can’t handle the truth!”

Admittedly, that SCCI meeting, no doubt closed-door, is no courtroom drama, or intense divorce mediation. Neither is CCS Tom Cruise (just to be clear). 

But we deal with Jack-Nicholson type all the time. People who always get on our nerves. People who insist they are always right, and make sure you agree with them. People who are natural-born jerks. People who contribute little but claim the most, if not all. People who think the world spins around them, including the sun, moon and stars all doing a synchronised Fred Astaire. 

And those who hoard at such times, those who jack up prices to make a hefty profit at society’s expense, and those who think they have done nothing shameful, fall right smack into the category that Tom Cruise or CCS is warning us about. 

For Tom (in the movie), it is a fight for the integrity of the truth. For CCS, it is the fight for the unity of a nation. 

The scene or setting may be different, one closed-door, the other open court, yet the intention or aim is the same. Both share the same ventilation or frustration, that is, about the exasperation of dealing with, well, idiots. 

Nevertheless, I can picture CCS in public taking a different form of speech, but the substance of it is in no way different. 

For example, instead of describing them as “idiots”, he might say they are socially irresponsible. And instead of saying “sia suay”, he might say “it is a regrettable sight” or “it’s embarrassing” or even “shameful”.

Yes, the setting is different, and so is the ventilation and candidness, leaving the remnant of truth unchanged. Mind you, colloquialism or euphemisms should not erode or undermine the honest truth of the message that rides on it. It just makes it more palatable or digestible to selected audience.

The issue with some of us is that we shoot the messenger we dislike and throw his body together with his message into the sea. 

So, one shouldn’t be guilty of hypocrisy if he is merely calling a spade a spade, or a rotten apple a rotten apple, even if the kitchen knife he uses to cut the apple with is more blunt in one occasion than another.

When a situation warrants trust, you offer trust by speaking your mind. Not spewing hate speech, but delivering hard truths. 

The betrayal therefore rests with the leaker, and not the one who confided with sincerity, frankness and urgency. Now, I am no PAP supporter, but not everything they say or do must unthinkingly attract our unreserved criticism. 

And I know we all expect our leaders to be politically correct, for that is the liberal mindset of an enlightened politician. 

But at times, it is not unexpected, or even surprising, for some of us to take a much-needed vacation from it, to share our gripe and frustrations in a secluded chalet of trusted friends, in the hope that the catharsis-like rant might release our soul from the emotional gridlock and offer us fresh perspective to move forward as one spirit to tackle the issue with heart and soul.

Ps: we bitch because we care...some just bitch.

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.