I'm back

9 Dec 09, 18:08

Singapore practises good governance, has strong leadership

December 8, 2009 by admin
Filed under Headlines

Why democracy is crucial for good governance and strong leadership

December 9, 2009 by Our Correspondent
Filed under Opinion, Politics

OPINION

During a speech made at the fifth Asia Economic Summit two days ago, Singapore deputy prime minister Wong Kan Seng said that good governance and strong leadership are the critical elements which underpins how the Singapore government steers its future forward.

According to Mr Wong, the Singapore government has distilled a set of principles on governance and leadership to guide its decision and policy-making over the years.

He listed five principles that the island republic applied successfully to run the city-state, namely, “Good, Clean Governance”, “Integrity and Meritocracy”, “Anticipate Change and Stay Relevant”, “Do What is Right, Not What is Popular” and the final one is “Leadership is Key.”

There was no mention about the collective will and rights of the people. What if the people do not agree with the government? Will it still go ahead and do what it thinks it is right? And how can we be sure that it is right all the time?

Mr Wong’s views encapsulate the mindset of the PAP which has promulgated a patriarchal if not autocratic form of government during its reign for the last fifty years – that the (economic) welfare of the people takes precedent over their political rights.

In the 1986 National Day rally, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said of his priorities in nation-building:

“What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend.”

The misperception that democracy is not compatible with good governance was perpetuated over time by the state media leading to a gradual numbing of the political consciousness of the citizenry which has grown to be completely clueless about their political rights as citizens.

Lee was to lecture a Japanese audience in Tokyo 6 years later that “Western” values of freedoms and liberties of the individual are not relevant to Asian societies:

“With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries…What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural backround, my values are for a government which is honest, effective and efficient.”

He was soon proven wrong a few years later when South Koreans voted for a democrat Kim Dae Jung to be its president and Taiwan made the final transition from a one-party state to a two-party system when Chen Shui Bian from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party won the presidency.

In 2004, Indonesia held its first free presidential elections which saw a former general Susilo Bambang-Yudhyono winning it and ushering a series of democratic reforms into the nation’s political system. Malaysia’s ruling Barisan Nasional coalition was denied its traditional two-thirds majority in the 2008 elections and just this year in Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party was voted out of office after more than fifty years.

As the above examples have shown clearly, “democracy” isn’t a western value, but a universal one which is critical to good governance and strong leadership of every nation.

Democracy is not an ideal form of government, but it is the least of all evils because it allows the people to partake actively in the political life of their nation, to have their opinions heard and reflected in the policy-making process and more importantly, to enable a diversity of views from across the political spectrum to be expressed within the constitutional set-up of the nation which facilitates sharing and orderly transfer of power from one group to another.

An aware, alert and active citizenry, supported by a free press, a robust civil society and an independent judiciary is the cornerstone of “good, clean” governance.

The government deliberates and decides on policies which will affect countless of people who are therefore in the best position to assess its performance.

What a government thinks is good for the nation may not be shared by its citizens. A government which does not listen to the people will tend to make mistakes with disastrous consequences for future generations.

For example, the government introduced the “Stop at two” policy in the 1970s to decrease the ballooning population of Singapore. It faced opposition from Singaporeans who were keen to have larger families back then, but was able to push the unpopular policy through because the people had no power to resist it and neither was there an opposition in parliament to force the ruling party into a debate on the issue.

Families who had more than two children were fined and denied education subsidies for the third child. Women with little education were encouraged not to have children and to get themselves sterilized.

The policy was implemented rather hastily and its spectacular success turned out to be a catastrophe now that our fertility rate has dropped below the replacement level and we have to import large number of foreigners to boost Singapore’s population thereby creating another set of problem altogether.

Had the government taken a step back then, solicited more feedback from the people and studied the long-term implications in detail, it might have tweaked the policy to avert the situation we find ourselves in today.

In the same speech, Mr Wong said that Singapore had also been consistently ranked among the top five least corrupt nations the past few years, and the scores in the survey were the result of a systematic effort by the government over the past 50 years, to weed out corruption.

