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?