Time to consider a new leader for S'pore?

In fact, a kinder, gentler and more gracious society was the aim of the Goh Chok Tong Government. And before that, a courteous society was the goal of the Lee Kuan Yew administration. The National Courtesy Campaign was started in 1979 and ran till 1997 when it was replaced by the Singapore Kindness Movement.

It has thus been 33 years – and here we are once again talking about building a “kinder society” in 2030. It makes one wonder what has happened to those 33 years of campaign, millions of dollars poured into it, and the numerous man-hours of effort and time accorded to the long-running and ongoing campaign.

But really, as Alex wrote,

“Lawrence Wong may be misreading — underestimating — the mood if he thinks that kindness and graciousness is all there is to our longings. He may think that all it takes is for some way to be found to graft these two attributes onto the already-successful PAP model for Singapore. He cannot be more wrong. It goes much deeper. People want a dismantling of the siege mentality, and the subjugation of economics. The desired measure is not “progress” or GDP growth, but quality of life.”

Indeed, if we fixate ourselves on the superficials of how a kinder society can come about, we would be wasting again our time, effort and resources on chasing a shadow. For undergirding a kind society are principles and beliefs which span the range of diversity in a society.

And it is these principles and beliefs which we should be looking at and talking about in the National Conversation. Sadly, what we have seen so far are superficial discussions on what we want in 18 years. [Ok, I wasn’t among those who took part in the discussions although I was invited to. I can only judge from news reports about them.] Every person I have spoken to so far about this National Conversation has either been negative about it, or is neutral - that is, uninterested. No one has indicated any excitement about this national dialogue, or what has transpired so far with it. And mind you, some of these people are those from the establishment itself.

Let’s put it bluntly. The conversation is boring, uninspiring, stale, superficial and the discussions – so far – look like what school-going children would be asked to do in a classroom. I mean, seriously. Imaginary newspaper headlines trumpeting “bumper crops” from our rooftop farms in 2030? And a kinder society in 2030? Haven’t we been wanting this for 33 years now?

But here’s the thing. If you ask anyone what kind of country they want Singapore to be in 2030, all you will hear are positive visions and ideas. It is all well and good but wouldn’t it be more important to look at the fundamentals which hold our society together, the foundational principles and beliefs we ought to have, rather than specific ideas of what we should have? If we know what principles and beliefs our society should stand on, then the rest of it will be built from that – by the people, bottom-up and not top-down as it has always been, and it seems in danger of continuing to being so.

Here are some of the thing we should instead be talking about:

- Should citizens be accorded inalienable, inviolable, unequivocal rights clearly laid out in our Constitution? What should these be?

- How can our political system be tweaked or changed to better reflect our beliefs expounded in our National Pledge?

- What is society’s role in caring for the less fortunate? What principles and beliefs should inform policies in the social welfare area?

- Do citizens have a right to information? How far should this right extend to? Should we manifest this right in concrete terms by way of a Freedom of Information Act, for example?

- Should we continue to have a media which is monopolised by two government-linked and government-controlled entities?

The point is that there are many more important and fundamental issues we should be looking at. And this is necessarily so if one is talking of what makes a society in 20 years and beyond. Rooftop farms will come and go but the principles which undergird what we do, what we believe and what kind of society we are will remain.

I have been supportive of the National Conversation initiative when it was first announced. However, almost 2 months since then, I am thoroughly disappointed with how it is turning out. This is one of the reasons why I declined the invitation to be involved in the last discussions at the National Library. It would, I thought, be a waste of time. And indeed, from the looks of it, it would have been.

One would tend to agree with Alex – that the PAP is incapable of change. The way the entire National Conversation is being conducted shows that the party is still bent on the superficial and the cosmetic, and is stuck in the old ways of doing things.

The National Conversation seems to be nothing more than a fact-gathering exercise, as filmmaker Martyn See said, for the PAP to craft its next general election manifesto.  It is a view apparently shared by Alex as well.

“As many readers will no doubt have sensed,” Alex wrote, “this ‘national conversation’ that the government has launched is in many ways the first phase of the 2016 election campaign. It is an exercise for the PAP to find out what voters want, so that they have plenty of time to craft a new campaign message.”

It ties in with what Prime Minister Lee said after the general election last year, that his government did not “correctly interpret” ground sentiments feedbacked to it by its own grassroots channels. So, perhaps this National Conversation is the government trying to get “direct” feedback from the people, instead of going through its grassroots channels, lest the ground sentiments be not “correctly interpreted” again.

Some have argued that the conversation is indeed a preparation for the PAP’s 2016 election campaign by pointing to the fact that the PAP has even gone to the length of excluding opposition members from being on its committee, for example.

Whatever it is, National Conversation or not, the PAP Government seems unable to effect the changes which Singapore desperately needs. The Government seems to be heading down the same path as before – and taking Singapore along with it.

I agree with Alex when he said that “a change of leader would be welcome too", come the next elections. In fact, in any other country, if a prime minister were seen to fail in one or two major policies, he would either be asked to resign or would be voted out of office. In Singapore, we have seen major failings in several areas. Singaporeans are familiar with these – immigration, housing, birth rate, income inequality.

Perhaps it is time for us Singaporeans to ask the one question few have dared to ask: Is it time we considered a new leader for our country?

I feel it is.