While the efforts of the Singapore government to tackle corruption deserved to be praised, it is achieved largely because its founding leaders are honest, clean and incorruptible themselves rather than the strength of the Singapore political system itself.

When the father is in the house, every child will be quiet and obedient but the moment he leaves, all hell will break loose.

Human nature is unpredictable. Greed is inherent in every man and woman. The best bulwark against corruption is to have an institutionalized system of checks and balance in place to detect, expose and punish corrupted leaders and civil servants. It cannot be based solely on trust alone, as according to Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugarathan.

It is highly worrying that there is no opposition in parliament to hold the ruling party accountable, no free and independent media which dares to publish the wrong-doings of government leaders and no civil society to keep the people abreast of the current affairs of the nation.

The Singapore opposition is perenially weak, divided and ineffectual. There is only one print media company in Singapore which is controlled by the ruling party. All the grassroots organizations are under the charge of the Prime Minister who is the Chairman of the People’s Association and the Home Affairs Minister has the power to shut down any NGOs deemed “detrimental” to the nation’s interest.

Furthermore, the independence of the Singapore judiciary has been questioned by the esteemed International Bar Association Human Rights Institute and the economy of the nation is dominated by major state-linked companies owned indirectly by the government via its two sovereign wealth funds.

The over-concentration of power in the hands of a few in Singapore is a ticking time bomb. So long as its leaders are decent, honest and well-meaning individuals, Singapore will be able to practice “good governance” backed by “strong leadership” because it will be a breeze running a country when everybody sings to its tune including the subdued “opposition” in parliament.

What if a scheming, unscrupulous and dishonest leader is allowed to slip through into the establishment undetected in the future after our senior leaders have left the political stage? Who is going to expose him/her from power when he/she potentially controls every single institution of the country?

Until Mr Wong or the Prime Minister answers this crucial question, nobody can guarantee for sure that Singapore will continue to enjoy years of good governance in the next few decades.

Singapore’s archaic one-party system is grossly incompatible with its exalted status as a first-world economy. We are a long way off from building a system with clear separation of powers between the executive and the legislative as well as independent institutions outside the government which can check on possible abuses of power.

Absolute power may lead to good governance and strong leadership temporarily, but it will also corrupt absolutely in the absence of democratic principles and practices.

Miracles&Prophecies

9 Dec 09, 18:17

Singapore has neither democracy nor good governance. A dictatorship is never a government let alone good one. What you have is a familee run island where its resident could be killed on a whim by its elite lee kuan yew familee and cronies. A mobster island that relies on fraudulent and false image of being a democratic and respected country. Singapore as it is now under lee is the cancer of ASEAN. An illness.

I'm back

9 Dec 09, 18:21

Originally posted by Miracles&Prophecies:

Singapore has neither democracy nor good governance. A dictatorship is never a government let alone good one. What you have is a familee run island where its resident could be killed on a whim by its elite lee kuan yew familee and cronies. A mobster island that relies on fraudulent and false image of being a democratic and respected country. Singapore as it is now under lee is the cancer of ASEAN. An illness.

the problem is majority still trust them

we really need "change"

Miracles&Prophecies

9 Dec 09, 18:22

There's no independent judiciary system there's only lee and his cronies that could override anything. There's no professional and independent plice force there's only lee and his cronies that could overrride anything. There's no human living on the island there's only lee & his cronies and the masses as his subjects upon which lee and his cronies expect unconditional submission which makes anyone not counted among his cronies less than human deprived of the guarantee of human rights and a free will.

Scums are running Singapore.

I'm back

9 Dec 09, 18:26

that's why lky is a lawyer

his wife also lawyer if iam not wrong

Miracles&Prophecies

9 Dec 09, 18:32

Originally posted by I'm back:

the problem is majority still trust them

we really need "change"

I think the majority don't trust them but the majority are afraid of what change may bring them. Many fell for the lies that lee and familee are superhumans with super human capabilites to run the country like no other INCAPABLE OF MAKING MISTAKE and FREE FROM ANY CORRUPTION. But North Koreans have been taught more or less the same that their leaders are living God.

