When the President opened the new session of the 11th Parliament last week, he said, “Our political system is not set in stone. Singapore politics must evolve over time, as the world and our society change. It must respond to new circumstances and goals and continue to deliver good government to Singapore.”
True, the number of seats for the opposition would be increased to nine with the extension of the NCMP scheme, 3 more single seats will be up for grabs, and the size of some 6 member GRCs would be reduced. But these are not drastic changes. They are mere tweakings of the existing system. However, the media and the PAP would like Singaporeans to see these as huge concessions.
Why the Change?
On the surface of it, the PAP government appears very magnanimous. Smaller parties and independents now get to contest 3 more single seats. And the sizes of the GRCs are going to be reduced when all of us thought that they would be increased. Nevertheless, all these are nothing but to tell the skeptics to stop complaining about the unevenness of the playing field since the PAP has become so generous.
The PAP has never been known to give concessions to the opposition. With draconian laws still in place and demonstrations by even one person now illegal, and filming of such acts could lend one into trouble, it is obvious they are not becoming more democratic than what they were before.
People now feel that there is the need for more opposition voices in Parliament. The PAP is probably thinking that by giving all these token concessions, the voters, particularly the younger generation, who are now more outspoken and more ready to make changes, would be appeased.
Recently, there too has been talk of opposition unity and a lot of discussions on the ground to get the opposition parties to come together and contest the election as a united front. In fact the focus of many opposition members has been on winning a GRC in order to make a psychological breakthrough. The opposition parties realise they are too small in terms of resources, manpower and candidates to take on the PAP effectively without coming together.
What the Opposition Parties Need To Realise
However one thing is clear. The opposition parties must realize that they are like small market stalls struggling to make a living by scrambling against each other for morsels and yet have to compete against a giant hypermarket at the same time. With such an uneven contest, it is inevitable that Parliament will end up overwhelmingly dominated by the PAP with a motley bunch of 9 opposition MPs/NCMPs each with his/her own disparate views acting as discordant accompaniments — just like bells and cymbals in an orchestra.
In such a parliamentary composition, the PAP will always look like the only party capable of governing and the opposition will always look fragmented and not capable of providing an alternative.
The last Malaysian General Election should serve as a good lesson for our opposition parties. In the past, they were fragmented and bickered against each other and did not make much headway against the ruling party. Then in the last GE, they decided to fight the Barisan Nasional as a united front. Now they are truly an alternative, capable of ruling the country should the time come.
Thus, these changes that the PAP intends to introduce will not change the status quo. In fact, it will entrench the PAP even more. Unless the opposition parties realize this and get their act together, they would be consigned perpetually to the role of political bridesmaids.
The Change that is Needed
Sadly for Singapore and Singaporeans, the changes proposed will do nothing to improve their democratic aspirations. The lives of Singaporeans will not be less controlled, the climate of fear will not go away, and our citizens will remain politically immature and apathetic.
Rather than tweaking the electoral process to appease voters as opposed to giving them a choice, what Singapore needs is a system that can help us produce plenty of good political leaders and not worry about the dearth of it all the time.
For Singapore to succeed in future, we need to have strong political leaders, and strong political leaders can only be forged and emerge by fighting the electoral battles by themselves. Strong leaders will provide strong governments. For this reason, GRCs should be done away completely. Any political worth his salt should not be afraid to face the electorate and try to carry the ground by himself.
The right change to be made then is to provide an environment where the young are taught to have a sense of service to the country, to have a sense of justice, to have an independence of mind and to be imbued with a spirit to right wrongs and to allow ideas to contend so that leaders will naturally surface. The right change to be made is to remove the climate of fear that discourages political participation so that all these idealism can be expressed freely.
To ensure political participation, we need to make sure that people with leadership qualities will be able to fight an election fairly and also not ostracized for his political conviction. For this you need a free and fair press, a civil service that is seen to be neutral and an electoral process that does not catch a candidate by surprise by not giving him ample time to prepare.
We should be fair to all candidates who are willing to come forward to serve in what I consider to be the highest form of national service. If we can encourage the growth of political talents by treating everyone of whatever political affiliations fairly, there would not be any need to feel anxious about strong political leaders not emerging in future.
Then there would not be any need to keep thinking about how to keep the PAP entrenched in perpetuity in order to save Singapore.
Showing posts with label Political Leaders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Leaders. Show all posts
Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's Prime Minister
Lee Hsien Loong was sworn in as Singapore’s third Prime Minister on 12 August 2004.
Mr Lee was first elected Member of Parliament (MP) in 1984 as a candidate of the People's Action Party (PAP) in Teck Ghee Constituency and has been re-elected in five consecutive elections, most recently in 2006 as an MP for the Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency. He was elected to the Central Executive Committee of the PAP in 1986, and became its Secretary-General in 2004.
Mr Lee was appointed Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Ministry of Defence in 1984. He was confirmed as full Minister for Trade and Industry in 1987, and was concurrently Second Minister for Defence. In 1985, Mr Lee chaired the Economic Committee, which recommended changes to long established government policies to reduce business costs and revive the economy during a severe recession, as well as policies to foster longer term growth, including drastic reduction of corporate and personal taxes and the introduction of a consumption tax.
In 1990, Mr Lee was appointed Deputy Prime Minister with responsibilities for economic and civil service matters. He also concurrently served as Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) from 1998 until 2004, and Minister for Finance from 2001 until 2007.
At the MAS, Mr Lee initiated reforms to liberalise the financial sector and to shift the emphasis from one-size-fits-all regulation towards a lighter supervisory touch, relying more on disclosure and caveat emptor.
