MM Lee's ever-changing leadership concept
-
H2ABC1038 wrote:
This leadership talk is a double-talk with arguments for and against one type or another depending on circumstances.
In a recent interview with a Taiwanese magazine, the Minister Mentor was asked what were the required qualities of a good leader in a fast-changing world.
The Minister Mentor declared : "A leader is specific for a particular society. A leader has to come from within the society. You cannot put Tony Blair in America or put George Bush in England."
With that declaration, we can forget about sourcing cheap talented ministers overseas!! The governing Cabinet will continue to remain as the only truly protected employment industry in Singapore.
If we are to listen to this type of wishy washy postulates it will mean leadership keeps changing depending on audience.
For example if leader is thrown up by the people from within then America should have been led by an aborigine and Singapore by a descendent of the Malay Achipalego.
It is the same as talking about democracy. The concept can keep changing. One day it is good and the next it is evil.
It is good only when it is needed for good image to attract votes during election time or world investors and talents to come to our shore. For appeal to investors or citizens' votes during election time, he would never say choosing leaders from one-man-one-vote democracy is anything bad.
But once the election is over, and in order to deal with critics of self-centred leadeship gibberish, democracy will be regarded as bad on the ground that it will lead to disorders and chaos.
So it depends on one's ego and who you are answering to and who are leaders appealing to ?
At one time before the Asian Financial Crisis our great leader had wanted to promote Asian or Confucianism as characterizing his presumed good or wise leadership. However following the crisis it was found that among the economy worse hit actually leadership malpractices were the fundamental causes of implosions and rotting of structures, so there seems to be a reprieve of such refuge to leadership values and cultures.
Today leadership is being revamped to look like social and culture but who define these if leadership refuses to listen to its own people needs and desire for level playing field, freedoms of choice, objectivity, social values and morality.
In order to produce good leaders there must be respect for people's wishes for leaders to govern with openness, accountability, pro-people political renewal processes and level playing field not by constant changes from one value system to another. -
say so much, in the end ah lee is just defending his non-vanishing presence in government
-
I see nothing wrong on MM Lee speech on the model of seeking leaders from the same herd. Also leader is a personality whereas democracy is a system. A good leader knows what is a good system not vice versa.
-
Originally posted by robertteh:
Was MM LKY generalising in his reply, or was he being specific ?
H2ABC1038 wrote:
In a recent interview with a Taiwanese magazine, the Minister Mentor was asked what were the required qualities of a good leader in a fast-changing world.
The Minister Mentor declared : "A leader is specific for a particular society. A leader has to come from within the society. You cannot put Tony Blair in America or put George Bush in England."
With that declaration, we can forget about sourcing cheap talented ministers overseas!! The governing Cabinet will continue to remain as the only truly protected employment industry in Singapore.
Talking at a tangent, was he not referring to his own SON - whom he always believe to be the most worthy successor to himself - as ex-PM GCT was not exactly his first choice, and whom he found to be 'woody' ?
LHL is specifically for Singapore, one who has come from WITHIN the Singapore Society.
With that said, it will seem that MM LKY should have qualified his view as being applicable only to the POLITICAL Leadership of a nation; and as for the industry and commerce - the door is wide open for all talents to compete freely with Singaporeans.
His SON will not have to compete with the BEST LEADERSHIP TALENT in the World that Singapore and Singaporeans deserves; while Singapore and Singaporeans will have to compete with the BEST TALENT in the World for the sake of ourselves ( ??? ) .
This seems to be twisted logic to fit his own suit of views at different times and different circumstances. Another shift and twist of the goal posts ?
Can the POWER OF ONE win without any handicap ? -
A robust system will support the emergence of a good leader. No man can be greater than the institutions of a nation, and if he tries to be greater than them, then he has to be checked.Originally posted by TooFree:I see nothing wrong on MM Lee speech on the model of seeking leaders from the same herd. Also leader is a personality whereas democracy is a system. A good leader knows what is a good system not vice versa. -
A leader is not just someone with great visions for his country but also possesses extraordinary implementation skills to translate those visions into easy attainable steps which can be consistently taken by the whole team without varifications or wavering due to good guidance and motivation so that the whole team and people will willingly work for the greatest benefits of the greatest number.Originally posted by TooFree:I see nothing wrong on MM Lee speech on the model of seeking leaders from the same herd. Also leader is a personality whereas democracy is a system. A good leader knows what is a good system not vice versa.
He certainly is not someone who shifts and twists to try to find some justifications to describe his own narrow views to better serve his own narrow agenda of controls to hold on to power or ensure his own continuing look-good presentations.
