The politicians must have been discussing this issue for many years now.
Choices and alternatives examined:
(1) Distributive leadership - collective and decentralized governing by all under the control and guidance of the cabinet.
(Impractical, technocrats are just unable to convince the leaders that past policies are no longer working..where there is no new stronger alternatives, the past policies will stay in place...this may be the current leadership...afraid to change and unable to change so status quo and let it be.. )
(2) Instituionalization of all ministries and departments embracing private sector's CSOs and NGOs to give an appearance of people's participation with inputs from various people's feedback channels.
(Impractical, leaders cannot stand any negative inputs which are counter to existing or past policies ..all ministries and private CSOs and NGOs are found wanting and disarray ...leaders again have to fire the shots from the hip reacting to anything not to their liking or not in conformity to past policies..)
(3) Decentralize responsibilities to heavy-weights of ministers supported by hands-on A STRONG MIDDLE MANAGEMENT TEAM who would practise SIM KEE BOON type of 12-minute turn-around of cargo belts at Changi Airport or LIM KIM SAN TYPE who would build 40,000 units of low-cost housing a year without excuses as given by the current batch of technocrats.
The emphasis is MIDDLE MANAGEMENT TEAM AND HOW to get RESULT..how to upgrade to VALUE-ADDING TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN AND SETTING TARGETS TO BE ACHIEVED WITHIN THE YEAR AND NEW TECHNOLOGY START-UPS, launching of new products wanted by world and brand names that sell across the world like Toyota or Nokia..
So which is the choice and alternative our leaders want? Any actions? Any targets ? Or are they letting the technocrats come up with more excuses and look-good justifications like China and India factors or older Singaporeans being unable to keep up or younger ones not playing their part or being too lazy or quitters...