An Image of What It Should Be

 

This weekend’s YouTube Binge was a particularly interesting one. The video that struck me was an interview of a US Marine who had served as in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) as an officer. This young man was born in Singapore and after serving his obligatory national service in Singapore, decided to join the US Marines. The interview can be found at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_MwNbWGUAo

 

What makes this interview so insightful is the fact that instead of comparing the training and equipment in the US Marines and the SAF, he talked about his personal experiences in the SAF and the culture of the two organisations. One of the most striking things he said was the fact that in the SAF, there is an “Ideal” of what the military should be and everyone trains towards the ideal. One of his most striking examples is in field training. He mentions that in the SAF, there’s a lot of emphasis on getting things ready for parade (keeping your uniform spick and span), which also carries onto the field. On the other hand, in the US Marines, there is emphasis on parade appearance when you’re on base and not when you’re in the field. He also gave the example of being in the field whilst training in the SAF and being punished because he instinctively threw a smoke grenade when his platoon came under attack because smoke grenades are controlled items and expensive and he needed to ask for permission to use the smoke grenade.

The SAF is a conscript force and what goes on in the SAF is pretty much a good guide as to what goes on in the rest of Singapore. It was good to see this young man touch on one of the most pressing issues in Singapore – namely the fact that we’re a society that prepares our people for a text book ideal of what the world is rather than what the world actually is.

 I think of another national service story, which comes from a lawyer friend who was a combat engineer officer. The story he tells is that in Singapore, the only way to determine if an area has been occupied previously is if you radio HQ. By contrast the Israeli (field experience) doctrine tells you to check if there are birds in the area cause the birds would be feasting on leftovers by the humans.

OK, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with having a vision and working towards it. This is supposed to be the one key thing that all great leaders are supposed to have. However, having an idea and putting it into practice are two separate things. There are many cases in life when the text book does not provide an example of how things should be and the man in the centre does not know what to do because he’s far removed from the ground. These basic facts are probably the biggest fault lines in how Singapore is run. Our system only seems to cater for text book answers (text books written in the 1960s) and the centre always knows best.

Singapore is run by people trained by a text book written in the 1960s. In fairness to Lee Kuan Yew and his team, that text book worked brilliantly. Singapore is pretty much what a place should be – clean, green and rich. As things stand, things in Singapore look pretty good. I get funny looks from Americans and Europeans whenever I suggest that Singapore is less than paradise, the look of “What are you complaining about?”

However, as I’ve argued, the problem in Singapore is not so much that its in danger of imminent collapse but that it’s bound to slowly rot away from the inside and while things look quite ok at the moment, it won’t always be the case. In the 1960s, the centre held under Mr. Lee because he and his team admitted that they didn’t know everything and were willing to learn, adapt and get things done. Mr. Lee in his early days had the good sense to keep the politics off the backs of capable people like Dr. Goh Keng Swee. He took care of the politics and they took care of the work.

Unfortunately, things changed. Dr. Goh Keng Swee retired in 1984 and was only heard off again at his funeral. Singapore’s success then became all about one man in the centre. The centre was all wise and knowing and only the centre could get things done.

This was OK, when the centre did have answers. However, the internet happened and things started loosening up. In Singapore speak, being on the periphery is for losers and nobody cares what people on the ground think. Classic case is the explosion of Covid cases in the dormitories. Activist spent years raising the issue of unsanitary conditions in the dormitories. They were ignored or sued. Then, Covid happened, thus proving the activist right (the activist being on the ground), which resulted in the government bailing out dormitory operators so that they could go back to suing and deporting anyone who suggested that management was not doing a perfect job. Think of the deportation of Zakir Hossain as being the Singapore version of Trumps “Sporadic for you but not for others.”

This would indicate that the object of doing anything in Singapore is about maintaining the status quo rather than on trying to improve the status quo. This won’t work forever. The world is moving in such a way where it will be impossible for the centre to know everything and guys in the periphery will need to be able to act and improvise according to the situation.

Unless you value the guys on the ground, or the guys doing the actual work and fighting the actual battle, you’re not going to achieve very much. So, instead of tying up the hands of the people, the government should allow people to get on with it, if Singapore is to have a future at all.