Government needs to be more than just "not corrupt"

In response to an interesting discussion stemming from this post, my Twitter friend Shawn Lim has an interesting post up on his blog. While I agree with some of his views, such as the country needing a change in leadership, and Singaporeans needing to grow up and adopt a more open-minded and tolerant mentality, there are certain points I disagree with.

First of all, I would like to applaud Mr Lee Kuan Yew for almost single-handedly brought up this nation. Singapore wouldn’t have made it so far if not for him.

Lacking a mention of the likes of S. Rajaratnam, Hon Sui Sen, E.W. Barker, Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, and many other contemporaries of Lee Kuan Yew who helped build this country. It may sound like I am nit-picking, but I disagree.

Credit must be given where it is due. Just like we do not deny the fantastic work done by Mr Lee in shaping this nation from the beginning, we cannot deny that he had help from other exceptional leaders, without which no man can single-handedly bring Singapore from the third world to the first.

Mr Lee would be the first to admit that himself, and hence we cannot, and must not, forget our debt of gratitude to the first generation of national leaders. In addition, while no one will disagree that he is the head of the generation, we cannot afford to build Mr Lee as a legendary figure from which all of Singapore lies under its shadow, struggling to grow as a nation and society or develop an identity and culture that can bind us.

In other words, we will need to grow beyond the legacy left behind by Mr Lee, or be left behind by the world. Crediting just one man, while not acknowledging the contribution of his peers and the people of this country, will end up holding us back instead of propelling us forward.

But the following statement bothers me the most.

I stand by my stand that I support any Government which is not corrupted.

I believe that a government needs to be more than just "not corrupted"; being persons of integrity is just one of many baseline qualities that we should expect and demand from everyone who hold positions in public service, elected or not. Just being "not corrupt" is not, and should never be, good enough.

Just to prove the point, would you vote for an uncorrupt version of Sarah "I can see Russia from my front porch" Palin?

(If your answer is yes, then you might have landed on the wrong blog. Perhaps this fine website is more suited to your needs.)

I know I wouldn't. Public service is exactly that: in service of the public. In addition to honesty and integrity, there are also qualities like empathy, intelligence, and a commitment to serve the people that determines a candidate's suitability. All of them are important, and we should overlook any of these virtues when we select or elect public officials.

Settling for less means we condone this mediocrity, that we allow our voices and rights to be crushed, that we do not deserve better, and that we do not want this country to be better. And we wold have no one else to blame but ourselves.