Daily Lessons from Life 12 August 2013 - S'pore stuck in mid-life crisis, says ESM Goh

"S'pore stuck in mid-life crisis, says ESM Goh - My Paper Aug 12, 2013 SINGAPORE - Singapore is trapped in a mid-life crisis. But it must find a way to get out and recapture the ruggedness and can-do spirit of Singapore's pioneers, said Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday. Mr Goh said the country is stuck in a mid-life crisis despite making progress as, "according to some surveys, Singaporeans are amongst the world's wealthiest but are also the most pessimistic". Mr Goh said the challenges faced here are "even greater". They include rising costs of living; slower economic growth; an ageing population; a more diverse and less-cohesive population; and a better-educated younger generation with higher expectations of life. "A new social compact between the people and the Government will also have to be forged. Otherwise, I fear that Singapore will begin to go downhill," he said. For one thing, the Government cannot "solve problems in a practical, ruthlessly-efficient bureaucratic way" anymore, he said. Instead, Singapore's leaders "need to win hearts, not just arguments", especially if people are asked to make personal sacrifices for the collective benefit. Mr Goh said the country would be worse off if the government of the day "is forced to apply band-aid solutions to complex problems, or to flip-flop policies to stave off populist pressures". "We must guard against populist policies and programmes. They are not sustainable and will bankrupt the country sooner or later," warned Mr Goh. He also urged citizens to be more resilient and self-reliant, even as the Government does more to share their burdens. "We must not lose the drive, self-reliance and ruggedness of our parents and first-generation leaders," he said." Is it possible to have anticipated the 'Singaporeans going soft' symptoms? Is it possible to prevent the 'complacency' of Singaporeans and the ever successful Singapore government? I think these are the questions that, if we have to assess the farsightedness of the government, must answer, mid-life crisis or not! Lessons for me are: 1. 'good policies' are really those that have the 'best available benefits over the costs over a certain period of time, hopefully long enough to let the total benefits exceed the total cost. NS is a good policy to get the young and unemployed into the army for 2.5 years. It also provides the opportunities to instill disciplines into the young and rest men. It is a policy that up till now, still separate the true Singaporean males from the non-Singaporean males. Having maids to help take care of young families while the young parents can work and contribute economically has to trade off with young parents who do not have grand-parents, even this is not the best option as grandmas and grandpas tend to spoil the kids, to let their kids be brought up by MAIDS. Some of them are good parents materials themselves, many, are not such being the reality of life. What is to become of the 'next generation of Singaporean kids'? It is easy to see. Not very well brought up at home. To rely on the school to 'correct' all the 'wrongs cultivated at home' is a taller order. This is especially so when many of the 'teachers' are there for a job and not a vocation as it used to be. 2. could the government had anticipated these shortcomings and focused on 'good parenting' right from the words go? could it has encouraged one of the spouses to stay at home and contribute significantly more meaningfully at brining up the NEXT GENERATION of Singaporeans? Could we have traded off the 'mother at home instead of maid' practice? Could the government had instituted a policy that says: when your kids are above 12 years old, no maid is allowed for the kids anymore? Can the kids NOT do some of the household chores which are really easy to do if everyone puts in some efforts to share the work! Some may say this is 'unnatural'. How can a government tell a family when to have and when NOT to have maids? Well, the biggest role of a government is to influence the behaviors of their populace. It has the resources to do that. It is a long term influencing process. 3. has the ever successful government of Singapore, besides Singaporeans, has become COMPLACENT too? that IT has the BEST people to run the country and the people may not know what is good for them? Has the government NOT believes that our world class educational system, where government officials from all other the world come to learn from us, can produce citizens that are reasonable people who will put the interest of the majority above its own self-interest? that it will NOT 'force' the government to go to the 'pork and barrel politics' that many rational politicians feared? What is the QUALITY of Singaporean voters? Can they be bought? Will they ask to be bought? Can the government influence them so that they do not want to be bought and that they do not even consider this option? Perhaps I have been too idealistic. Perhaps my expectation of what a government can and should do here is unreasonable? I don't know. But I do know that IF the quality of Singaporeans are not good enough, the most feared deficiency of a democracy will happen - pork and barrel politics!