Shared Values of an Innovative Country: Singapore Case, Learning from His Excellency George Yeo
Tonight, at the American Club of Singapore, I had another opportunity to engage with His Excellency George Yeo , former Foreign Minister of Singapore. This wasn’t my first encounter with him—our paths had crossed last year at the grand ballroom of the Shangri-La Hotel, where his unfiltered reflections on global issues, delivered without the crutch of PowerPoint slides, left a deep impression on me. As I sat there, a sense of anticipation swelled inside me, not just because of his reputation but because Yeo had a way of unearthing thoughts I hadn’t considered. Engaging with him wasn’t just about listening—it was about feeling challenged, intrigued, and ready to reshape my own perspectives. His stark honesty and ability to command a room through sheer intellectual rigor were unforgettable. That day, he explored global conflicts and urged us to be peacemakers, not troublemakers, a call that resonated deeply. I anticipated being in awe again tonight, knowing his intellectual depth and humility would provide equally profound insights.
I had initially planned to ask him about his childhood—what he remembers most of his parents and his family.However, upon flipping through Musings, Series One (Yeo & Woon, 2023) which I had just repurchased from the publishers at a significant discount at the registration desk, I found those answers already elaborated in detail. I had been curious about this because I believe that a person’s values are often shaped early in life, and understanding his family dynamic might shed light on how Yeo became the thoughtful leader he is today. Reflecting on my own upbringing, I realized that my fascination with the childhoods of others might stem from my constant search for the roots of my own values, wondering how much of who I am was shaped in those early days. With four of George Yeo’s books stacked beside me, waiting to be autographed, I decided to focus instead on the broader lessons of the evening.
I sat in the front row, just 1.5 meters from a small podium where George Yeo sat alongside Jean-Pierre Felenbok , representing both the Harvard Business School and Harvard alumni communities. To my left was Benny H Goh , a fellow alumnus who had sent me a Christmas card last December. As I listened to Yeo speak about world and regional dynamics—covering topics such as wars, global constellations, and the tensions involving Hong Kong, China, Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East—I felt a familiar restlessness, the kind my ADHD mind often stirs up when I’m trying to focus on complex ideas. Without my usual tool—a sheet of paper to mind map, I felt the weight of distraction pressing in. But something about Yeo’s presence, his gravitas, kept pulling me back, making me push harder to stay focused. I relied on memory, creating mental associations with his points as he spoke, hoping not to miss any key insights. In that moment, I was reminded of how much my own struggles with focus had shaped my learning process, and how important it was for me to remain present in such significant moments of insight.
However, as he detailed these geopolitical issues, I couldn't help but let my thoughts drift toward my dissertation—specifically, the idea of shared values and basic assumptions in shaping a nation's identity. Yeo’s reflections on global power dynamics stirred something personal in me. I’ve always been fascinated by the invisible forces that hold nations together, and as he spoke, I began questioning: What makes a country resilient? What values are so deeply embedded that they guide national behavior unconsciously? I realized that my obsession with shared values wasn’t purely academic—it was personal. I’ve often wondered whether the core values that shaped me—values like integrity, discipline, and a deep sense of duty—were also reflected in my country’s shared assumptions. The parallels between personal growth and national progress felt sharper in that moment, as if Yeo’s words were bringing my own intellectual journey into clearer focus.
This train of thought led me back to Edgar Schein’s framework on organizational culture, which he outlines in his book Strategic Pragmatism: The Culture of Singapore's Economic Development Board (1996). In his work, Schein uses the Economic Development Board (EDB) as an analogy for understanding how Singapore’s broader national values have been constructed and embedded within its institutions. Discovering Schein’s framework had been a turning point in my intellectual journey. It felt like a revelation—finally, a way to understand how unseen forces, values, and assumptions shape entire nations, much like how personal values shape individuals. The more I engaged with his ideas, the more I saw parallels between my own inner world and the hidden assumptions driving a country’s development. It wasn’t just about theory anymore; it was about understanding how values, both personal and national, were intricately connected. Schein’s model of culture, consisting of artifacts (the visible aspects of culture), espoused values (the stated values and beliefs), and basic underlying assumptions (the unconscious beliefs driving behavior), provides a lens to analyze Singapore’s journey.
