Under spotlight:
The 'scholar' system
Can the ruling party afford to continue selecting political leaders the way it has been doing for 30 years? By Seah Chiang Nee.
May 23, 2009

SINGAPOREANS who want to see a quicker reduction of government influence in society now have another reason to do so in the wake of the ping-pong controversy.

It was sparked off by the way the Table Tennis Association (STTA) had acted over a dispute that led to the loss of its talented Chinese trainer.

One of the most successful sports trainers here, Liu Guodong, had helped Singapore to win its first Olympic medal in 48 years.

He had shaped the women’s paddlers to rank among the world’s best, as well as win the silver medal in last year’s Beijing Olympics, losing to China in the final.

Instead of receiving state accolade, Liu left for Beijing in a huff on Sunday after his second run-in with Lee Bee Wah, the STTA President, who is also MP in Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s group constituency.

To Singaporeans, that connection spells political backing. Liu’s exit followed an accusation from the free-talking politician that the Chinese coach lacked “professionalism and integrity”, without giving any clarification.

Her organisation had earlier refused to nominate the popular Liu for the National Coach of the Year award as widely expected and supported by the National Sports Council.

This infuriated the Chinese trainer, the brother of China’s national table tennis coach. Liu felt humiliated, saying that it had impugned his integrity.

He asked her to justify the charge or apologise, failing which he may return to seek legal recourse to clear his name.

The way that Lee, a Malaysian-born politician, had handled — or mishandled — a talented table tennis coach caused resentment among Singaporeans and some mainland Chinese netizens.

It has led to Singapore being accused — rather unfairly — of ungratefulness, implying that his importance was downgraded after the Olympics feat.

Some Singaporeans questioned the need to have a government person manage a sports body — as well as numerous others — instead of people with long relevant experience.

Lee is the latest of a number of MPs who have been on the receiving end of public wrath.

As the recession spreads hardship, the number of people who seek help from their MPs has sharply increased, some of them desperately.

Threats against MPs have been on the rise. In a recent case a woman MP was threatened by a rag-and-bone man.

Then an angry youth slammed a chair on a glass door when he felt another MP had talked down to his mother.

The worst case happened in January when MP Seng Han Tong was set on fire by an attacker, sending him to hospital with severe burns. He has just resumed duty.

Although this violence has raised public concern, one blogger said, “I am not sure whether the constituents are solely to be blamed.”

Many of the MPs hail from rich homes with little understanding of how the deprived class suffers, he added. “Until they join politics, some have never stepped into a public flat in their lives.”

The ping-pong flap has highlighted a growing unhappiness with the ruling party’s extensive role — and influence — in matters that have nothing to do with government.

“The government should just stick to running the country and keep its nose away from private business, running the media or sports,” said a returning graduate from Australia.

“Why is a PAP MP managing the game of ping-pong when there are more experienced people around?” he asked.

Scholars: how effective?

One of the pillars of this generally well-run city is its scholar system.

Over the decades, thousands of the brightest students have been given university scholarships and slotted back into society to run the country. This was expanded to include bright foreigners.

This was believed to have been adopted by Lee Kuan Yew from 1,300 years of Chinese Imperial exams, from which the emperors picked out the best to help them run China.

For Singapore, this had largely worked well in producing efficient civil servants and managers at a time when the world was a lot less complex.

Going forward, however, they face two problems.

The first is that while they are good at implementing policies, few actually shine at anticipating problems and creativity.

Visionary abilities often come from ordinary people, even drop-outs — not just scholars.

Secondly, too many “scholar” politicians lack the human touch or a social skill to connect with the masses. Today, Singaporeans want to see leaders and MPs who can relate with them.

Online writer, Robert Teh said the Singapore system that is based on assembling of a few scholars to come up with ideas, schemes and policies for the whole country would no longer work.

The conceptual assumptions about leadership and talents have failed to work for modern Singapore since 1970s and should be revised, he said.

“A leader is chosen because, among other reasons, he or she has shared certain common objectives with the people.”

When Singapore does well, the scholars were given the bulk of the credits, but when things go so badly as now, the big blame, too, goes to them.

(An article from The Star, Malaysia today)