Some others fell for the lies that democracy would fail them miserably that freedom would create chaos and spell the doom of Singapore. This is all lies that's been spewed by the ruling party to justify their rule. EXCUSES without basis.

Some others tolerate these SCUMS as long as they are able to bring more than enough bread home. They've sold their soul to fill their stomach. What is a man with full stomach without a spirit??

Singapore is so small that like in Cuba dictatorship may last for a very long time simply due to the reason that population and dissent and dissident CONTROL can be carried out effectively more they can in much larger countries. As long as INTIMIDATION is perpetually carried out against oppositions, dissidents and EVEN WOULD BE dissidents the government(the dictator) would remain unchallenged and UNCHECKED which is what they wanted TOTAL POWER.

I'm back

9 Dec 09, 18:39

use soft and hard tactics on people

instil fear on their love one

ancient emperor pattern/style

1 - win people with positive,etc speech

2- use money to brainwash

3 - use power to control

if you have time, have a look at this http://taipingrebellion.com/

angel7030

9 Dec 09, 18:43

Please hor, i still have many big business in Singapore hor, dun go and cho cho people thinking into voting opposition, if you want, go ahead and vote them, thank you very much

Atobe

9 Dec 09, 19:24

Originally posted by angel7030:

Please hor, i still have many big business in Singapore hor, dun go and cho cho people thinking into voting opposition, if you want, go ahead and vote them, thank you very much

The clitoris of the Taiwanese 'hum' cannot stop wagging - after its tongue has lost the energy to continue - with its efforts as an "Attention Seeking Whore".

What other big business can a Taiwanese 'hum' possibly be deluding itself in having - wholesale trading in bananas and papayas as a complement to its flesh trade ?

Internet chat featuring its clitoris as the star attraction in the role of an "Attention Seeking Whore" ?

angel7030

9 Dec 09, 19:25

Go take yr medicines lah

Atobe

9 Dec 09, 21:19

Originally posted by angel7030:

Go take yr medicines lah

Your clitoris has been clipped, treat it well with the medicine dispense to you from the Institute of Miscreant Hums that was specially set up to handle Taiwanese 'hum' dying to be a Singapore Citizen.

Man!x

9 Dec 09, 22:12

The only democracy that Singapore has is only in words. Autocracy and oligarchy is the real thing. Besides, i wonder which democratic country has a party where the father plan for his son to be PM albeit after another person held the position. And created a new position out of thin air just to maintain control. Where is the constitutional basis in that?

Howlheje

9 Dec 09, 22:34

Wait a minute,who is Wong Kan Seng?

Is he the minister that let terrorist Mas Selemat to escape from Singapore prison?

LOL,still dare talk about good governance n strong leadership,haha...

Arapahoe

10 Dec 09, 03:04

I think there is a different between having to actively stride for "Good Governance and Strong leadership"

Rather than claiming he has leadership and demonstrate Good Governance.....

So funny to see ones called themselved "Good Governance and strong leadership" when others stand on the sideline....try doing that infront of a shareholders meeting....probably got bananas and eggs!

Arapahoe

10 Dec 09, 03:06

Originally posted by Howlheje:

Wait a minute,who is Wong Kan Seng?

Is he the minister that let terrorist Mas Selemat to escape from Singapore prison?

LOL,still dare talk about good governance n strong leadership,haha...

i know talk about irony.....to demonstrate leadership he should removed himself....

Atobe

10 Dec 09, 05:00

Someone once said that - "A Lie repeated often enough will soon be taken to be the Truth" - especially when spoken by those who paint themselves to be honorable.

“Good, Clean Governance”, “Integrity and Meritocracy”, “Anticipate Change and Stay Relevant”, “Do What is Right, Not What is Popular” and the final one is “Leadership is Key.” ?

If that is all that concerns "the Singapore Government steering its future forward" - this will explain for the lack in any reference to Singapore and the Citizens.

It is typical of the PAP to steer their own future without any consideration of how or what the citizens' future will be.

For 52 years, since 1957 when LKY and his PAP got into power - it has been a cycle of continuous endless struggle to seek employment and have food, clothing and shelter over our heads.

