Leadership:
Thinking beyond ‘tea chats’
Centrally planned leadership recruitment may no longer attract enough Singaporeans with real drive, abilities and ambition. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Apr 6, 2008

MANY years ago, at a time when Singapore was preparing for general elections, I ran into an old friend who appeared anxious to talk to me.

I was then an editor of a newspaper. “I need to chat urgently,” he said, excitement written all over him.

A thought struck me and I asked: “Have you been invited for tea?” Surprised, he said yes.

“Invited for tea,” is Singapore political jargon meaning that the person – in this case a corporate chief executive officer – is being headhunted by the PAP to stand as a candidate.

My hunch was right and he was duly elected and became a Cabinet minister.

The tea interview remains the PAP’s unique way of recruiting political leaders for Singapore, starting work as a Member of Parliament and ending up, it is hoped, in the Cabinet

The chosen ones are not experienced politicians rising from party ranks, but straight from company boardrooms or the professions, the armed forces or the civil service.

Many are scholars and novices (some call them political virgins) who don’t have to campaign hard for votes since the group polling system makes it difficult for the weakened Opposition to beat them.

In fact, many PAP candidates win on walkovers – some of them repeatedly – and move into Parliament without a single vote having been counted.

In this manner, the mandate for Singaporeans’ representatives frequently comes from the party rather than from voters.

In the “brains” department these people will not be found lacking, but few have the political attributes to bond – or empathise - with ordinary people, especially the poor.

The system, however, does work well for much of Singapore’s 43 years of independence – if one measures it by the sparkling economic progress and clockwork efficiency.

In the 21st Century, however, this system of headhunting an exalted leader like any common corporate figure – with a similar offer of high wages and perks – may be losing some of its shine for some candidates and voters.

Doubts of its effectiveness are growing. For one thing, no one will ever know the real talents that pass by, missed by the search; or those who find the system unacceptable.

This form of centrally planned leadership succession may not appeal to people with real drive, abilities and ambition.

Last week, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted difficulties in finding “a fourth generation” leadership – especially a successor for himself.

He expanded his 18-man Cabinet by two, adding new finds Law Minister K. Shanmugam and Acting Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong.

But the real shocker was his virtual rejection of all in the present batch of ministers as possible PM material, unless he “is run over by a bus”.

The main points he made in an interview with two local newspapers last week were:

* He will be PM until he can “find and groom” a successor who should be ready to become PM in 13 years’ time, in 2021 when he ill be 69.

* Since he is only 56, Lee says he will look for people who are now in the 30s and early 40s. This has all but ruled out all his subordinate ministers – disappointing those who aspire for the top post.

By keeping all the older ministers and taking in two new ones, Lee appears to be trying to strengthen his hands – only a month after Malaysia’s election shock.

It is not known if the two events are related. It will not be surprising if Lee, jolted by Malaysia’s ruling front’s election blow, will quickly strengthen his grip on power.

PM Lee may be ensuring absolute loyalty among his ministers, especially in view of his father’s advancing age. Without Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, his leadership could be vulnerable to challenge.

Lee is also trying to raise his public image and show he is in total charge and will remain in charge for a long time.

The PM, who was once treated and cured of cancer, has dispelled the notion of his tenure’s “temporariness”, possibly no more than 8-10 years before he gives up.

Lee, who became PM in 2004, has surprisingly been quiet, non-active and rather overshadowed by his more assertive, high profile father, who is 84.

There have been long periods when he has not attended any public function or made a speech.

A recent example was the escape from detention of the Jemaah Islamiah leader Mas Selamat Kastari, when the PM kept quiet as though it were a non-event.

It was only after his father made a comment, condemning the authorities for “complacency”, that the PM followed suit, using the same word. It’s not good for his image.

Cynics here, however, are not impressed with the professed difficulties in finding good leaders.

“It is propaganda used to impress people that only the PAP is qualified to lead. Actually, they are just bureaucrats who make mistakes like leaders elsewhere,” one opposition supporter said.

Many Singaporeans believe that the calibre of the present crop of technocrats is not comparable to that of the founding leaders, who were thrown up by the throes of history.