As Minister for Finance, he chaired the Economic Review Committee which in 2003 proposed strategies to further restructure and upgrade the economy. These included tax changes to make Singapore more competitive and a major restructuring of the Central Provident Fund system.
As Prime Minister, Mr Lee has launched policies to build a competitive economy and an inclusive society. He has introduced new programmes to upgrade the education system, invest in R&D and infrastructure, and transform the city and living environment. Mr Lee chairs the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC), an international panel to oversee Singapore’s major effort in promoting R&D.
Mr Lee’s Government is also strengthening Singapore’s social safety nets. Significant measures include the Workfare Incentive Scheme, which is a negative income tax to encourage and reward older, low-income workers, and Community Care (ComCare), an endowment fund to support a wide range of welfare and social programmes targeted at the poor.
By tackling long-term issues such as the ageing population and the pressures of globalisation, Mr Lee seeks to gear up Singapore to seize the abundant opportunities in a vibrant Asia.
Before entering politics, Mr Lee was a Brigadier-General in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). He attended the US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and held various staff and command posts, including the Director of the Joint Operations and Plans Directorate, and Chief of Staff of the General Staff.
Mr Lee was born on 10 February 1952 and completed his schooling in Singapore. He studied at the University of Cambridge, graduating with a Degree in Mathematics and a Diploma in Computer Science. He also obtained a Masters in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
First married to Wong Ming Yang in 1978, Mr Lee was widowed in 1982. He remarried Ho Ching in 1985. He has one daughter and three sons.
Mr Lee was first elected Member of Parliament (MP) in 1984 as a candidate of the People's Action Party (PAP) in Teck Ghee Constituency and has been re-elected in five consecutive elections, most recently in 2006 as an MP for the Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency. He was elected to the Central Executive Committee of the PAP in 1986, and became its Secretary-General in 2004.
Mr Lee was appointed Minister of State in the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) and the Ministry of Defence in 1984. He was confirmed as full Minister for Trade and Industry in 1987, and was concurrently Second Minister for Defence. In 1985, Mr Lee chaired the Economic Committee, which recommended changes to long established government policies to reduce business costs and revive the economy during a severe recession, as well as policies to foster longer term growth, including drastic reduction of corporate and personal taxes and the introduction of a consumption tax.
In 1990, Mr Lee was appointed Deputy Prime Minister with responsibilities for economic and civil service matters. He also concurrently served as Chairman of the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) from 1998 until 2004, and Minister for Finance from 2001 until 2007.
At the MAS, Mr Lee initiated reforms to liberalise the financial sector and to shift the emphasis from one-size-fits-all regulation towards a lighter supervisory touch, relying more on disclosure and caveat emptor.
As Minister for Finance, he chaired the Economic Review Committee which in 2003 proposed strategies to further restructure and upgrade the economy. These included tax changes to make Singapore more competitive and a major restructuring of the Central Provident Fund system.
As Prime Minister, Mr Lee has launched policies to build a competitive economy and an inclusive society. He has introduced new programmes to upgrade the education system, invest in R&D and infrastructure, and transform the city and living environment. Mr Lee chairs the Research, Innovation and Enterprise Council (RIEC), an international panel to oversee Singapore’s major effort in promoting R&D.
Mr Lee’s Government is also strengthening Singapore’s social safety nets. Significant measures include the Workfare Incentive Scheme, which is a negative income tax to encourage and reward older, low-income workers, and Community Care (ComCare), an endowment fund to support a wide range of welfare and social programmes targeted at the poor.
By tackling long-term issues such as the ageing population and the pressures of globalisation, Mr Lee seeks to gear up Singapore to seize the abundant opportunities in a vibrant Asia.
Before entering politics, Mr Lee was a Brigadier-General in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). He attended the US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and held various staff and command posts, including the Director of the Joint Operations and Plans Directorate, and Chief of Staff of the General Staff.
Mr Lee was born on 10 February 1952 and completed his schooling in Singapore. He studied at the University of Cambridge, graduating with a Degree in Mathematics and a Diploma in Computer Science. He also obtained a Masters in Public Administration from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
First married to Wong Ming Yang in 1978, Mr Lee was widowed in 1982. He remarried Ho Ching in 1985. He has one daughter and three sons.
Tharman Shanmugaratnam
Current Portfolio:
Minister for Education (MOE)
Second Minister for Finance (MOF)
Deputy Chairman of Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
Previous Portfolios:
Senior Minister of State for MTI & MOE (Nov 2001 to July 2003
Acting Minister for Education (Aug 2003 to Aug 2004)
Previous Vocation:
Managing Director of MAS
Major Policies Introduced:
Reforms to Education System (Less Streaming, More Fuzziness)
Amendment to “Bilingualism Policies”
Promotion of Singapore as an Education Hub
Increase Number of Universities in Singapore
Promotion of Co-Curricular Activities in Schools
Social-Emotional Learning in Schools
Launching of Singapore Management University
Corporatisation of NUS & NTU
Life-sciences Education Programme
Bicultural Studies Programme
Compulsory Education Act
“Sticky” Point:
Ironically, his “stickiest” point was not during his time in politics but outside. December 1992, he was one of the five charged under the Official Secrets Act. The charges follow a 29 June 1992 Business Times article, headlined “2nd qtr: Flash estimates point to below 5pc growth” and written by correspondent Anna Teo, which said the early indications were of second-quarter growth of 4.6 to 4.8 per cent. The government later announced a growth figure of 4.7 per cent for the quarter. Tharman was charged with unlawfully communicating the flash estimate of 4.6 per cent given to him in confidence by the Department of Statistics to Mr Bhaskaran who faces three charges - receiving the information, and passing it on to Raymond Foo and BT senior correspondent Kenneth James.
