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...