A leadership that is based on legalistic controls relying on use of his legal and administrative powers to get his way will miss the larger social cultural and economic perspective in nation building thereby depriving people of greater value-adding solutions to problems. -
Well said, as the system is only robust insofar as to keep Singaporeans down - especially those who DO NOT belong to the INNER CIRCLE of a Political System designed by the POWER OF ONE.Originally posted by LazerLordz:A robust system will support the emergence of a good leader. No man can be greater than the institutions of a nation, and if he tries to be greater than them, then he has to be checked.
Does the POWER OF ONE believe in the Institutions that it has created for a Nation, when it feels itself as being greater than the Institutions it has created ?
Can the POWER OF ONE tolerate a situation where a mere institution - which it has created - can thwart or hinder its exercise of POWER ?
Herein lies the URGENT WAKE-UP CALL by those in the Opposition for checks against the POWER OF ONE.
After FORTY FIVE YEARS of continuous tinkering with the various institutions and political systems, the POWER OF ONE is now SUPREMELY ENTRENCHED - where it is even above the LAW, as the law is defined, drafted and amended by its members in parliament.
The Attorney-General Chamber is no longer representing Singaporeans, but is now a legal representative and adviser to the POWER OF ONE.
Who can Singaporeans depend on for the development of a brighter political future for Singapore ?
For the interim present, Singaporeans can only deserve the likes of JBJ and CSJ to challenge and shake the political system, when it cannot even bring itself to accept young and honest Singaporean Professionals - who are willing to sacrifice themselves by committing openly into Singapore politics as Alternative Representatives to Singaporeans. -
Your logic is really baffling me. You mean you really dont know what the MM was saying? How did you come to the conclusion that MM was referring to indegenious people as good leaders? You are twisting and misinterpreting him deliberately. Quite a poor taste. At least you should present a more coherent argument for your views.Originally posted by robertteh:This leadership talk is a double-talk with arguments for and against one type or another depending on circumstances.
If we are to listen to this type of wishy washy postulates it will mean leadership keeps changing depending on audience.
For example if leader is thrown up by the people from within then America should have been led by an aborigine and Singapore by a descendent of the Malay Achipalego. -
It is baffling that leadership has been variously defined at different times for different reasons e.g.Originally posted by #$%^&*:Your logic is really baffling me. You mean you really dont know what the MM was saying? How did you come to the conclusion that MM was referring to indegenious people as good leaders? You are twisting and misinterpreting him deliberately. Quite a poor taste. At least you should present a more coherent argument for your views.
(1) Vision and ability to translate vision to easy attainable implementation steps.
(2) Values or Cultures of people like Confucianism, family values, Asian Values,
MM Lee has appeared to change his concept of leadership over time using one criterion at one time and other criterion at other time.
At first he used to define leadership based on vision, intuitive foresight or insights of man but later in terms of values in Confucianism, and Asian values of some kind.
Then came the Asian Financial crisis when people were trying to find out the causes of malpractices and wrong doings in Asian societies leading to such crisis. It was found that self-centredness which often accompanied the leadership beliefs was one of the fundamental or root cause of the crisis.
To avoid another Asian Financial crisis, obviously the solution is good corporate governance where leaders would subject themselves to tests of accountability and transparency in whatever they may be leading and doing and implementing.
In this way, leadership would then be redefined to include accountability and good corporate governance. So the constant changing tacks from vision to values in describing or characterising leadership and how leaders can be better thrown up or identified by society is baffling.
How could good leaders be identified, chosen is therefore a multifarious issue and problem and not just based on circumstances or cultures or needs of some kind.
How leaders could be better identified and chosen as mentioned by MM Lee in his latest speeches has been discussed so many times.
Is autocracy a better way to identify future leaders or is democracy better at identifying leaders from within society based on circumstnace, cultures etc.?
In addition, greatness of leadership or government is not dependent on singular factors like vision of leaders but their ability to implement their visions.
Leadership or governance is not just about values or cultures of people.
Accident of birth, and vision were not sufficient guarantee for our continuous success.
There is a need to democratise and open up and be accountable in identifying or throwing up leaders of visions, implementation ability or accidents of births, through accountable local or municipal or national election process or democratic election processes.
It is baffling us to have our leaders changing so often their thinking about leadership and good government from vision to values of people and not be able to see that finally it is collective leadership, implementation leadership, accountability and good corporate governance and commitments to inculcation of social and cultural values and democratic equitable election processes that hold the final answer. -
These changes in positions had to happen as one grows from a confident young man striding out to take on the whole World; then turning into a mature middle-age with established power in hand; and moving into the twilight years of one's Life - when the reality of one's finite abilities stare one in the face.