The case lasted almost 16 months until March 1994 when the verdict was out. According to the AFP article dated 31 March 1994:
“The defendants are Business Times editor Patrick Daniel, 39, its technology editor Kenneth James, 46, Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) director Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 36, and Crosby Securities economists Manu Bhaskaran, 36, and Raymond Foo, 29.
The prosecution claimed Crosby's Bhaskaran saw the secret estimate in a MAS report that Shanmugaratnam carried for reference during a meeting with him on June 19, 1992.
Bhaskaran is accused of passing the estimate to his colleague Foo and to James at the Business Times.
MAS's Shanmugaratnam is charged with handling secret information in a way that endangered its secrecy. Bhaskaran, Foo, Daniel and James are charged with obtaining the classified estimate from a government source and communicating it. All five have denied the charges.”
On 31 March 1994, the verdict was out. Since the court had found “it was open to the prosecution not to accept the court's finding of no communication, but having given its consent and drafted an amended charge, it has accepted the court's finding of no communication by Shanmugaratnam to Bhaskaran”. Thus, Tharman was only fined S$1,500 (US$955) on one charge of handling secret information in such a way as to endanger its secrecy.
This incident was the talking point of the 2001 General Elections, but had no effect on the electorates at Jurong GRC. Tharman and the PAP team resoundingly defeated SDP (led by Chee Soon Juan) garnering 79.75% of the votes. It must be said that this OSA incident did traumatized him somewhat. However, he has recovered well from it and did a reasonably good job in a very unpopular Ministry (of Education). If you are interested in the full media reports of Tharman’s OSA cases, let me know via email.
Media Image:
In the media, he was always seen as the cool, calm and collected Minister. Articulated in words and responded well in dialogues and interviews. Comparatively to other new Ministers, he has gotten one of the most media spotlight.
Final Note:
Tharman meteoric rise is quite counter-intuitive. 14 years ago, he was involved in a highly-publicized criminal case and now, he is the Second Finance Minister. For people who are closed to him, would not have found it surprising. He is quite the same person as he is behind the scenes to in front of the media. He is eloquent, deep and methodical thinker, cool in the face of storm and well-liked by his followers.
Having taken over a “much-hated” Ministry, the Ministry of Education, Tharman has done quite a fair job in gradually removing the detested streaming system. To many, it seemed like a simple task for a Minister to direct the change but this is not the case in reality. While most might find it a necessary move to remove the streaming system, executing the change and not letting the public perceiving that it was a policy-gone-wrong is no simple feat. To execute it, he has to be careful not to be seen as correcting the ex-Education Ministers’ (some of them are still in Cabinet) policies. To add to the challenge, Singaporean parents are one of the world’s most difficult to satisfy bunch of people.
Despite these challenges, he has done a smooth job with relatively less troubles. I think there is room for progress for Tharman and he might take on more heavy-weight portfolios in the coming future.
Minister for Education (MOE)
Second Minister for Finance (MOF)
Deputy Chairman of Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS)
Previous Portfolios:
Senior Minister of State for MTI & MOE (Nov 2001 to July 2003
Acting Minister for Education (Aug 2003 to Aug 2004)
Previous Vocation:
Managing Director of MAS
Major Policies Introduced:
Reforms to Education System (Less Streaming, More Fuzziness)
Amendment to “Bilingualism Policies”
Promotion of Singapore as an Education Hub
Increase Number of Universities in Singapore
Promotion of Co-Curricular Activities in Schools
Social-Emotional Learning in Schools
Launching of Singapore Management University
Corporatisation of NUS & NTU
Life-sciences Education Programme
Bicultural Studies Programme
Compulsory Education Act
“Sticky” Point:
Ironically, his “stickiest” point was not during his time in politics but outside. December 1992, he was one of the five charged under the Official Secrets Act. The charges follow a 29 June 1992 Business Times article, headlined “2nd qtr: Flash estimates point to below 5pc growth” and written by correspondent Anna Teo, which said the early indications were of second-quarter growth of 4.6 to 4.8 per cent. The government later announced a growth figure of 4.7 per cent for the quarter. Tharman was charged with unlawfully communicating the flash estimate of 4.6 per cent given to him in confidence by the Department of Statistics to Mr Bhaskaran who faces three charges - receiving the information, and passing it on to Raymond Foo and BT senior correspondent Kenneth James.
The case lasted almost 16 months until March 1994 when the verdict was out. According to the AFP article dated 31 March 1994:
“The defendants are Business Times editor Patrick Daniel, 39, its technology editor Kenneth James, 46, Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) director Tharman Shanmugaratnam, 36, and Crosby Securities economists Manu Bhaskaran, 36, and Raymond Foo, 29.
The prosecution claimed Crosby's Bhaskaran saw the secret estimate in a MAS report that Shanmugaratnam carried for reference during a meeting with him on June 19, 1992.
Bhaskaran is accused of passing the estimate to his colleague Foo and to James at the Business Times.
MAS's Shanmugaratnam is charged with handling secret information in a way that endangered its secrecy. Bhaskaran, Foo, Daniel and James are charged with obtaining the classified estimate from a government source and communicating it. All five have denied the charges.”
On 31 March 1994, the verdict was out. Since the court had found “it was open to the prosecution not to accept the court's finding of no communication, but having given its consent and drafted an amended charge, it has accepted the court's finding of no communication by Shanmugaratnam to Bhaskaran”. Thus, Tharman was only fined S$1,500 (US$955) on one charge of handling secret information in such a way as to endanger its secrecy.
