|
SINGAPOREANS are well-known for a fear of losing out. They strive ceaselessly, sometimes to others' annoyance, to ensure they win.
Yet when Singapore 'lost' Jemaah Islamiah (JI) detainee Mas Selamat Kastari, who is still on the run, it was described as a 'very severe lesson in complacency'.
Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew delivered this stinging rebuke last month, declaring it a fallacy to believe that Singapore is infallible.
'It is stupid to believe we are infallible. We are not infallible. One mistake and we've got a big explosive in our midst. So let's not take this lightly,' he said.
His rebuke was directed at the security agencies as the JI leader escaped from their custody at the Whitley Road Detention Centre.
But it applied equally to Singaporeans at large, who may have been lulled by decades of peace into believing that Singapore is a place where things do not go wrong.
The Singapore paradox
THIS then is the Singapore paradox: a pervasive fear of losing (kiasu, in colloquial Hokkien), found side by side with a sense of satisfaction and security that sometimes borders on smugness.
How to square these apparently contradictory traits?
Sociologist Tan Ern Ser makes an attempt: 'Individual kiasuness leads to collective complacency.
'There is a sense that if everyone is kiasu enough and looks after their own turf, everything will be well taken care of.
'You thus have this situation of people not looking out for areas not within their responsibility. Complacency develops.'
Yet as MM Lee declared in an e-mail interview with Insight this week: 'There is no country in the world where nothing goes wrong. Anyone who believes nothing can or will go wrong in Singapore is living in a makebelieve world.'
He has hammered the same point home many times over the years, as prime minister, then senior minister, and finally minister mentor.
Back in 1975, 10 years into Singapore's separation from Malaysia, he warned:
'We have done as well as we could possibly have done in the past 10 years. To do as well as we can in the next five years, let us have no scales on our eyes.'
Those who came in for his rebuke then were young men who preferred to idle at home instead of taking up jobs as bus drivers, and parents who indulged their children.
Fast forward to 2004.
Mr Lee had this to say of port operator PSA Corp after it lost two of its biggest clients - Danish shipping line Maersk and Taiwan's Evergreen Marine - to Malaysia's Port of Tanjung Pelepas:
'The mistake of PSA was it was getting too complacent. We are going to compete and if we can't compete, then we deserve to starve.'
His rebukes spurred a major rethink of Singapore's port policy.
Last year, while speaking to students at the Nanyang Technological University, he cautioned again against
'ignoring the warning signs that things could go wrong'.
'Setbacks could come suddenly,' he warned.
When the setback came early this year in the form of the disappearance of Mas Selamat, complacency was once again deemed the culprit.
Some observers argue that the Mas Selamat incident should be blamed on incompetence rather than just complacency. But since investigations have not been completed, it would be premature to speculate.
Still, the episode raises questions about whether complacency is also prevalent within the Government.
Complacent Government?
'ONLY the paranoid survive.' This is a phrase made famous by Intel chief Andrew Grove in a book he wrote in 1996 of the same title.
In it, he talks about the issues organisations constantly worry about to succeed and stay ahead of the competition.
But the phrase could well be the mantra of the Singapore Government, as it searches constantly for solutions to ensure the country thrives.
It is no wonder that government leaders caution frequently against complacency, reminding citizens of Singapore's vulnerabilities.
With such a siege mentality, how can there be complacency in the Government then?
It is possible, say some academics.
One school of thought suggests a schism between those at the top and those lower down the ladder.
Dr Michael Benoliel, associate professor of organisational behaviour at the Singapore Management University (SMU), suggests: 'It can happen because the organisation is disjointed, and because it is disjointed, the values of management do not permeate to the lower level.
'People become complacent because they underestimate the risk to themselves. They don't believe certain circumstances will happen. Although management says it is important, they don't view it as important.'
Hence, it is the role of government leaders to ensure their ideas and values are understood and absorbed by civil servants and citizens alike.
Yet, artificially creating an environment of stress to keep people on their toes is also not tenable.
Says Prof Benoliel: 'You can't keep people on a constant alert forever, because it is not possible to tolerate that level of anxiety.
'Top management should allow some complacency to exist as long as it does not endanger the mission.'
Reasons for complacency
THIS begs the question: Is there too much complacency now, and how did things come to this stage? MPs and political watchers offer three reasons.
One, a consequence of success.
People's Action Party MP Lim Wee Kiak calls it a 'side effect' of an overly successful Government.
'There is a sense of general complacency in Singapore because we have a very efficient civil service and Government that takes care of most of our peoples' needs - shelter, employment, education, medical, transport, even retirement needs,' he says.
'This has bred a dependent mentality. People blame the civil service and the Government if any of these needs are not met.'
International reports and surveys which rank Singapore highly in areas like economic and academic achievements, while a boon for morale, could also be a bane if they lull citizens into thinking that they are top of the pops and everything will continue to work well.
Two, a lack of crisis.
Sociologist Stella Quah from the National University of Singapore has done research into Singaporeans' attitudes to and actions in the event of crises.
There is a general alertness to the possibility that things might go wrong, she says, but there is also a sense of satisfaction due to continuous success or absence of threats.
And this might indeed lead to complacency.
'Although painful to one's pride, we all need periodic reminders that success is never guaranteed,' she says.
Even when crisis does strike - as when Singapore was hit by Sars in 2003 - the fact that the country is able to pull through relatively unscathed can result in Singaporeans taking a relaxed attitude.
Just let the Government handle the crisis, they would assume.
For instance, very few Singapore homes stock emergency kits. Should a power blackout occur, few will have the torchlights and battery-powered radios to enable them to move around the house or keep in touch with the news.
Three, a lack of awareness of how the Government works and the effort needed to ensure that the country prospers.
Singaporeans take the country's smooth functioning for granted, and fail to appreciate the work that goes on behind the scenes to ensure this.
To former MP and economist Augustine Tan, all this points to a lack of understanding of how Singapore makes its living in the world.
He cites one example: the recent Budget debate.
While much attention was given to the freebies that the Finance Minister was dishing out from the Budget surplus, 'nobody raised the question of how come we got this surplus, how come the Government is able to give so much money away.'
Why was this so?
His reply: 'Because we have had continuity of government for such a long period of time that all the ministers have got a similar kind of thinking.
'They themselves take it for granted that these are policies which are institutionalised and understood.
'But, in truth, they are not understood by people.'
Eradicating a scourge
CAN complacency be eradicated? There is no simple answer, short of letting more crises occur. But that would bring other problems even as they alleviate complacent attitudes.
But political commentator Gillian Koh from the Institute of Policy Studies is optimistic that the situation will improve.
She believes that as society matures, Singaporeans will want more say in the running of the country. They will want to be more involved in the policy-making process and to take risks in a bid to move the country forward.
They will make moves - however tentatively - out of their own comfort zone, and be less preoccupied simply with guarding their own turf.
They will, in short, become less complacent.
The Government, on its part, has to loosen its grip and allow citizens to take part in the decision-making process.
All these involve re-negotiating the relationship between the Government and the people.
As MP Lam Pin Min notes, today's solutions may not be appropriate for tomorrow's problems.
Quoting the late American journalist Timothy White, he says: 'You need to have a redesign because familiarity breeds a kind of complacency.'
sueann@sph.com.sg
chinlian@sph.com.sg
|
