Should the finger be pointing at the CEO? A moleview of the SMRT saga....

image from here

All of sudden there seems to be deluge of bad news for SMRT. The latest involves a woman who fell and and sustained a head injury. Apparently she remains in coma. Gigamole wishes her well.

The public outcry against the SMRT is both understandable and justified. The hounds are now baying for the head of the CEO, Saw Phaik Hwa. The mass media has been particularly unkind, I think, and has dug up as many photos as they have on  file that portray her in the most unflattering light.

However, Gigamole somehow feels this antipathy against the CEO has been somewhat misplaced. Yes, because she heads the SMRT, the responsibility for all the mishaps falls squarely on her lap. Bt we should not forget that as CEO she acts upon the guidance of the SMRT Board. It was also the SMRT Board who examined her credentials and appointed her to the post. It was the SMRT Board who crafted up the directions and strategies for the CEO. By appointing Ms Saw to the post, the Board obviously prioritized the retail agenda above operational and service needs. Whether they did this as a conscious strategic  decision is unclear. It may well have been it seemed like an OK thing to do at that time, and only now shown to be inappropriate.

It seems clear at the moment that the SMRT CEO did all she could within her capabilities. Unfortunately though her experience was principally in retail and marketing. Was she someone who had a good insight into the technical/engineering and operation needs of the SMRT? Should we blame her for  lapses in areas outside her expertise. Yes, as she is CEO; but not entirely, as the Board should account for why they did not think operational/service skills were critically important for a train and transport company. Transport Minister Lui was spot on when he picked up the phone to speak with Chairman SMRT. This is a problem squarely shared by the Board and Management.

So for those who are happily shooting off arrows at Ms Saw, hold your fire a bit, and see if perhaps some of the arrows need to be redirected towards the SMRT Board.

The elected President will have considerable moral authority but should not aspire to be our moral authority.

So we will have our Presidential Elections today. Very exciting because it is a very significant milestone in our political development. I like the political awakening I see yet I remain somewhat concerned that this new political energy has been too enthusiastically injected into this presidential contest. Wasn't it supposed to have been a non-partisan affair? But then, I suppose, any kind of election will inevitably be 'political'. By this logic then, the very act of creating the elected presidency had already begun politicization the highest office in our country. Even though it was not intended to be, it has become the new reality.

Instead of being a purely ceremonial position, the Presidency has now become a lightning rod for all kinds of things. Because of the political energy that has been vested into electing the President, regardless of what the Constitution tries to curtail, the elected President will receive a considerable moral authority to do and say things. This authority must come with responsibility. The elected President must realize that notwithstanding the electioneering and promises made in the heat of the moment, the Presidency is a position that must chiefly unify and inspire. He must try and embody all the noble values that will bring us together as a united citizenry.

But should he speak up for all kinds of perceived wrongs and champion pet causes? Though we may wish it to be, I believe he should not. This is not to say he cannot support community based projects and causes. But that he should be careful not be a social activist for causes which may be controversial and divide the society. Can the President be the standard bearer for justice and morality in our society? To be the heart....or voice ....of the people? I don't think so. Because, how is he to decide what is just and unjust,what is moral and what not? The election does not confer upon him the supernatural ability to make those judgements for the rest of us. So inevitably, to place himself on a pedestal to champion a particular position in such causes will cause him to elevate some ... and in the process, decrease some. And make the position open to all kinds of political lobbying. He should therefore ask himself if such activities serve to unite or to divide.

When we elect the President, we willingly confer upon him the moral authority to assume the highest position in our land, but this does not make him eligible to be the authority for our morals.