This incident was the talking point of the 2001 General Elections, but had no effect on the electorates at Jurong GRC. Tharman and the PAP team resoundingly defeated SDP (led by Chee Soon Juan) garnering 79.75% of the votes. It must be said that this OSA incident did traumatized him somewhat. However, he has recovered well from it and did a reasonably good job in a very unpopular Ministry (of Education). If you are interested in the full media reports of Tharman’s OSA cases, let me know via email.
Media Image:
In the media, he was always seen as the cool, calm and collected Minister. Articulated in words and responded well in dialogues and interviews. Comparatively to other new Ministers, he has gotten one of the most media spotlight.
Final Note:
Tharman meteoric rise is quite counter-intuitive. 14 years ago, he was involved in a highly-publicized criminal case and now, he is the Second Finance Minister. For people who are closed to him, would not have found it surprising. He is quite the same person as he is behind the scenes to in front of the media. He is eloquent, deep and methodical thinker, cool in the face of storm and well-liked by his followers.
Having taken over a “much-hated” Ministry, the Ministry of Education, Tharman has done quite a fair job in gradually removing the detested streaming system. To many, it seemed like a simple task for a Minister to direct the change but this is not the case in reality. While most might find it a necessary move to remove the streaming system, executing the change and not letting the public perceiving that it was a policy-gone-wrong is no simple feat. To execute it, he has to be careful not to be seen as correcting the ex-Education Ministers’ (some of them are still in Cabinet) policies. To add to the challenge, Singaporean parents are one of the world’s most difficult to satisfy bunch of people.
Despite these challenges, he has done a smooth job with relatively less troubles. I think there is room for progress for Tharman and he might take on more heavy-weight portfolios in the coming future.
Dr Balaji Sadasivan
Current Portfolio:
Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (MFA), Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) Chairman of Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI)
Chairman of Service Improvement Unit (SIU)
Previous Portfolios:
Minister of State for Transport (Nov 2001 to August 2004)
Minister of State for Health (Nov 2001 to August 2004)
Minister of State for Environment (Nov 2001 to May 2003)
Senior Minister of State for Health (August 2004 to May 2006)
Previous Vocation:
Neurosurgeon, with external Law Degree
Before entering politics, he was the top neurosurgeon in Singapore and the only one that is recognized by the USA and Australian neuroscience boards. As full neurosurgeon in Singapore, he handles only the most serious brain surgeries but has a 100% success rate in operations.
When he was in Michigan, he was the neurosurgeon who extracts brain tissues (which has the most concentration of HIV virus) of HIV patients. Out of leisure, he also has a law degree. Unknown to many, he was a very successful entrepreneur as well. He had company that made medical surgery machines based on the global positioning to help the surgeon to make the incisions. Just when the company was about to take off and earn him millions in profit, he closed his businesses (he did not transfer it to any relatives) when became a Minister (as required by law). The pay he receives as a Minister is far less than what he earns as a neurosurgeon and director of the companies.
Major Policies Introduced:
General Election Campaigning (Podcasting and Internet Activities)
Curbing the Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease
Biological Agents and Toxin Bill
Entry into World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Member Board
Curbing Dengue Fever, Aedes Mosquitoes
Curbing Stroke Cases
Amendment to Telecommunications Act
Amendment to Broadcasting Act
Amendment to Electronic Transaction Act
Amendment to Maritime Offence Act
Amendment to Infectious Disease Act
HIV-AIDS Public Education Campaign
Bird-flu Prevention Campaign, and representative to WHO
Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act
Security at MRT Stations
Policies for Aging Population
Eldershield Care
Reduction in Cost of Ez-link Cards
“Sticky” Point:
Perhaps one of the stickiest issues is the issue that no health Ministers ever dare to deal with: HIV. The reason that most health Ministers in any countries avoided the issue of HIV is that no country or government has ever succeeded in combating the disease. Given his background in neurosurgeon and his time in Michigan where he deals with brain tissues (most concentration of HIV virus) of HIV patients, it seemed logical for a “doctor” to deal with the issue. However, politically, this is was a landmine for any Ministers. When dealing with HIV, inevitably, you will clash into the paths of gay rights activists and other “anti-discrimination” activists.
Of course, another more recent sticky issue is the prohibition of Podcasting and certain online political advertising during the nine days of GE. I’ve given my take on the issue and would just like to stressed that no additional laws have been implemented by is just an interpretation of existing laws (such as political film acts – introduced by George Yeo and PEA). I am going to make a bold prediction that laws governing the internet political commentary will be removed before the next GE.
Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (MFA), Information, Communication and the Arts (MICA) Chairman of Committee on Ageing Issues (CAI)
Chairman of Service Improvement Unit (SIU)
Previous Portfolios:
Minister of State for Transport (Nov 2001 to August 2004)
Minister of State for Health (Nov 2001 to August 2004)
Minister of State for Environment (Nov 2001 to May 2003)
Senior Minister of State for Health (August 2004 to May 2006)
Previous Vocation:
Neurosurgeon, with external Law Degree
Before entering politics, he was the top neurosurgeon in Singapore and the only one that is recognized by the USA and Australian neuroscience boards. As full neurosurgeon in Singapore, he handles only the most serious brain surgeries but has a 100% success rate in operations.