In less then the same time span, other countries have achieved far greater real wealth for their citizens, while Singapore Citizens are left wondering how they will survive in their old age; and if they can recover the huge sums locked in the Central Provident Fund that had been borrowed by the Government at low interest rates.

"Anticipating Change" for Singapore and Singaporeans has never been the Hallmark of the PAP - while the truth is in their skill at anticipating changes from the citizens that can affect their political fortune.

"Anticipating Change" in the real world has seen dismal success, when the PAP leadership did not anticipate the Family Planning policy of the early 1970s could have produced the shocking demographic declines that became critical in the late 1990s

Certainly the PAP Government did not anticipate changes that produced the sudden currency crisis that began in Thailand and spread across Asia.

Neither did the PAP Government "anticipate change" in the political moods of the Thai citizens towards the deceitful takeover of Shin Corp and its subsidiary that owned the only Thai satellite.

It was never in the PAP Government calculation to "anticipate change" in US society to accept an African-American to be the next US President - as even at the very late stage, MM LKY in his skewed wisdom had actually derided Obama's abilities.

It is totally in character of the PAP style to see Wong Kang Seng daring to present to a foreign audience in such condescending manner, to feature empty boasts in praise of the hollow abilities of the PAP.

I'm back

10 Dec 09, 05:44

Published Work

Ministerial Pay: Be Mindful of the Affective Gap

The following commentary was published in The Straits Times on April 5, 2007.

I have followed with intense interest the current debate on increasing ministerial salaries to match those of the highest earners in the private sector. And I have noted the impassioned arguments from both sides: the Government insisting on its necessity if top talent is to be recruited to ensure good leadership, and the public expressing its reservations, doubts and unhappiness.

I would like to go beyond the emotion and the rhetoric, and see the issue in the larger context of the PAP model of governance, in particular its special brand of pragmatism in solving problems. It is a hard-boiled pragmatism which even the severest critic will concede has contributed greatly to the Singapore success story. And one which, paradoxically, even the strongest supporter will concede is liable to harden into inflexibility.

In the case of ministerial salaries, the PAP leaders’ thinking seems to have gone along these lines: Singapore needs a good, strong government if it is to prosper or even survive. Hence, it needs to recruit top talent. Since there is competition for this from the private sector, it has to offer equally attractive salaries. It has to act quickly and decisively, otherwise the country will face a serious crisis of leadership, which can occur in three increasingly dangerous stages:

Talented people will not be attracted to government service.

Even if they are, they will soon be enticed away by the private sector.

But even if they are not enticed away, they will resort to corruption as compensation for their inadequate salaries, and thus bring ruin to society.

Rounding up the austere dialectic is the urgent plea to doubting Singaporeans: Do you want Singapore to go the way of corrupt societies?

I would like to point out, respectfully, a basic flaw in this rationale. In keeping with the overall, hard-nosed realpolitik that has characterised PAP rule, it fails to take into account the affective factor that is present in any relationship, whether between individuals or ruler and ruled.

This factor comprises that special constellation of emotions, moods, attitudes and ideals which somehow elude being quantified and reduced to monetary terms. I first analysed its role in the relationship between the PAP Government and the people over a decade ago in a political commentary titled The Great Affective Divide, noting the emergence of a serious emotional estrangement despite the country’s stability and prosperity.

Subsequently, I variously described the conflict in terms of the people’s wish to see a greater role for Heart as opposed to Head, EQ as opposed to IQ, Heartware as opposed to Hardware, etc.

The policy regarding ministerial salaries illustrates this conflict. Its definition of the talent that is eagerly sought as ministerial material does not appear to take into account attributes beyond those of intellect. It assumes that what is good for the corporate world must be good for government, and that therefore there is a common target of talent out there, which both will compete fiercely for.

But in reality, the commonality of talent is only in those attributes of mind and personality such as great intelligence, far-sightedness, boldness of vision, creativity, determination of purpose, etc, that are the hallmarks of today’s high achiever. Beyond this overlap, the emotional aspect comes into play.

