Constructing Singapore: "pragmatism" and
personalised power
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Singapore Democrats
Below are excerpts from
Constructing Singapore: Elitism, Ethnicity and the
Nation-Building Project by Michael D. Barr &
Zlatko Skrbis
The legitimating myth of the primacy of innovative,
problem-solving 'talent', unearthed through 'meritocracy' and the
quest for ever-higher levels of organisational efficiency in all
aspects of society, business and government operates in tandem with
another legitimating myth: that the government operates in a purely
rational, scientific, problem-solving manner, free of ideological
considerations. The mantra for this plank of legitimation is
the purest distillation of technocratic ideology:
'pragmatism'. Talk to Singaporeans and they will assure you
that the government is 'pragmatic', that Singaporeans are
'pragmatic', and that even if there are problems and faults in
outcomes, the Singapore system of meritocracy and 'pragmatic
government' is only 'logical'. This is one of the main features
that give Singaporeans a perception of their special place in the
world. Singapore is tiny, but while most of the world is
bound by 'ideology' and 'politics', Singaporeans punch above their
weight because they operate as a 'pragmatic' and inherently logical
meritocracy.
Of course, the argument is specious. Far from being the
distillation of impartial rationality, the Singapore system of
governance is systemically pervaded with ideological, social,
ethnic and class biases. Yet the denial of the operation of
ideology, or even politics, in the practice of government has a
direct and profound effect on politics.
It restricts the space for legitimate social and political
discourse, de-legitimizing the interrogation of aspects of the
Singapore system that lie beyond the restrictive parameters of
efficiency and effectiveness.
...Days after taking up the premiership Lee Hsien Loong revealed
that he had been closely involved in bringing them ( Mr Khaw Boon
Wan and Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam) into Cabinet while he was still
Deputy Prime Minister.
These three men are the epitome of the Singapore technocrat, but
their collective story -- and particularly the story of Lee Hsien
Loong -- demonstrates a central feature of the Singapore system of
governance that is not celebrated by the regime. We refer to
the highly personalized nature of power, a feature that seriously
diminishes the transparency of the system and disrupts its
predictability. Patronage or sponsorship is a vitally
important element in the rise of anyone in the Singapore political
and administrative elite.
...The oil that lubricates the Singapore system is the exercise of
personal power. The personal character of power is
demonstrated without much effort in the person of Lee Kuan Yew, who
remains in Cabinet 15 years and two prime ministers after his
retirement from the premiership, with the creative title of
"Minister Mentor". He was previously "Senior Minister" for the
duration of Goh Chok Tong's premiership, but now Goh holds that
title.
His presence in Cabinet must be most uncomfortable for Lee Hsien
Loong. Not only does he have to work in the shadow of the
founding father of modern Singapore, as did his predecessor, but in
his case the man in question is his father. Even if Hsien
Loong is really his "own man", who is going to believe it?
Hsien Loong did not even get to announce this Cabinet
line-up. It was Lee Senior who announced that he would
continue in Cabinet for as long as he was fit and able to serve,
and it was Lee Senior who announced the new hierarchy (for protocol
purposes) within the Prime Minister's Office, whereby he would be
third in line behind Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Senior
Minister Goh Chok Tong. An anonymous "government official"
was left to confirm Lee Senior's announcement six days
later.
Why does Lee Hsien Loong not simply remove him from Cabinet, as is
his constitutional right? Why did not Goh Chok Tong do so
when he was Prime Minister? Regardless of the power they
notionally possess or possessed by virtue of their institutional
positions, they both understand that in or out of Cabinet, Lee Kuan
Yew retains his personal networks and his personal power.
He needs a seat in Cabinet only so that he can legally have open
access to Cabinet and other official papers and legally retain his
privileged links to the Internal Security Department. On
balance Lee Hsien Loong may not even want to see him gone yet
because his own power networks are still underpinned by his
father. In the case of Goh Chok Tong, his efforts as Prime
Minister to build a personal and independent power base were
thwarted by both Lees -- father as Senior Minister and son as
Deputy Prime Minister.
In the end, after being outflanked by father and son during a
property scandal involving the Lee family in 1996, Goh gave up
trying to exercise real power and handed the reins of domestic
government over to Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
In any case, Goh's efforts were never going to be very complete
because he had no relatives in government. It was probably
this characteristic more than any other that made him an ideal stop
gap between father and son.
The book is published by
NIAS (Nordic Institute of Asian Studies) Press
Paperback
304 pp
ISBN: 978-87-7694-029-4
Available from: NIAS Press, Amazon.com and Select Books
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/component/content/article