When he was in Michigan, he was the neurosurgeon who extracts brain tissues (which has the most concentration of HIV virus) of HIV patients. Out of leisure, he also has a law degree. Unknown to many, he was a very successful entrepreneur as well. He had company that made medical surgery machines based on the global positioning to help the surgeon to make the incisions. Just when the company was about to take off and earn him millions in profit, he closed his businesses (he did not transfer it to any relatives) when became a Minister (as required by law). The pay he receives as a Minister is far less than what he earns as a neurosurgeon and director of the companies.
Major Policies Introduced:
General Election Campaigning (Podcasting and Internet Activities)
Curbing the Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease
Biological Agents and Toxin Bill
Entry into World Health Organization (WHO) Executive Member Board
Curbing Dengue Fever, Aedes Mosquitoes
Curbing Stroke Cases
Amendment to Telecommunications Act
Amendment to Broadcasting Act
Amendment to Electronic Transaction Act
Amendment to Maritime Offence Act
Amendment to Infectious Disease Act
HIV-AIDS Public Education Campaign
Bird-flu Prevention Campaign, and representative to WHO
Human Cloning and Other Prohibited Practices Act
Security at MRT Stations
Policies for Aging Population
Eldershield Care
Reduction in Cost of Ez-link Cards
“Sticky” Point:
Perhaps one of the stickiest issues is the issue that no health Ministers ever dare to deal with: HIV. The reason that most health Ministers in any countries avoided the issue of HIV is that no country or government has ever succeeded in combating the disease. Given his background in neurosurgeon and his time in Michigan where he deals with brain tissues (most concentration of HIV virus) of HIV patients, it seemed logical for a “doctor” to deal with the issue. However, politically, this is was a landmine for any Ministers. When dealing with HIV, inevitably, you will clash into the paths of gay rights activists and other “anti-discrimination” activists.
Of course, another more recent sticky issue is the prohibition of Podcasting and certain online political advertising during the nine days of GE. I’ve given my take on the issue and would just like to stressed that no additional laws have been implemented by is just an interpretation of existing laws (such as political film acts – introduced by George Yeo and PEA). I am going to make a bold prediction that laws governing the internet political commentary will be removed before the next GE.
The PAP in crisis (Part 3): Lack of real political leaders in a team of technocrats
The Singapore model of government which was characterized by a high degree of efficiency with minimal fuss was often referred to by admirers and detractors alike as “Singapore inc”.
The entire government is run along the lines of a major corporate company with the Prime Minister as the CEO and the ministers as directors of various departments. With literally no opposition to speak of, Parliament became a mere “board meeting” to rubber-stamp decisions already made by the party honchos.
Of course this definition of “Singapore inc” is pretty narrow as it includes the mammoth bureaucracy and various government-linked companies connected in an intricate network of mutual interests and relations.
After 50 years of uninterrupted rule, the PAP has become the de facto government in Singapore and as the boundary between party and state becomes increasingly blurred, the political aspect of governance is relegated to the backdrop as ministers are handpicked from outside the party and parachuted almost immediately into their respective positions in government.
In a typical political party like the British Conservative Party, minister-wannabes usually spend the early years of their political careers learning the ropes, gaining experience, building bridges and soliciting grassroots support in the lower rungs of the party hierarchy. They will have to prove themselves as capable political leaders within the party first before they are allowed to assume positions in the government (in the event their party win the general elections).
The current PAP bypasses this essential route for budding politicians due to a weak party support base probably kept in this way deliberately by the senior leaders to pre-empt a challenge to their leadership from young turks in the party. Hence they are besieged by a perennial leadership crisis in which they have to resort to recruiting “talent” from outside the party.
The PAP’s definition of “talent” is based chiefly on one’s academic qualification, profession and status in society which explains their fondness for lawyers, doctors, engineers and senior civil servants. However, while these “talents” may be excellent leaders in their respective occupations, they may not necessarily good politicians.
A political leader is different from a CEO of a company. Governing a nation is not the same as running a business. Not only must a political leader be equipped with the basic credentials on paper, he/she must possess the uncanny ability to understand the concerns on the ground, communicate with the people and to inspire a generation to follow his/her leadership.
Some are born to be politicians while others are not, but what is certain is that all will need to have their political skills and acumen trained and honed by passing through the school of life and unfortunately, given the undemocratic nature of the PAP and Singapore’s political landscape, there is dearth of astute, intelligent and empathetic politicians in Singapore who can connect with the ground and lead the government bureaucracy at the same time.
The present PAP cabinet is full of technocrats, but short of political leaders. MM Lee, having gone through the baptism of fire is perhaps the only minister with real political experience. Technocrats are good followers, capable administrators and they can get things done quickly, but they are hardly the type of leaders who will capture the attention of the masses and motivate them to work for a worthy cause.
The lack of political training and experience is a key reason why PAP leaders have been making so many insensitive comments, outrageous gaffes and callous statements in public much to the amusement and fury of the citizenry.
From Prime Minister Lee’s infamous “fix the opposition” Freudian slip, Charles Chong’s deplorable “lesser mortal” and Tharman’s hilarious “strategic purpose” which would have caused politicians elsewhere to be cruxified by the people, the PAP is only saved by a combination of coincidental factors unique to Singapore – a dormant opposition, compliant media and apathetic citizenry.
The PAP’s current batch of MPs, especially the new recruits who did not have to face an electoral battle seriously lacked the charisma, communication skills, empathy, intelligence and most importantly, the “X-factor” of a good politician. They may be leaders in their respective professions and careers, but politics is a different ballgame altogether.
As they face no formidable challenges from the opposition, media or the people, they do not have the opportunity to hone their political skills.
MM Lee said recently that “political leaders cannot be trained, but must be found and be people with passion.” (Channel News Asia, 2 September 2009). He is only partly correct. Some are born politicians while others are forced to become politicians by the surrounding circumstances.