Can we blame an Old Man looking at the edge of a Life Time Work, and frustrated with the fact that Life is only finite ?
Is there anyway for an INFINITELY strong leader to be found ?
Can a leader be cooked up in an artificial environment to test human endurance and alertness - in any and every scenario that can be drawn up ?
Leadership qualities will flow from an individual, who is willing to stand up and be counted; with the qualities of intelligence, diligence, intellectual alertness and stamina, and the circumspect wisdom to listen and act with care and concern towards all around.
The strife and pain of World War 2 brought into public eye the Singaporean leadership in Lim Bo Seng - Commander of Force 136; and the likes of Lieutenant Adnan - who commanded a Platoon from the Malay Regiment to resist and delay the Japanese Final Assault with great loss to the Japanese and sacrifice from the Malay Regiment.
The turmoil of the 1950s - immediately after WW-2 - was such a circumstance that brought up the best in Singaporean, with the likes of David Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, Chia Thye Poh, Lee Siew Choh, Devan Nair, Lim Kim San, Rajaratnam, Toh Chin Chye, Goh Keng Swee; and of course LKY, who was concerned with the political competition and challenges posed by David Marshall, Lim Chin Siong, Chia Thye Poh, Lee Siew Choh, who would not join hands with him, unlike the others.
Singapore may not necessary have a repeat of the 1950 scenario to draw out the best qualified Singaporeans, but surely the tight and controlled environment that require the "inbreeding methods" employed by the POWER OF ONE will surely lead Singapore down the road of regression ?
Are we not already into the second decade of this road to regression - which started with the first economic downturn in 1987, with the beginning of the second downturn having started in 1997 and continuing through 2002 ?
In this uncertain circumstances, some Singaporean may appear to provide new leaderships to inject new vitality and refreshing gust into Singapore Life. -
What is leadership? Is it talents, insight, forsight and some general assumptions ?
This subject has been debated frequently but is it clearly established that good leaders are who are being asked to accept or believe - people who are scholars, men of vision, foresight, insight?
What kind of leaders do we choose in practice anyway? It can be seen that we are choosing leaders based on prospect of their receiving million-dollar salary, academic intellect and elitism, some past achievements and glory, moral uprightness or nobility of spirit?
It would appear that we have been overtaken by pragmatism where leaders have long decided that leaders are not those with the passion to serve the people or ability to implement major upgrading or improvements but scholars who should be enticed to by million-dollar salaries, and others possessing some look-good presentations.
Despite many instances of past business failures as unvealed by the Asian Financial crisis as being caused by self-centredness associated with autocratic leadership system we seem to be going back again and again to the conceptual leadership factor for solutions to our problems.
But look again, have our leaders so based on such conceptual academic leadership helped us to attain greater success apart from the initial success of the 1970s? Have they subsequently delivered a more value-added technology-driven economy as promised over many years.
Have they solved the "20 major policy errots of the government" as posted to the Feedback Unit? Have they tackled the high cost of living and upgraded our fundamental economic competitiveness given all the past three or four major economic restructuring exercises?
Wages of ordinary workers have dropped to the third world since 1997s. Property prics have dropped 30% from the peak for 10 years now.
I remember the Ministers kept saying that the government could not do anything except to wait indefinitely for the world economy to recover. Now when the world economy recovers finally in 2004, they started claiming about their leadership and talent for their past 40 years of achievements without mention of their own failures in economic restructuring. Is this true leadership success or basking in past initial glory or complacency?
Shouldn't we try to give our new ministers some yardstick like that of Dr. Goh Keng Swee who could quietly behind the scene create restructuring to the whole economy during the 1960s-1970s.
Shouldn't true leaders keep up with new expectations and time and improve social, cultural and economic conditions to facilitate attainment of result through people participations in every field.
For a start, I would like to see solid and concrete programs consistently implemented such as the following:-
(1) Identify new goals and objectives, and implement new technology start-ups.
(2) Set work processes which will empower workers in knowledge application, mass participation to bring about competitiveness.
They should stop the old one-size-fit-all pro-foreign investment and employment policies which have constrained the growth of our own domestic economy and our own talented citizens.
There ought to be readiness to change past legalistic controls to help unleashing opportunities in every field and infusing of practical knowledge application by the ordinary citizens.
LEADERSHIP QUALITIES IN THE NEW AGE
Leaders of the new age must not be people who possess the highest academic qualifications but people who have been tested or shown ability to implement policies and programs to transform the economy to value-added technology-driven model and motivate people in all their actual work performance:-
(1) Passion,
(2) Inspire and Motivate followers,
(3) Set up work processes for coordination and knowledge application.
