I am currently reading “Strategic Pragmatism: The culture of Singapore’s Economic Development Board” by Edgar H. Schien, a prominent American academic. I’m not quite done yet, but I read something of interest, which were two quotes by MM Lee:

“one cannot deal with the communists by arguing ideology with them”

“the best way to fight communism was by providing people with jobs and housing”

I found these quotes interesting because it seems that we are still stuck in the 1960s mode of thinking today, i.e. the best way to deal with political problems is by providing people with jobs and housing. Fundamentally, this principle is not flawed. Of course people need to eat, have a roof over their head and be able to enjoy a life that satisfy their material wishes.

However, a cursory glance at a couple of need theories will reveal to us that things such as food, clothing, shelter and jobs are the lowest level kinds of needs. One of the most famous needs theories would be Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory, which can be summed up by the image below (taken from Wikipedia):

Maslow Hierarchy of Needs

Another needs theory would be the ERG theory proposed by Clayton Alderfer. Maslow had a 6 level categorization of needs, but Alderfer collapsed human needs into 3 categories, namely existence, relatedness and growth (hence the name ERG), with existence being the lowest level of need and growth the highest level.

What these needs theories tell us is that there exists somewhat a series of needs on a continuum. Once we have fulfilled a certain level of need, we will yearn for a higher order need. Being stuck at a lower level will result in people feeling inadequate or unhappy. I think this is what is happening to the Singapore population right now. Our GDP per capita shows that we are among the first world countries, and therefore, the existence needs of most Singaporeans are met. Based on MM Lee’s philosophy, Singaporeans should theoretically be satisfied politically.

Yet, Singaporeans do not appear to be satisfied. The recent events over GST increase, ministerial salary revisions and perennial issues such as the GRC system and tying of HDB upgrading to election results are some indicators of the dissatisfaction of Singaporeans. It might be a perplexing scenario to those who hold dear to the belief that people with a full stomach and a roof over their head are happy people. However, I think that Singaporeans in general are now clamouring to seek out higher order needs, such as to be able to effect change in public policy.

In the quest to satisfy higher-order needs, Singaporeans find themselves hitting a brick wall, thus being unhappy. There is a sense of lack of self-efficacy (the belief that one is capable of attaining certain goals). Some people would point institutional barriers, while others opine that Singaporeans have had too good life and are now weak in the knees from years of good life.

I don’t think that such chronic unhappiness is a good thing. A wound if left to fester can turn gangrenous, which might result in an amputation and thus reducing future capability to function. What then is the solution? I think that the average Singaporean need role models. They need to be able to see people whom they can identify with as an ordinary Singaporean folk who speaks up and attempts to create change in the system (and actually succeeding). I think this is the best way to address the lack of self-efficacy in Singapore.

If all we see are the treatment along the likes of Chee Soon Juan, it’s small wonder that Singaporeans feel a lack of self-efficacy. Every time Chee puts up his head, he gets clobbered until it’s bloody. And, there are other cases of less bloody clobbering, but still a clobber nonetheless, such as the Mr Brown case. I don’t believe that such examples are encouraging at all.

I am of the opinion that we need to move up the ladder of needs if we are to survive and prosper in future. We cannot let ourselves be done in by the philosophy of yesterday. Yes, it might have worked then, but circumstances are different now. We need re-evaluate whether the same principles that have served us well will continue to serve us well in the future. Baby shoes certainly do not fit an adolescent.