In his early days as a politician, MM Lee was outshadowed by his party colleague Lim Chin Siong who was a passionate and fiery orator. It was he who won over the Chinese support base for the PAP, enabling the PAP to win the legislative council elections in 1959. Being English educated and spending 3 out of the last 10 years in Britain, Harry Lee was not proficient in Mandarin and Hokkien, the lingua franca of Singapore in the 1950s.
Lee became a strong, authoritarian and some would say oppressive leader because he had to fight for his own political survival after being forced into a corner by the communists and leftists within the PAP who almost caused the government to collapse when 13 of them left to form the Barisan Sosialists. Without these traumatic experiences, Lee would never grow and develop as a political leader.
According to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the fittest will survive in nature and similiarly in the cruel world of politics, only the most talented, capable and astute politicians will make their mark on history. There is a Chinese saying: “Heroes are created by time and circumstances.” Lee himself is a product of the tumultuous period in Singapore’s history when a strong leader was needed to lift it out of political chaos and anarchy. He was the right person at the right place and time.
The PAP’s current leaders are like caged birds who have never flown in the sky as they did not go through the baptism of fire like the first generation leaders. To compound matters, there is no opposition for them to pit their skills against in Parliament. Without the intellectual rigors of parliamentary debates to stimulate their minds, many of them become inflexible, ossified and one-dimensional in their thoughts.
Likewise, the lack of any challenge to their positions mean that they can take the Singaporeans for granted without paying a political price for it. They do not have to court the people for their votes since they are almost guaranteed to win either via walkovers or safe seats in GRCs. Even in one-to-one fights, the opposition candidate is often of such low calibre that he/she will not pose a serious threat at all.
They do not have to be equipped with excellent communication and PR skills when dealing with the media because Singapore journalists will never dare to contradict or rebuke them. In the rare instances when a public gaffe is made, the faithful journalist can be expected to take the rap for “misquoting” their words since they are paid by SPH, a state-linked company. That’s why when our Prime Minister was interviewed by the western media, he always appeared awkward, uncomfortable and unnatural. Unlike the local media, foreign journalists usually minced no words in their questions which can be rather sharp, acerbic and cruel.
Our PAP MPs are highly protected “endangered species” in Singapore. Any forms of public display of disrespect or contempt for them will be immediately stamped out with the culprit being arrested and charged for a plethora of laws such as illegal assembly, rioting, harrassement, threatening a public official etc. Not too long ago, a mentally retarded teenager who slammed a chair against the glass door of a RC during a meeting with a PAP MP was arrested by the police on the same night though nobody was injured and no property was damaged. To spare the rod will spoil the child. How can the PAP expect its MPs to be trained as politicians when they are so pampered in such an artifically coistered environment without any challenges or dangers?
The lack of real political leaders among the younger MPs and ministers will mean that the old guards have to hang around longer than they should to help them learn the ropes. However, few will find a government led by group of octagenarians like the ex-Soviet Union inspiring. Even the Chinese Communist Party have set a limit to ages of their Politburo leaders. Under ex Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, an unwritten rule was introduced that the leaders more than the age of 70 will have to retire from all positions of public office “gracefully” out of their own personal accords which he personally led by example (though he held on to the coveted position of the Chairman of the Central Military Commission).
Singapore has produced many successful corporate leaders, technocrats and civil servants, but it has few capable politicians to speak of because of the politically apathetic environment in general, a disinterested and nonchalant citizenry, a controlled media and a system which does not promote political competition.
The PAP is facing a major leadership crisis that is largely of its own doing. The ruling elite want to find obedient, permissive and compliant “leaders” who are smart, capable and motivated at the same time, but this is simply impossible because real political leaders are their own men. They have their own ideas, visions and principles and they will never bend over to the will of others. Such a “leader” does not exist in reality at all.
On the other hand, if the PAP leadership were to appoint somebody with an independent streak to take over the reins of the party, it may risk internal turmoil because he may want to change certain rules and regulations which may affect the vested interests and legacy of some people.
Either way, the PAP’s crisis is Singapore’s crisis because it has dominated all institutions of Singapore to the extent that there are no viable alternatives waiting in the wings of the opposition to replace them. If the PAP should fail, then Singapore will surely fail for the party has entrenched itself deeply in all aspects of the state which cannot function without orders from the party.
In a way, the PAP is a victim of its own overwhelming success in maintaining and perpetuating its political hegemony over the years to the exclusion of its opponents and the eradication of any space for the meaningful expression of political dialogue, discourse and dissent in Singapore.
As ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said, the opposition is like a mirror for the government to see its own flaws. Without a robust, strong and credible opposition to check on it, the PAP has grown complacent, arrogant and confused after years of one-party rule for there is nowhere else in Singapore now for them to hear the brutal truth of their own deficiencies. The MPs are all yes-men, the media dare not criticize or offend them and no Singaporean will show any form of disrespect to them in public. Such a surreal scenario which masks the fault lines of our society does not bode well for Singapore’s future.
What will become of the PAP when the real power behind the throne finally passed on? Given its entrenched position, it will probably manage to continue its rule for a number of years. Singapore will still retain its economic superiority over its neigbhors while losing its slight edge now over its nearest competitors Hong Kong and Taiwan, but its inherent social tensions and divisions will worsen, caused partly by a government filled by technocrats who are grossly out of touch by the reality on the ground.
The entire government is run along the lines of a major corporate company with the Prime Minister as the CEO and the ministers as directors of various departments. With literally no opposition to speak of, Parliament became a mere “board meeting” to rubber-stamp decisions already made by the party honchos.