It was the unselfish leaders (salaries were then very low) like Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee, S. Rajaratnam, etc, who achieved greatness for Singapore in its first 25 years.

Where will the next PM come from? He could be headhunted from outside the party – or even from Singaporeans abroad – and groomed for a decade.

Of course, an election can change all this. Lee Kuan Yew has warned his people not to expect victory all the time.
(This was published in The Star, Malaysia on Apr 5, 2008)

Comment:

Letter from Henry Lee (a Malaysian)
Your journalistic piece on current Singapore politics is one of the few honest commentaries around. Looking from the outside, I cannot but agree with you that the PAP is becoming more and more like a Company with the PM as the CEO and the Ministers as Division or Departmental Heads. Being a small country, I shall regrettably have to say also, no GMs.

The current episode with the crass salary increases smacks of nepotism and self serving. Much like how many private sector CEOs and their loyal cliques pay themselves outageous salaries. I think the PAP needs to be brought down to earth and get back to basics. They are NOT corporate managers and will never be. There is a world of difference.

No doubt many have the intellect, but they are not proven in terms of being politcally savvy and able, or having the leadership drive and charisma to sway and change public opinion, or displaying courage to stand by important principles. In short, do they have the leadership ability to carry the people with them? Ultimately, are you ready to lay down your life or be imprisoned for your beliefs and convictions - assuming they are sound? Corporate managers do not have to undergo such tests. The power to reward and punish is inherent in the system and the structure. So, where is the crucial test of ability? Of being able to carry the motley crowd of people with you without these strappings of office?

Where therefore is the justification for the high salaries? Where is the Opposition to test your people against these standards? A real opposition that is. Not only that, the position as a Minister - whether Prime or otherwise - comes with great authority and power and resources, perks and allowances, fame and publicity, international hobnobbing, and a chance to have your name engraved indelibly on to the boulders of history. What more do you want? Aren't these worth any value? Aren't living and fulfilling your aspirations to do your bit for your people and for human kind, a reward in itself? Looking back at how LKY argue his case, it would appear to me that such argument are no more than the debasement of man as a noble creature; reduced to nothing more than an economic animal, where the only motivation is monetary and materialistic. I cannot agree with that.

It is clear that small as it is, Singapore needs an able and intellectual Opposition. Intellectual in that he or she has the vision to see beyond man's current achievements; One who is able to take us to the frontier of civilisation. A charismatic able thinker foremost. You can hire the doers by the dozen. Money is no objection.

One thing is clear from current developments in Singapore and that is the current leadership appears to be disdainful of its own people and looking up too much to foreigners. In short, snobbish and arrogant. This reflects badly as a leadership of people lacking in character. The PAP really needs a shake-up from the voters. The scenario to me - from where I stand - is like that of the eunuchs of a dynastic Emperor - ensconced and cocooned snugly in the Forbidden Palace.

So, for Singapore to progress to an able Opposition, stop suing the people for libel and learn how to counter lies and slanders with arguments and facts. That will create the environment for an interesting life beyond the rice bowl. As a Politician - that being your avowed career now - you are in the battlefield for public opinion and their hearts. To abrogate that to the Courts is lamentable, cowardly, if not queasy. Let us see what you are made of in terms of intellect, reasonableness, spirit, and determination. Can you free the mass media as a fourth estate? Or are you small men not deserving the high salaries paid?

Really! Singapore is only a small country; a small community; a small city. What do you really have to fear? And you have the ingredients for a 2-party democracy - educated citizenry, middle class income, exposure to the wider world, etc..

We are in the 2008s now; Not the 1960s or 1970s anymore. Can you allow your people to naturally develop to become people of stronger character like the Koreans and the Japanese? I am sure they will make the grade if you let them. Where is the Government by the way in developing the Culture of Singapore .. the Baba-Nyonya culture? Where are these crucial trappings of Nationhood (DAP, Gerakan & MCA - hope you are listening also!) of national culture? Of a people with a sense of identity and culture?

If these are beyond Singapore ... please come back home to Malaysia ... We will help you.
H Lee