And here, there is a dramatic parting of ways. For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite – raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.

Indeed, a brilliant achiever without the high purpose of service to others would be the worst possible ministerial material. To see a potential prime minister as no different from a potential top lawyer, and likely to be enticed by the same stupendous salary, would be to blur the lines between two very different domains.

Next, the rationale goes against the very spirit of the social contract that it is supposed to protect. There is a compact, largely implicit, that governs the government-people relationship in every mature society in the free world, and it has as much to do with what is felt deeply in the heart as with what is worked out logically in the head.

By this compact, political leadership is less a salaried job and more a vocation, with all that this implies of selflessness and sacrifice on the part of the leaders, and trust, respect and regard on the part of the people. It is this reciprocity that defines a social compact and confers upon it a sort of sacrosanct quality. The ultimate reward for the leaders, whether or not they consciously seek it, is a revered place in the nation’s history, in the hearts and minds of future generations. Hence, material reward is only secondary.

Nevertheless, no Singaporean with any practical sense of the real world would want to see a minister denied a salary commensurate with his status and dignity, or living less well than any prosperous Singaporean. If the average Singaporean still aspires to the famous ‘5Cs’ representing the good life, he is only too happy to see a minister already well in possession of these.

But, at the same time, no Singaporean would expect a minister to feel disgruntled if he is paid less than the top CEO. If the disgruntlement actually causes him to leave his job, then he was not cut out for public office in the first place. Thus, to offer him a matching salary to enable him to stay would be to demean that office.

There is clearly a need to balance material needs and public service. The balance, in the view of many Singaporeans, has already been achieved with the existing ministerial salaries, if benchmarked against those of high-earners across a broad range of professions, and also against the salaries of ministers in countries such as Sweden and New Zealand, consistently ranked among the foremost, corruption-free democracies in the world.

The policy of increasing ministerial salaries may have the effect of upsetting this balance and, more seriously, doing away altogether with the compact of trust and respect. It will create a new affective divide, or reinforce any existing one, between the government and the people, and reduce their relationship to a purely impersonal business contract.

Even in a society often described as aggressively materialistic and coldly efficient, there are, fortunately, Singaporeans who believe idealism has a place, and that the fire, passion and commitment of the Old Guard, who saw Singapore through the difficult early years with little hope of financial reward, are still alive in some young Singaporeans.

The policy on ministerial salaries will, at the least, breed weary resignation in Singaporeans: What’s the use of giving one’s views at all? And, at the worst, give rise to toxic cynicism: What’s the use of teaching our young such values as caring and selflessness and sacrifice if each carries a price tag?

By Writer Catherine Lim

comments below

yueqing

November 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm

I agree. To make money the important determinant of attraction to be a minister, the other qualities needed like passion to improve society are deemphasized(sorry for lack of a better word). I think this will discourage and disgust some people who do not tie money so tightly to public service, to shy away from entering the political arena. On a similar thread of Catherine’s article, I feel increasing the minister’s salary totally teaches the young the wrong values- money is used to attract and keep ministers in the public sector. Shouldn’t “emphasizing the desire to benefit society” be a better value to use as an attraction, than money?, and help to attract the right kind of people? And it’s not that I want ministers to be paid peanuts, but using money as a main motivator is just something that disappoints me.

Majulah

May 5th, 2008 at 3:19 pm

You have masterfully pointed out the fundamental difference between ministerial office and leadership in the private sector. And I couldn’t agree more with the remark that “to offer [a minister] a matching salary [to that of a CEO] to enable him to stay would be to demean that office”.

Looking back at the issue a year later I still find self-interest as something that’s hard to explain away.

I'm back

10 Dec 09, 05:57

Political Commentary

A challenge for the future: Democratising the Lee Kuan Yew model of governance?

What would a future Singapore look like, say, fifteen or twenty years from now? I would like to claim the creative licence of a writer to come up with some tantalizing future scenarios!

An intriguing starting point would be what I have described elsewhere as the special and unique Lee Kuan Yew model of governance for Singapore. It is so successful that today it can be said to be a major Singapore export. For notice how eagerly countries as diverse as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, seek Mr Lee’s advice on their various economic projects.

