God Save Our President

A recent opinion expressed by the Straits Times (in ST, Tues, May 17, 2016) on “Understanding the President's role” spoke about the review of aspects of the Elected Presidency and the traditional role of our President and. It struck a cord with the following comment:

"The main tension arises from the grafting of a custodial role to the traditional unifying role in a Westminster system of parliamentary government. The latter is arguable the predominance for the Head of State in a participative democracy as he or she would stand above the fray and be a symbol of the dignity and continuity of the nation - an authoritative upholder of the aspirations within the National Pledge. The President represents all of the people, including those who are disadvantaged or lack a voice, and not just those who voted for thin. That is what lends moral authority to the office."

Indeed, our President has always been a symbol of national unity and political neutrality. He represented the ideals of ordinary Singaporeans and the belief that it was possible for an ordinary Singapore to rise to the highest office in the land. The country’s first four presidents, who held office between 1965 and 1993, were appointed by parliament. Yusof Ishak, Benjamin Sheares, Devan Nair and Wee Kim Wee were largely ceremonial heads of state with limited powers who acted mainly on the advice of the cabinet. Our President speaks at the opening of parliamentary sessions, attends state functions and receives foreign dignitaries. And on National Day, every citizen waits patiently to see the arrival of our President at the parade to recite the national pledge together. Sadly, this symbolic role of our President in a young republic like ours, was made to stand on its head following amendments to our constitution in 1991 to provide for the election of our President.

The Elected President's key role is to act as a guardian of our past national reserves. The Elected President is endowed with oversight powers on government expenditure using such reserves. Many have criticised the changes as politically motivated and this is criticism does not seem to be entirely without basis. Only a select few qualify to be candidates under the changes which are more stringent than those who wish to be elected as Members of Parliament. The candidate must be a former senior political appointee, high-ranking civil servant or someone with strong financial management experience. These changes did not merely graft a custodial role to the traditional role of the President. In fact, it subverted our President's traditional role and politicised his office.

Every presidential election puts the candidates under the spotlight of political parties who have come to view these elections as another political contest for them besides the general elections. The impact resulted in the incumbent having won the 2011 presidential elections with 35.20% of the votes, with a narrow margin of only 0.34% over the second-placed candidate. Consequently, not only has the traditional role of the President been substantially diminished, the standing of the office of the President has also been lowered in the eyes of the general public after the political mud-slinging that has become commonplace during elections. One wonders why the Auditor General was not considered for that custodian role. Alternatively, it would have been more feasible to set up a new administrative office equipped with a strong secretariat to undertake the demanding task.

The expansion of the role of our President to include the protection of our nation's reserves is as undesirable as the expansion of the role of our Members of Parliament to manage town councils. The additonal responsibilities undermine the more important traditonal roles and the task of ensuring that our national reserves are not misused should have been assigned to someone else. As Head of State, our President must continue to be a symbol of unity and to undertake the tall order of keeping the financial expenditure of an elected government in check will compromise his symbolic status. Elected or not.

Troubled Souls

As our society learns to recognise that more could be done for those who are physically impaired, there seems to be a corresponding rise in social vigilantism that springs up quickly to condemn anyone who seem to show little consideration for the less able-bodied.

Not long ago, there was an impassioned plea in parliament for a better understanding of those who suffer some form of physical disability. There are many small voices that cry out to the able-bodied for more of their patience and understanding. It is important that we learn to hear these voices which are quietly tugging at our heartstrings as we strive to become a more compassionate society.

In sparing thought for those who are physically impaired, we need to realise that there are also many amongst us who do not suffer from any obvious physical impairment but need our patience and understanding no less. They are the ones suffering quietly from emotional distress who do not display the outwards signs of physical impairment that would have otherwise drawn to themselves the spontaneous help from concerned bystanders. Very often, these troubled souls are mistaken by social vigilantes as people who are cold and dispassionate in responding timely or appropriately to the needs of a less able-bodied person standing close to them. And they are caused to suffer from public ridicule and condemnation, adding on to their untold frustration and emotional torment and pushing them to breaking point.