The EDB, central to Singapore’s economic growth, reflects the nation's commitment to meritocracy, pragmatism, and long-term vision—values that permeate the very fabric of Singaporean society, as described by Edgar Schein in his analysis. As I sat there, I couldn’t help but admire how Schein’s observations of Singapore's institutionalized values went beyond mere policy, becoming ingrained in the very structure of the nation’s success. It stirred a complex feeling in me—on one hand, admiration for Singapore’s disciplined execution of these values, and on the other, a quiet frustration about the gaps I saw in my own country. I wondered what it would take for my nation to reach a similar level of cohesion and progress. Schein’s model showed how deeply Singapore embedded these values into its institutions, making them second nature for its people and leaders. The way Singapore had managed to integrate these values so seamlessly felt almost as if they were encoded into the country’s DNA. I found myself feeling a mix of envy and hope, wondering how my own country could harness similar values to achieve the same level of resilience and progress.
Goh Chok Tong, during his tenure as Prime Minister, attempted to formalize these values in the Shared Values White Paper of 1991, where five key principles were introduced to unify Singapore’s diverse population: 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. However, PM Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, reportedly laughed at the idea. I realized that perhaps what made PM Lee so effective as a leader was his relentless focus on pragmatism. He wasn’t interested in formalizing ideals or codifying values in abstract terms. For him, the strength of Singapore lay in its ability to adapt and survive in a volatile world. This reminded me of my own struggle with balancing ideals and reality—how often I’ve found myself drawn to formal frameworks, yet ultimately needing to ground those ideas in the messy complexities of real life. Lee believed that practical decisions, good leadership, and adaptability were far more critical to Singapore’s success than any theoretical framework of values (Han, 2024; Barr, 2000).
Schein’s concept of basic underlying assumptions provides an interesting layer to Lee Kuan Yew’s leadership philosophy. For Singapore, these assumptions—centered around survival, competitiveness, and governance—are so deeply ingrained that they operate automatically, influencing behavior and decision-making without conscious thought (Schein, 1996). As I reflected on these assumptions, it occurred to me that these unspoken beliefs might be what set certain nations apart. Singapore’s ability to embed survival instincts into its cultural DNA was striking.
I couldn’t help but wonder if the same could be said for my own country. Were we driven by these deep, unconscious values, or were we struggling to form them? This question weighed heavily on me, as I thought about how these assumptions influence not just governance but every facet of society—from how individuals contribute to how the country navigates crises. These same assumptions underpin Singapore’s approach to governance, ensuring that even as outward values evolve, the nation's success is driven by its core, foundational beliefs.
From a post-structuralist perspective, this evolution of shared values is never static but always in flux, influenced by changing social, historical, and political contexts (Foucault, 1972). Values such as meritocracy, racial harmony, and pragmatism were constructed in response to Singapore’s unique socio-political challenges at the time of its independence. As I listened to Yeo’s discussion and reflected on post-structuralist thought, I began to realize how much shared values shift over time, not just for a country but for individuals too. In my own intellectual journey, I’ve seen my beliefs and assumptions evolve as I’ve encountered new ideas, much like how nations adapt their values to meet the demands of the present. This realization made me question the permanence of any value system—how much of what we consider foundational is truly fixed, and how much is always subject to reinterpretation and change? Over time, as Singapore evolved into a more affluent and stable society, individuals began interpreting these values differently. Today, some Singaporeans might describe their core values in terms of being "law-abiding citizens," "human contributors," or "lifelong learners"—reflecting an ongoing reconfiguration of national identity in response to shifting social and economic landscapes.