A brief description of the model could be something like this: Its goal—ï¿½total economic success. The kind of leadership needed—ï¿½a completely efficient, hard-working, disciplined and above all, incorruptible government. The means by which such a government can achieve the goal—ï¿½any means, even measures unpopular with the people or denounced by the outside world as undemocratic, as long as they get rid of the obstacles in the way. The most detested obstacle—ï¿½political opponents who dare challenge the government openly and stridently. The most effective strategy against them—ï¿½the use of fear to break them completely. And the most fearful tool of all—ï¿½the defamation lawsuit reducing the opponent to permanent financial ruin. Mr Lee has rather proudly described what he calls his ‘knuckleduster’ approach, and has famously declared that he would rather be feared than liked.

This model of governance, useful for the rough early years when Mr Lee had to come down hard on Communist sympathizers, unruly trade unionists, racist newspaper editors and triads, must today seem like a relic of a bygone age. In its utter disregard of human feeling, it must be repulsive to the modern sensibility.

Yet it will be around so long as Mr Lee is. One reason is the enormous respect his colleagues have for him, reinforced by Singapore’s still prevailing Confucianist culture of deference to authority. But the primary reason must be this: a 100 per cent proof of the model’s effectiveness, seen in the unfailing, resounding re-election of the PAP over 4 decades. Nobody can argue with that kind of success. No wonder then that the model has become deeply embedded in the collective PAP psyche, to be faithfully transmitted down the line of succession, the political equivalent of DNA.

In the post-Lee Kuan Yew years, therefore, there will be no possibility of a democratization of the model. Rather, the quandary facing his successors will be this: how to keep the model intact but change its appearance to fit in with the temper of the times, in other words, how to update, repackage and give Lee Kuan Yew a makeover.

Actually, this has already been done, through an overall softening and humanizing of the PAP image. Mr Goh Chok Tong, the first successor, had chosen as his slogan a ‘kinder, gentler’ society and Mr Lee Hsien Loong ‘an inclusive society’ where no one will be left out. There have been numerous public campaigns to emphasize ’solidarity’, ‘bonding’, ‘identity’, words non-existent in the Lee Kuan Yew vocabulary.

While a softening of style is not difficult, a softening of stance towards political opponents is a different matter. Clearly the younger leaders want to continue to use the knuckleduster, but with the caution and subtlety necessitated by the times, and not the brute forcefulness unacceptable to a new generation of voters. This difference in approaches has led to conflicts within the party, as was evident in the James Gomez incident in the last General Elections. Mr Lee, suspecting Mr Gomez, a member of an opposition party member, of trying to pull off a nasty, malicious trick on the PAP, had wanted immediate exposure and punishment, whereas his colleagues, aware of public sympathy for the opposition, had clearly disagreed. Post-Lee Kuan Yew, free of such conflicts, exactly how cautiously and subtly will the leaders use the knuckleduster?

Here are two predictions. Firstly, the infamous defamation suit will be quietly dropped. So too the blunt, bellicose language, as when Mr Lee severely told Singapore women that but for the PAP, they would be foreign maids today. In a politically correct age, his successors would have to mind their language. In the last election, when the Prime Minister in an unguarded moment, talked about ‘fixing’ the opposition, the word provoked an uproar and he had to hastily retract it.

Secondly, the leaders would have to mind the outside world as well. In his time, Mr Lee was not bothered, and was openly critical of the democratic system. Indeed he would have had no qualms about doing away with it altogether if was in Singapore’s interests to do so. In fact, in 1984 when the PAP suffered unexpected losses in the elections, he appeared on TV livid with rage and said something about abolishing the one-man-one-vote system.

But his successors can’t afford to antagonize the free world because of Singapore’s increasingly closer ties with it, in virtually every area, from trade to education to environmental issues. As long as the western model of democracy keeps its shine, and it is still doing so pretty well—ï¿½witness that even the odious regime in Myanmar claims it has ‘a roadmap to democracy’—ï¿½Singapore leaders have no choice but to keep out of sight the authoritarian component of the model, sometimes even appearing defensive about it. This happens whenever they are asked to comment on those international surveys which, while regularly putting Singapore among the top three for economic success or business friendliness, invariably place her only a little above North Korea and Iran when it comes to press freedom.