Materialism and elitism have been the twin evils that have come to occupy our minds from the decades spent in a national pursuit for global excellence in every undertaking. Sky-rocketting property prices which are grossly disproportionate to the rise in income levels have shattered the dreams of many young Singaporeans and pushing them into migrating overseas. Keen competition with foreigners for jobs, housing and transport in our own land has displaced many individuals and families and severely dampened morale. Divorces are constantly on the rise and more children are left to the care of domestic helpers as dual incomes from their parents become indispensable. Rising business costs have closed the curtains on many local enterprises and constant skills upgrading have not brought about better jobs. Endless new legislations and regulations have raised the pressures of living in this small city-state and there are many people who look perfectly normal on a perfect day but are too stressed out mentally and emotionally. They are already at wits' end.

For all these troubled souls who appear as normal, healthy- looking people, they too have small voices crying out for patience and understanding as well.

"If I am not giving you my seat, it's not because I am unkind;  I am just lost in my thoughts."

"If I am not giving way, it's not because I don't care; I just do not have much time left."

"If I am not paying any attention to you, it's not because I am cold; I just don't know what I am going to do anymore."

"If I am going too fast, it's not because I am reckless; I am just worried that I may not make it."

"If I don't answer you, it's not that I want to be rude; I just don't know what is happening to me."

"If I don't see you standing in front of me, it's not because I am pretending to sleep. I am just very, very tired."

Let's all learn not to be too quick to point our fingers without sparing a thought for someone who may be one of these troubled souls. He or she needs our patience and understanding too.

Education versus Regulating in Social Norms

A young boy was travelling on the Hong Kong MTR with his mother. The train was crowded and when 2 seats near the boy were vacated, he quickly climbed onto the seats. 

An elderly couple was standing nearby and the grey-haired old lady wanted to occupy one of the vacated seats. However, the young boy quickly stretched out his arms to stop her from sitting down. His mother was aghast at his behaviour and immediately asked him to give one seat to the old lady. He refused. The boy reasoned that elderly folks have privilege over seats marked Priority Seats but not those that are unmarked. Despite his mother's attempts to cajole him into giving up at least one seat, he remained adamant.  His mother then decided to take the boy down from the seats and to offer them to the elderly couple who expressed thanks for her act of kindness.

Human behaviour is the product of both nature and nurture. From a societal perspective, certain behaviours are less desired for their selfish overtures whilst selfless behaviours are deemed to be fundamental and crucial for social cohesion. Self-centred behaviours in group dynamics are deemed not to augur well for the development of strong team spirit and collegiality. Consequently, behavioural instructions are dispensed to mould desired behaviours and to change behaviours that are incompatible with the communal ethos of the society that we live in.

History has demonstrated that social norms are created through conquest, regulation and education but sustained through the latter two methods. When a new order comes into being, new social norms need to be put in place. By regulating through laws and rules, society becomes conditioned to behave in a manner desired to avoid the unpleasant consequences that follow with non-compliance. For instance, by legislating the indiscriminate disposal of waste in public as an offence punishable by law, people refrain from littering to avoid being fined. Over time, "not littering" behaviour becomes conditioned in the society where the anti-littering laws are applied and enforced. 

The problem with regulating behaviour is that people continue to behave in that manner because "the law says so." And they will behave strictly according to the letter. The place is kept free from litter to comply with the regulation. In the MTR incident, the young boy did not do anything wrong in refusing to give up his seat to the old couple as far as regulations go. Even adult commuters have displayed a similar behaviour and we have seen it here in our own trains and buses. Elderly commuters and those in need are seen to have a right over seats expressly reserved for them. For unreserved seats, they have no such right. 

By regulating behaviour with laws and rules, giving up a seat to someone who needs it more becomes a matter of rights. For those who are imbued with a strong sense of values, they will most definitely feel that something is clearly not right here. Unlike the use of education to inculcate desired behaviours by means of reasoning and persuasion, the use of laws and rules to regulate behaviour may often achieve an opposite effect. It's impact is further limited in time and space. Have we not often lamented the fact that many Singaporeans litter outside Singapore but do not do so when they return to our "fine" city? 

If we desire to create a more caring, gracious and harmonious society, which is essentially one that is endowed with a strong, deep sense of values, should we not rely less on regulating behaviours according to rights but more on educating people to behave based on the values of compassion and kindness? The difference in their impacts are apparent in the long run and we are already seeing them every day.