IT IS ABOUT VALUES
I believe the widespread public disquiet wasn’t mainly about actual or potential conflict of interest or corruption or due process though they are important issues and needed to be investigated. The reason why so many people were agitated when the news first broke out had to do with something more emotional and deep-seated.
It is about how they hold political leaders to account in their personal conduct, which has to do with values and ethos.
This is a very Singaporean idea but one which the ruling party cultivated from the very beginning, the belief that the country has done well because it has good leaders, not only the ablest and most committed, but of unimpeachable character and integrity, and not given to excesses and showmanship.
It is so ingrained it is in black and white in the code of conduct for ministers which has been enforced since 1954:
“The position of a Government Minister is one of trust. It is vital that Ministers do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in themselves or bring discredit to the Government. Therefore, all Ministers are expected to act at all times according to the highest standards of probity, accountability, honesty, integrity and diligence in the exercise of their public duties.”
People’s Action Party (PAP) ministers have consistently argued that without men and women with these qualities at the top, Singapore would perish.
In no other country are political leaders held in such regard – whiter than white, and akin to a priesthood, as former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee put it.
Such an extraordinary notion of leadership defined the party and its relationship with the people.
The idea persists till today, which is why PAP leaders can sometimes appear high-minded when they lecture others, including the opposition, on the importance of maintaining high standards of character and integrity.
You have to be very white to continue adopting this political stance.
Hence ministers avoid driving flashy cars and are sensitive to being photographed (including with their spouses) wearing expensive watches and jewellery.
Which is why the thought of such a leader living in a black and white bungalow of mind-boggling size that the average Singaporean cannot possibly imagine is jarring to many people.
There is an emotional disconnect that isn’t easy to bridge with facts and figures, which is what the government sought to do in the six-hour debate in parliament.
It may well be that times have changed and Singaporeans should not expect their ministers to live as frugally as the earlier generation and be more accepting of their wealthy lifestyle including when it is openly displayed.
I think it is inevitable that this change will take place, but the PAP has to be careful that when it does, it will not overturn the party’s carefully nurtured idea of what makes for a good political leader.
If it does, it will change the party and how it relates to the people in a fundamental way, and I don’t think the party is ready for this.