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, littlespeck.com
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.
yes, were they not told of the severe lesson on complacency?