Of course this definition of “Singapore inc” is pretty narrow as it includes the mammoth bureaucracy and various government-linked companies connected in an intricate network of mutual interests and relations.
After 50 years of uninterrupted rule, the PAP has become the de facto government in Singapore and as the boundary between party and state becomes increasingly blurred, the political aspect of governance is relegated to the backdrop as ministers are handpicked from outside the party and parachuted almost immediately into their respective positions in government.
In a typical political party like the British Conservative Party, minister-wannabes usually spend the early years of their political careers learning the ropes, gaining experience, building bridges and soliciting grassroots support in the lower rungs of the party hierarchy. They will have to prove themselves as capable political leaders within the party first before they are allowed to assume positions in the government (in the event their party win the general elections).
The current PAP bypasses this essential route for budding politicians due to a weak party support base probably kept in this way deliberately by the senior leaders to pre-empt a challenge to their leadership from young turks in the party. Hence they are besieged by a perennial leadership crisis in which they have to resort to recruiting “talent” from outside the party.
The PAP’s definition of “talent” is based chiefly on one’s academic qualification, profession and status in society which explains their fondness for lawyers, doctors, engineers and senior civil servants. However, while these “talents” may be excellent leaders in their respective occupations, they may not necessarily good politicians.
A political leader is different from a CEO of a company. Governing a nation is not the same as running a business. Not only must a political leader be equipped with the basic credentials on paper, he/she must possess the uncanny ability to understand the concerns on the ground, communicate with the people and to inspire a generation to follow his/her leadership.
Some are born to be politicians while others are not, but what is certain is that all will need to have their political skills and acumen trained and honed by passing through the school of life and unfortunately, given the undemocratic nature of the PAP and Singapore’s political landscape, there is dearth of astute, intelligent and empathetic politicians in Singapore who can connect with the ground and lead the government bureaucracy at the same time.
The present PAP cabinet is full of technocrats, but short of political leaders. MM Lee, having gone through the baptism of fire is perhaps the only minister with real political experience. Technocrats are good followers, capable administrators and they can get things done quickly, but they are hardly the type of leaders who will capture the attention of the masses and motivate them to work for a worthy cause.
The lack of political training and experience is a key reason why PAP leaders have been making so many insensitive comments, outrageous gaffes and callous statements in public much to the amusement and fury of the citizenry.
From Prime Minister Lee’s infamous “fix the opposition” Freudian slip, Charles Chong’s deplorable “lesser mortal” and Tharman’s hilarious “strategic purpose” which would have caused politicians elsewhere to be cruxified by the people, the PAP is only saved by a combination of coincidental factors unique to Singapore – a dormant opposition, compliant media and apathetic citizenry.
The PAP’s current batch of MPs, especially the new recruits who did not have to face an electoral battle seriously lacked the charisma, communication skills, empathy, intelligence and most importantly, the “X-factor” of a good politician. They may be leaders in their respective professions and careers, but politics is a different ballgame altogether.
As they face no formidable challenges from the opposition, media or the people, they do not have the opportunity to hone their political skills.
MM Lee said recently that “political leaders cannot be trained, but must be found and be people with passion.” (Channel News Asia, 2 September 2009). He is only partly correct. Some are born politicians while others are forced to become politicians by the surrounding circumstances.
In his early days as a politician, MM Lee was outshadowed by his party colleague Lim Chin Siong who was a passionate and fiery orator. It was he who won over the Chinese support base for the PAP, enabling the PAP to win the legislative council elections in 1959. Being English educated and spending 3 out of the last 10 years in Britain, Harry Lee was not proficient in Mandarin and Hokkien, the lingua franca of Singapore in the 1950s.
Lee became a strong, authoritarian and some would say oppressive leader because he had to fight for his own political survival after being forced into a corner by the communists and leftists within the PAP who almost caused the government to collapse when 13 of them left to form the Barisan Sosialists. Without these traumatic experiences, Lee would never grow and develop as a political leader.
According to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, only the fittest will survive in nature and similiarly in the cruel world of politics, only the most talented, capable and astute politicians will make their mark on history. There is a Chinese saying: “Heroes are created by time and circumstances.” Lee himself is a product of the tumultuous period in Singapore’s history when a strong leader was needed to lift it out of political chaos and anarchy. He was the right person at the right place and time.
The PAP’s current leaders are like caged birds who have never flown in the sky as they did not go through the baptism of fire like the first generation leaders. To compound matters, there is no opposition for them to pit their skills against in Parliament. Without the intellectual rigors of parliamentary debates to stimulate their minds, many of them become inflexible, ossified and one-dimensional in their thoughts.
Likewise, the lack of any challenge to their positions mean that they can take the Singaporeans for granted without paying a political price for it. They do not have to court the people for their votes since they are almost guaranteed to win either via walkovers or safe seats in GRCs. Even in one-to-one fights, the opposition candidate is often of such low calibre that he/she will not pose a serious threat at all.
They do not have to be equipped with excellent communication and PR skills when dealing with the media because Singapore journalists will never dare to contradict or rebuke them. In the rare instances when a public gaffe is made, the faithful journalist can be expected to take the rap for “misquoting” their words since they are paid by SPH, a state-linked company. That’s why when our Prime Minister was interviewed by the western media, he always appeared awkward, uncomfortable and unnatural. Unlike the local media, foreign journalists usually minced no words in their questions which can be rather sharp, acerbic and cruel.