This fluidity, a key insight from post-structuralist thought, illustrates that shared values are never fixed. They are always subject to reinterpretation based on emerging needs and power dynamics (Derrida, 1978). As my mind wandered, I realized that perhaps this fluidity was what made Singapore so resilient. By allowing values to evolve with time, the country wasn’t chained to rigid ideologies but was open to adapting when needed. It struck me that, much like a person, a nation’s strength often lies in its ability to grow and change with its circumstances. What once focused on survival and pragmatism now encompasses broader ideas of personal growth, social responsibility, and adaptability in a globalized world. In that moment, I couldn’t help but wonder if my own country had the same capacity to adapt, or whether we were stuck holding onto values that no longer served us.
领英推荐
George Yeo’s reflections tonight echoed these ideas, aligning with Singapore’s foundational assumptions. He candidly stated,
“If you think you are here as a blessing to Singaporeans, then maybe you’d better not be here.”
The bluntness of his words resonated me deeply, cutting through the layers of diplomacy to reveal a truth about Singapore’s approach to identity. His message was clear—success isn’t built on entitlement or superiority but on contribution and reciprocity. As someone who has often struggled with finding my own place in different communities, his words felt personal. It was a reminder that we all need to prove our worth through our actions, not just assume we deserve respect or recognition by default. He followed up with,
“The town says, yes, you are good to us. You are good customs. You are welcome here,”
stressing the importance of reciprocity and community at the core of Singaporean society.
Later, during Q&A session, I asked him directly about Singapore’s shared values to which Yeo responded with remarkable clarity:
“Singapore should be held together by how broad our mind is and how big our hearts are.”
He recognized me when he added,
“If you are Indonesian, and even become Singaporean, as Minahasan, Christian, your heart must be big enough to embrace others who are not yourselves. ‘I am interested in you; I see good in you."
This hit close to home for me. His metaphor of embracing others as an extension of Singapore’s identity wasn’t just a political ideal—it was deeply human. I couldn’t help but think of how often in my own life I’ve wrestled with the idea of truly opening my heart to those who are different from me. Yeo’s words were a reminder that broadening one’s mind and heart is essential, not just for a nation, but for personal growth. It made me wonder if I had been open enough to see the good in others, to recognize their contributions, regardless of background. His metaphor of Singaporean identity as a “meta-identity,” akin to adding an additional line of code like TCP/IP, seemed a perfect reflection of Singapore’s approach to nationhood. It’s not about homogenizing identities but about creating space for diverse ones to coexist within a shared framework of respect.
After reflecting on Singapore’s development, my thoughts turned toward my own beloved country. I began to wonder whether it possesses the deeply ingrained values necessary to foster resilience and innovation. Are the basic assumptions that shape its national identity supporting integrity, reliability, and collaboration, or are they being undermined by inefficiency and corruption?
For any nation to thrive in today’s rapidly evolving global landscape, foundational assumptions—those values that go beyond mere policies—must align with long-term goals of innovation and progress. Without deeply embedded beliefs, no policy, however well-intentioned, can sustain a thriving ecosystem.
Addressing corruption is key to creating such a system. As noted in earlier work, “we must abolish shame culture and promote a guilt culture” to effectively confront corruption and foster a foundation of shared values based on integrity and accountability (Tambun & Irawanto, 2023). This cultural shift is essential for nurturing responsible leadership and creating a societal framework that promotes long-term growth.
As Budden and Murray (2019) emphasize, foundational institutions form the cultural bedrock necessary for innovation and social cohesion. Without integrity and accountability deeply rooted in the national fabric, innovation risks being built on unstable ground. Ultimately, aligning basic assumptions with national goals is the key to long-term success. A strong cultural foundation that promotes trust and collaboration is essential; without it, policies and innovations alone cannot sustain a competitive edge in the global marketplace.
?References:
Tsing Hua & TaiwanICDF AIoT Graduate Researcher ? Building the next sustainable agricultural product supply chain network!
2 个月Such a highly eloquent memoir and works of dialectics. family as the basic unit of society :) => we must abolish shame culture and promote a guilt culture.