Social Conscience - Unlocking Our Positive Energy

These days, there isn't a day that passes without some tragic news. Terrorist attacks, mass killings and homicidal "lone wolves" are making newspaper headlines and every government is beefing up security measures to avert another tragedy. However, even the best security system cannot guarantee absolute protection against the fanatical forces that wreak havoc in the lives of ordinary folks and cause mayhem in peaceful societies around the world. Only recently, we were told to brace ourselves for the day when our security net may be breached (Read HERE). Besides concentrating our efforts on security measures and enhancing civil, police and military vigilance, we need to ask what else we can do in our struggle against the impact of ideological radicalisation and extremism.

In the deep recesses of our subconscious minds lie a powerful inhibitor of wrong-doings. Each time we are about to do something that we shouldn't be doing or hold back from doing something that we should, it makes us feel queasy. When this queasy feeling intensifies, we feel a prevailing sense of guilt or regret and then promise ourselves not to let it happen again. That natural inhibitory reflex inside us is our "conscience" and it also has the power to make us do good. In psychoanalytic theory, our conscience is identified as our "super-ego", that part of our subconsciousness that aims for human perfection.

As people live in communities sharing common values and aspirations, those innate feelings that restrain us from doing harm and spur positive behaviours in troubling situations, develop into a sort of social conscience. A moral compass that we rely upon to navigate through many moral dilemmas in our lives. This social conscience encapsulates social consciousness, the latter being a form of conscious awareness of our society's well-being that is merely knowledge devoid of the energising force of social conscience.

A strong social conscience will move us to respond to our sense of right and wrong. It makes us display our best human values, those that build the best traditions of a mature, peace-loving society. In one online dictionary definition, it is said that if you have a social conscience, you worry about people who are poor, ill, old, etc. and try to help them (Read More). It is more than that. Social conscience can be perceived as a form of positive energy that is sadly diminished in those of us who pursue selfish gains and fanatical idealism. The negative forces of greed, jealousy and hatred can only be subdued through unlocking that positive energy in each of us. In order to do so, we need to develop a strong social conscience that forces our humanitarianism to the surface. And the way to go about is to constantly learn and understand our own humanity and how decent human beings ought to treat each other.

Unlock that positive energy in you and help change the world for the better.

The Businesses of the State

The world is again caught in a state of flux and many changes which are beyond our wildest expectations are taking shape. From ISIS to Brexit, there is a looming picture of gloom and the impacts in socio-political-economic terms are wide and extensive. In the tiny state of Singapore, these tumultuous occurrences taking place in the middle east and Europe are far away from the minds of ordinary Singaporeans. Their immediate worries are about bread and butter issues. 

 

 

The economic slowdown does not seem to recover anytime soon and retrenchment exercises are back. In the early 60's when Singapore was emerging as a developing nation, the state took control of economic development and charted a course which had state-owned enterprises taking the lead in opening up new industries. State capitalism intensified even after Singapore ascended the ranks and became a developed nation in the 80's. In the next 3 decades, the state continued to expand and acquire substantial business interests either directly under its statutory boards or indirectly through state-linked companies. Today, it has become the biggest landlord and business owner. It is also the biggest employer in Singapore and a major international investor with an enviable sovereign wealth fund.

When every citizen is gainfully employed and is able to afford a roof over their head, no one really cares too much about who owns what and how much money is made by the businesses and their management. In the minds of a people deeply accustomed to letting the state take the lead in almost everything, the business of running our economy, including what investments to make overseas, belongs to the state and not the people or even private enterprises. However, as at every critical point in our growth as a nation, past solutions invite serious questions when they no longer appear to be effective in dealing with present day problems. Ever-rising rents and costs of doing business, increasing unemployment, retrenchments and slower economic growth have become recurrent topics in our daily news. When state capitalism in our past as an emerging economy could create jobs, homes, higher incomes and hopes for a better future, these times are considered hard times. A fundamental question relating to market economics has to be asked. Is a state-owned and controlled economy, with its current breadth and depth, still a viable solution for the challenges that Singapore faces, given that the dynamics of doing business today requires greater innovation and creativity?

It is not suggested that state capitalism per se is undesirable. For instance, state capitalism in China has brought sterling economic growth for the Chinese economy in the last 20 years and it would be hard to find any no pure free market economy in the world today. The state is always involved in some economically strategic matters, such as regulating the banking system and lending activities and ownership of what are considered important national assets. However, to the extent that state capitalism is essential in order to protect its people from a wayward economy, the logic falls short when it goes beyond that. Heavy-handed state intervention in free market forces creates serious distortions of the market, generating misinformation and unrealistic expectations. Extensive business interests of the state also unwittingly compromises good political governance when the state chooses to protect its business interests over the rights of the people . Unfair competition may also breed disenchantment and stifle entrepreneurship in areas seen to be dominated by state-linked businesses .  

Is it time for our economy to be driven more by real private enterprises than by state-owned businesses? If so, how can we achieve a better balance between state capitalism and free capitalism? These are questions that need a rethink at higher levels.

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.