By willie cheng for
the straits times
The Straits Times Dec 29, 2012
CERTAINLY, there is a palpable move from an almost exclusive
focus on (hard economic) value to (softer social) values.
In a previous article, I argued that we, as a nation and a
society, had been driven largely by economic imperatives. In the words of
Professor Michael Sandel of Harvard University, who made this observation of
many developed countries: "We have drifted from having a market economy to
being a market society, (where) everything is up for sale and where market
values govern every sphere of life." And the consequences of our market society have been
increasing inequality and the devaluation of social values.
However, there has been pushback against widespread
marketisation and its effects, particularly in this last year. For example,
there were calls for a national happiness index, not just gross domestic
product, as a measure of progress. Educational reforms to remove school banding
and reduce PSLE stress and other forms of excessive competition (competition
being a core market-based trait) also began in earnest. One reason for this pushback may be the result of the
significant economic progress we have made. In Abraham Maslow's theory of human
motivation, people naturally first seek to fulfil their basic physiological
needs, then quickly progress to fulfil higher-order needs such as aesthetic
needs and self-actualisation.
As a country, we have largely met our basic economic needs.
Most of us have our stomachs filled and a roof over our heads. And in looking
over the horizon, some citizens find that there are good role models such as
the Nordic economies where there are equitable distribution of income,
work-life balance, and sustainable development.
While heeding the call, including from within his own party,
to move away from "growth at all costs", Prime Minister Lee Hsien
Loong nevertheless defended the need for some growth. "Without
growth," he said, "we have no chance of improving our collective
well-being." Hence, the current governmental policy focus is on
"inclusive growth" and achieving a better balance between growth and equity. To be sure, economics and bread-and-butter issues will
remain important in Singapore, but going forward, it looks like there will be
greater consideration in favour of social values by the Government and the
broader population.
A classic value-versus-values decision, for example, was
that regarding the casinos. In 2005, when the decision was made to build two
casinos, clearly value trumped values. While the economic payoff did come, we
have had the occasional, and likely perennial, debate over the social costs of
gambling and the most appropriate measures to contain them. I would hazard to say that if we are confronted with such a
decision today, or say, a decision for a third casino licence, it will likely
not be the same decision.
What values?
YET, it is not a straightforward case of national and
societal decision-making being weighted in favour of social values versus
economic value. A further question is: Which (social) values, really? After
all, some values can be poles apart from each other.
Witness three recent situations that hit the headlines and
the diametrically opposite reactions (reflecting diametrically opposing values)
to each.
The first was when Speaker of Parliament Michael Palmer
resigned over an extramarital affair. The public reaction appears to be divided
between those who considered it was right and just for him to resign, and those
who viewed the situation as "a private indiscretion" that is separate
from and irrelevant to political office.
The second situation was the two-day strike by bus drivers
from China. On the one hand, there was public outrage and swift action by the
employer and the authorities against what was deemed an "illegal
strike" because the workers did not give the requisite 14 days' notice of
the intention to stop work in "an essential service". On the other hand, there was an outpouring of sympathy from
other quarters for the low-income foreign workers' grievances over pay and
living conditions, and the need to treat them fairly.
The third situation was the scrapping of Mandarin
announcements at MRT stations. Some xenophobic commuters cheered at not having
to put up with what they felt was unnecessary pandering to the increasing
numbers of arrivals from the mainland. Others felt that to be fair, there should
be announcements in all four official languages. Indeed, we have always lived in a heterogeneous society.
However, it seems that changing demographics and modern, perhaps more crowded,
living may be increasing stress levels and the social divide.
Singaporean society has long been viewed as a largely
conservative one. The conservative majority lament at what they see as the
erosion of the family unit and moral values. They wring their hands at
increasing permissiveness, infidelity and divorces, and declining marriage and
birth rates.
However, there is a growing and more vocal liberal portion
of the populace that is seeking more space, alternative lifestyles and the
right to choose what they can do and cannot do.
Add to this the issue of different races and religions, as
well as the recent influx of foreigners. This makes for a big mix of different
value systems and cultures that need to be reconciled and integrated.
Leading values
AMID this tussle over values, there is an opportunity for
political and civic leaders to take the high ground and define the kind of
values that can take us harmoniously forward. In 1988, then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong envisioned
a set of principles for Singaporeans to live by. These came to be called
"Singapore's Shared Values", and they are:
- Nation before community and society above self;
- Family as the basic unit of society;
- Community support and respect for the individual;
- Consensus, not conflict; and
- Racial and religious harmony.
While these core values were never outrightly rejected by
Singaporeans, somehow they never gained traction, nor are they much mentioned
these days. Analysts argue that such values cannot be "mandated and
managed from the top". Values have to come from citizens, and cannot be
achieved with just sloganeering.
One common value
YET, we all grow up with values. Some were taught to us.
Some may be intrinsic in us as human beings. A good starting point would be to find one common value that
can be reinforced and built upon for the greater good. One such value might be
what is known as the Golden Rule or the Ethic of Reciprocity: Treat others in
the way in which you would like to be treated. This is a rule that can be found
in almost every faith and religion. In some cases, it is stated as the obverse,
for example: Do not do unto others as you would not others do unto you.
And for those who are not religious, this rule can also be
explained from the perspective of philosophy (seeing ourselves in others),
psychology (empathy for others) or sociology (treating others as fellow human
beings).
The beauty of this rule is that everyone knows it. We can
all relate to it. It actually resonates with our fundamental (selfish) human
nature, even if the end result is that it emphasises selflessness, empathy and
community. In other words, it is a simple and universal value. At the
same time, it can be transformational.
Imagine if we had collectively applied the Golden Rule in
making choices in the following cases.
First is the weekly day off for foreign domestic helpers. It
would not have needed 10 years of campaigning by the likes of Transient Workers
Count Too and the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics for such a
law to be passed. How many of us want to work seven days a week without rest?
And now that the law will be effective on Jan 1 next year, none of us should
seek to take advantage of the monetary loophole in the law to continue to
deprive domestic helpers of their weekly day off.
Second is the Nimby (not in my backyard) syndrome. Instead
of protesting against a foreign workers' dormitory or nursing home being built
in our neighbourhoods, we would be welcoming and looking at the benefits of
such a facility, that is, we should be thinking how Gimby (good in my backyard)
it would be.
Third is the adultery prevalent in the many sex scandals we
seem to be reading about this year. If we do not wish for our spouses to cheat
on us, then we should not be doing it to them.
The writer is a former managing partner at management and
technology consulting company Accenture. He sits on the boards of several
commercial and non-profit organisations, and is the author of Doing Good Well.
No comments:
Post a Comment