(4) Implement policies and decisions to upgrade the economy.
(5) Accountability and Transparency
(6) Collective leadership.
(7) Integrity of system and processes.
HUMILITY AND RELIABILITY
The constitution should be reviewed to make the government embrace social and cultural sphere of governance and more accountable so as to encourage greater participation and knowledge application.
IMPLEMENTATION ABILITY THE KEY
Education is only the basic. Beyond the grades there is a larger sphere of knowledge application by all students and workers. Applying existing knowledge within works and education is as important as obtaining more degrees and more education for the sake of look-good presentation.
The leaders must also have ability to maximise use of its available resources e.g. the empty lands, vacant factories, the unemployed, and under-employed, idle capitals to use them to fuel the next phase of expansion to attain value-adding competitiveness.
Leaders should be paid reasonable salaries consistent with their performance not highest salaries to prevent corruption as corruption happens not because of one factor or financial situation alone. It is not apple-to-apple comparison to benchmark private sector's highest salaries to the public sector.
Finally the past government policies have been over-emphasising on individual talents or leadership. Individualism is not pro-people or pro-efficiency. Collective leadership and group creativity will provide better long-term solution which will lead to large-scale practical knowledge application.
Leaders must be prepared to serve selflessly with passion to attain the above-mentioned objectives and purposes in order to build a cosmopolitan and inclusive society. -
What is the difference between a philospher and a leader?
Philosphers like to talk and talk and talk with fanciful idealistic system but never get things done. Whereas leaders work and work and work to get things moving. -
Philosophers seldom talk as much as ordinary folks.Originally posted by TooFree:What is the difference between a philospher and a leader?
Philosphers like to talk and talk and talk with fanciful idealistic system but never get things done. Whereas leaders work and work and work to get things moving.
Do Philosophers have any time for idleness, when their intellect has to do with lofty ideals, and thinking of ways for such concepts to be reached ?
If Leaders must work, and work, and work, and work - can such a Person be any Leader ? Will not such a workaholic be no better than any ordinary worker ?
A Leader is one who takes command, and turn chaos into order, desparation into hope, surrender into determination; such a person will be the one who will be able to inspire those who are uninspiring, and fire the engines of desire in those who have no minds of their own to achieve anything.
A Leader is one who knows how to use the combine strengths of everyone so as to achieve the common good.
A Leader is one who knows how to delegate, manage the efforts, and stay focus on a distant star, making corrections to navigate everyone out of danger and difficulties as the distant star gets clearer and nearer.
A Leader is one - who is altruistically selfless, generous, impartial, strong, attentive, diligent, determined, entrepreneurial, resourceful, circumspect in judgment, alertfully cautious, and intelligently adventurous without being reckless.
Is such talent so rare in Singapore ?
Singapore had seen the community leadership from several reknown philanthropists of the 1950s and 1960s; but somehow such successful personalities became a rare commodity during the subsequent FORTY-FIVE YEARS of 'communisitic rule' by the POWER OF ONE - in which nearly all private entrepreneurial activities seems to have diminished with competition by the State; and all private wealth hoarded by the State through high estate duties.
Where are the wealth from Tan Kah Kee, Lee Kong Chian, Aw Boon Par & Aw Boon Haw, the Run-Me Shaw & Run-Run Shaw that will allow their respective successor generations to continue - just to name a few who shone so bright during the Colonial Days.
If LKY's dogma of the genetic transfer of superiority from one generation to another is correct, surely Singapore Talent Pool of Leadership is not small ?
Could the loss or reduction of such a pool due to other factors that have driven the talented from a shrinking pool, that is purposefully controlled, manipulated, and made dependent on ONE SOURCE ?
The Colonial Government did not see such strong local community leaders as a political threat, and were fortunate to have such strong personalities to grow from strength to strength so as to help the Community.
Can the POWER OF ONE be as generous and tolerant as the Colonial Government - towards such independently wealthy families in providing altruistic social and community leadership, and not fear the private financial support that can be given to Alternative Political Party other then the POWER OF ONE ? -
-
There is something very wrong with leadership if people have to kick the cans !!!
-
lol,yes,i also find Goh Chok Tong "woody".Although Lou Lee dont like him,he still act loyal infront of him.What a nerd!!!!Originally posted by Atobe:Talking at a tangent, was he not referring to his own SON - whom he always believe to be the most worthy successor to himself - as ex-PM GCT was not exactly his first choice, and whom he found to be 'woody'. [/color]