Did this article appeared in the
Straits Times - a speech from a NUS Professor on the merits of SM
LKY retirement ?
Bye bye Professor ?
Time for
Senior Minister to retire! (yawning_bread) 31 January 2004
The Senior Minister's great achievement when he was Prime
Minister for three decades 1959 to 1990 is history. Its very
difficult for anyone to believe that anything will really change if
he sticks around. Singapore urgently needs real drastic changes,
paradigm shifts!
Sociology Professor Chua Beng Huat was reported by the Straits
Times to have said, at a seminar organized by the Institute of
Policy Studies earlier this month,
"He should just go." "He" was Senior
Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
No one else picked it up. No follow-up commentary in the press. Yet
I am sure Chua spoke for a great majority of Singaporeans.
Without detracting from his great achievement when he was Prime
Minister for three decades 1959 1990, today, Lee has become a
liability.
Two gaffes last September were widely noticed by the public, though
once again, the media were too restrained to call them
gaffes.
Nearly a diplomatic
incident
His wife, Mrs Lee, had a stroke while in London. She was rushed to
hospital, but was put in a queue for a brain scan. Lee phoned Tony
Blair to ask for his assistance, and later, on his return to
Singapore, publicly expressed thanks to the British PM for helping
her jump the queue.
Blair's office was aghast. They denied that he or his staff did any
such thing. There would have been uproar from the British public if
they thought their Prime Minister participated in an act that could
be described as an abuse of power.
The thought never seemed to have occurred to our Senior
Minister.
Nearly a domestic
incident
The Singapore doctors who rushed to London to attend to Mrs Lee had
some disagreement with the British doctors. (The Straits Times was
later to quote the Singapore doctors casting aspersions on the
competence and professionalism of the UK team). They decided to fly
her back to Singapore as soon as she was stabilised.
A Singapore Airlines flight was chosen, and all its first class and
business class passengers were asked to take another flight [1].
The plane was then converted into a flying hospital to take her
back.
On his return, Lee publicly praised Singapore Airlines for being so
prompt and efficient in converting the aircraft and responding to
an urgent need. The mainstream press duly carried his praises and
once more cheered the flag carrier.
On the bulletin boards, some upstart asked, well who's going to pay
for that flight? Why should Singapore Airlines, a publicly-listed
company with quite a few private shareholders, bear the cost?
After a few days, the Senior Minister's Office said that Lee would
pay for the flight. Payment had been offered before the talk
appeared on the bulletin board, it claimed. True or not, we don't
know. Believed or not, is another matter.
Blind
spots
Both instances were serious blind spots, easily attributable to
being in power, and having his way, for too long. The perks of
rank, which would be unacceptable in other democracies, are quietly
allowed to slip through. This is what happens when a towering
figure dominates the political scene, when opposition parties are
nearly snuffed out, and worse, when he has neutered the
media.
We came close to a diplomatic accident with Britain. We nearly
stepped onto a landmine exploding in the face of the entire
government for abuse of priviledge, and this, at a time when the
government's credibility was already stretched thin by the
continuing economic gloom.
Undermining the institutional
legacy
In September too, Lee suddenly announced that even after his son
Lee Hsien Loong became Prime Minister, and after Goh Chok Tong had
retired, he would still remain as Senior Minister.
At one stroke he damaged a political institution that of cabinet
government. The right thing to say would have been, "whether I stay
in the cabinet or not is not for me to say, but for the future
Prime Minister to decide if I can be of help."
Diplomatic politesse it certainly is, but it at least preserves the
figleaf of the primacy of the PM's position. But, no. Lee decided
he would stay and said it out loud.
Reminding all of the
impossibility of change
The style of the announcement aside, the fact that he stays on is
the grosser liability. It is very difficult for anyone to believe
that anything will really change in Singapore if he sticks
around.
Perceptions and sentiment are
very important.
For example, look at Thailand. Thaksin's program is far from
complete. Hindsight might even judge his fiscal policies reckless.
But through style alone, he has turned economic pessimism to hope.
And there's a buoyancy that is giving that country a rare, rare
thing a virtuous cycle.
Singapore? Most observers think we need some really drastic
changes, some paradigm shifts, if you'd forgive an overused term.
But most observers also think, it's not happening. Nothing is going
to change down here, except most grudgingly, always too little, too
late, because nothing changes up there.
Adding
value
Once in a while, the press reports of some intervention by Lee in
important matters of state. One is supposed to get the impression,
that if not for him, such matters would not be well handled.
A few years ago, the Singapore government was getting the short end
of the stick in the Suzhou Industrial Park venture, beaten at its
own game by the Suzhou municipal authorities. At the height of the
impasse, there was much trumpeting that Lee communicated directly
with Jiang Zemin, and got Jiang's commitment to rein the municipal
brats in.
As far was we, the public, can tell, nothing resulted. And are we
to be surprised? Jiang was running a country of 1.5 billion people
poised precariously between economic boom and social catastrophe!
He had his own mountain of a problem to deal with: his own
succession. What was Suzhou Industrial Park compared to all that?
Who was Lee compared to all that?
Then there was Malaysia, Mahathir and the water supply problem. Lee
wrote notes to Mahathir. Mahathir wrote back, and then changed his
mind. The problem was the personality of Mahathir, and there was
nothing that Lee could have done about that.
Now we have Lee saying he is personally taking on the Singapore
Airlines pilots, to make sure they don't stand in the way of needed
restructuring by the airline, in the face of low-cost competitors.
Don't we have another cabinet minister whose portfolio includes air
transport? Are we saying the other ministers are incapable of
handling the situation? If they are, then what's with all the
boasting about getting the best and brightest to serve as the PAP
team?
I am looking hard to see where Lee adds value today, not
yesterday. I can't find it. I hardly need to look
where he subtracts value.
How to add value then? There is more dignity in going than
hanging on.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sources and Relevant Links:
Yawning Bread Adding value January 2004
Sg-Review Adding value 26 January 2004
yawning_bread 'Asian' means we have to live with hypocrisy and
paralysis January 2004
The Singapore government is still attached to an outmoded model of
a paternalistic family, just as it is still attached to the rather
racist idea that people should be defined by their racial
origins.
Do we believe citizens should be treated equally regardless of
race, sex, language, religion? How do we extend this principle to
other dimensions of humanness, such as age, disability, sexuality?
How are present laws and policies and ideology -- at variance
with these fundamental principles? Does this government believe in
social justice?
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=2293