Our PAP MPs are highly protected “endangered species” in Singapore. Any forms of public display of disrespect or contempt for them will be immediately stamped out with the culprit being arrested and charged for a plethora of laws such as illegal assembly, rioting, harrassement, threatening a public official etc. Not too long ago, a mentally retarded teenager who slammed a chair against the glass door of a RC during a meeting with a PAP MP was arrested by the police on the same night though nobody was injured and no property was damaged. To spare the rod will spoil the child. How can the PAP expect its MPs to be trained as politicians when they are so pampered in such an artifically coistered environment without any challenges or dangers?
The lack of real political leaders among the younger MPs and ministers will mean that the old guards have to hang around longer than they should to help them learn the ropes. However, few will find a government led by group of octagenarians like the ex-Soviet Union inspiring. Even the Chinese Communist Party have set a limit to ages of their Politburo leaders. Under ex Paramount leader Deng Xiaoping, an unwritten rule was introduced that the leaders more than the age of 70 will have to retire from all positions of public office “gracefully” out of their own personal accords which he personally led by example (though he held on to the coveted position of the Chairman of the Central Military Commission).
Singapore has produced many successful corporate leaders, technocrats and civil servants, but it has few capable politicians to speak of because of the politically apathetic environment in general, a disinterested and nonchalant citizenry, a controlled media and a system which does not promote political competition.
The PAP is facing a major leadership crisis that is largely of its own doing. The ruling elite want to find obedient, permissive and compliant “leaders” who are smart, capable and motivated at the same time, but this is simply impossible because real political leaders are their own men. They have their own ideas, visions and principles and they will never bend over to the will of others. Such a “leader” does not exist in reality at all.
On the other hand, if the PAP leadership were to appoint somebody with an independent streak to take over the reins of the party, it may risk internal turmoil because he may want to change certain rules and regulations which may affect the vested interests and legacy of some people.
Either way, the PAP’s crisis is Singapore’s crisis because it has dominated all institutions of Singapore to the extent that there are no viable alternatives waiting in the wings of the opposition to replace them. If the PAP should fail, then Singapore will surely fail for the party has entrenched itself deeply in all aspects of the state which cannot function without orders from the party.
In a way, the PAP is a victim of its own overwhelming success in maintaining and perpetuating its political hegemony over the years to the exclusion of its opponents and the eradication of any space for the meaningful expression of political dialogue, discourse and dissent in Singapore.
As ex-Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad once said, the opposition is like a mirror for the government to see its own flaws. Without a robust, strong and credible opposition to check on it, the PAP has grown complacent, arrogant and confused after years of one-party rule for there is nowhere else in Singapore now for them to hear the brutal truth of their own deficiencies. The MPs are all yes-men, the media dare not criticize or offend them and no Singaporean will show any form of disrespect to them in public. Such a surreal scenario which masks the fault lines of our society does not bode well for Singapore’s future.
What will become of the PAP when the real power behind the throne finally passed on? Given its entrenched position, it will probably manage to continue its rule for a number of years. Singapore will still retain its economic superiority over its neigbhors while losing its slight edge now over its nearest competitors Hong Kong and Taiwan, but its inherent social tensions and divisions will worsen, caused partly by a government filled by technocrats who are grossly out of touch by the reality on the ground.
Lee Kuan Yew - Contribution to Singapore
Formation of PAP
Fifty years ago on 21 November 1954, a group of young men and women launched the PAP at the Victoria Memorial Hall. They had a clear mission: to fight for independence and build a multi-racial Singapore based on justice, equality and democracy.
Six months later, the PAP fought its first elections. It won three of the four seats it contested. Four years later, it won the 1959 General Elections to form the Government. The PAP has won every general election since then and the person who set up PAP is Lee Kuan Yew
Contribution to Singapore(with and without the PAP)
1. He built a building of Singapore which one of the world wealthiest building, despite the current economic turmoil. However, historically, Singapore always had good infrastructure; as a crown colony and an entrepot, it had a head start. Lee merely pushed this city state to its full potential.
2. Lee Kuan Yew was the president of a one-party system (PAP), and worked hard to keep it going on. So in a sense, he fought against democracy, since he effectively disallowed opposition parties. On the other hand, he had successfully converted Singapore from a third world country to a prosperous international place. That's the dilemma of his rule.
Lee Kuan yew fought for independence from the British so that Singapore will no longer be controlled by a British and be a independent country.
Lee Kuan yew introduced the CPF (Central Provident Fund) for those that had retired from their job and they could still get an amount of money every month for survival.
Fifty years ago on 21 November 1954, a group of young men and women launched the PAP at the Victoria Memorial Hall. They had a clear mission: to fight for independence and build a multi-racial Singapore based on justice, equality and democracy.
Six months later, the PAP fought its first elections. It won three of the four seats it contested. Four years later, it won the 1959 General Elections to form the Government. The PAP has won every general election since then and the person who set up PAP is Lee Kuan Yew
Contribution to Singapore(with and without the PAP)
1. He built a building of Singapore which one of the world wealthiest building, despite the current economic turmoil. However, historically, Singapore always had good infrastructure; as a crown colony and an entrepot, it had a head start. Lee merely pushed this city state to its full potential.
2. Lee Kuan Yew was the president of a one-party system (PAP), and worked hard to keep it going on. So in a sense, he fought against democracy, since he effectively disallowed opposition parties. On the other hand, he had successfully converted Singapore from a third world country to a prosperous international place. That's the dilemma of his rule.
Lee Kuan yew fought for independence from the British so that Singapore will no longer be controlled by a British and be a independent country.
Lee Kuan yew introduced the CPF (Central Provident Fund) for those that had retired from their job and they could still get an amount of money every month for survival.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)