But no matter how skillfully the leaders disguise the knuckleduster, they will retain, even enhance its extremely valuable function of creating fear. How will they do this?

Actually, a strategy of stunning ingenuity is already in place. What it does is simply to alter the fear to fit in with the times. Thus the raw fear of the old knuckleduster that had affected only a small group of political dissidents, has now become a larger, more generalized and more subtle fear, that affects the entire population—ï¿½the fear of losing the good life. In a culture so deeply attached to material wealth, the fear of losing even a little of it through behaviour displeasing to the government, is enough to keep a whole society on its toes. Countless are the anecdotes of Singaporeans not voting for the opposition, for fear of losing that coveted government-subsidised flat, of academics not speaking up for fear of losing that coveted promotion. If it is true that fear carries its own momentum and generates its own self-correcting mechanisms, there must by now be a great deal of self-censorship in the media, the educational institutions, the arts.

It is surely a most pleasing thing to the PAP leaders that political control can turn out to be such a neat and handy by-product of economic success. By this time they must have totally convinced the people that a political opening up leading to chaos leading in turn to the flight of investors leading finally to economic ruin, is not an option for a small city state with no natural resources. By thus casting opposition politics in the role of the ultimate and supreme national enemy, the government is rewarded with two outcomes: firstly, opposition representation in parliament will remain at its present abysmally small number, and secondly, political dissent will be stifled at source.

Furthermore, because this fear of losing the good things of life is essentially a middle class fear only, far removed from the stark terror in police states, there is a third welcome outcome: the PAP leaders can turn to their foreign critics and say, ‘Fear? What fear? Do you see anyone in jail?’ For a while, they were politely inviting the critics to come visit Singapore and see for themselves.

There is no doubt that the future will see further finessing of the knuckleduster to adapt even more precisely to the society’s changing ethos. Barring any unexpected external catastrophe, the future of Singapore in the next 10,15 or 20 years, can be reliably extrapolated from this present stable state—ï¿½the government’s dominance on one side and the people’s compliance on the other, each feeding off and reinforcing the other.

But can it last? Suppose, say by 2030, there has emerged a new breed of Singaporeans, young, bold, fearless. Suppose they form a new opposition party that is refreshingly different from the PAP in being more charismatic, adventurous, idealistic. Suppose that after half a century of PAP leadership, fatigue sets in and Singaporeans yearn for that magical thing called change. Among the restive young, the prospect of liberties never experienced before must be exhilarating. Such is the seductive power of change that even the older generation might be tempted to vote in a charismatic opposition party despite perceiving it to have just 60% or 50% of the famed PAP efficiency.

What will happen then? Will the PAP leaders be put in a corner? Will they feel compelled, in order to save Singapore, to bring out the knuckleduster and start a new cycle of Lee Kuan Yew-style political suppression?

Here’s a bold surmise. Picture this scenario: help comes from an unexpected quarter—ï¿½China. For years, China has been in the ascendant—ï¿½economically, politically, militarily, culturally. It has opened up to the world in the fullest possible embrace of capitalism. It has spent much time and money courting smaller nations, particularly those in Africa. It is well on the way to taking over the superpower status of the United States now in decline. It is ready to offer the world an alternative to the western model of liberal democracy, now discredited. Its model is distinguished by its non-ideological, pragmatic and very benign nature, for the goal is no more than creating wealth for the people through competent leadership. Political scientists scramble to find a new name for this exciting innovation,coming up with not-so-elegantisms like ‘managerialism’ or ‘communitarianism’. But China decides to call it ‘The New Democracy’, in a shrewd demonstration of continuity with the past, and readiness to lead for the future.

Where decades ago, the Soviet Union had disastrously tried to open up before the proper structures were in place, making the mistake of allowing glastnost to come before perestroika, China astutely makes sure it’s got the order right. Part of its perestroika is retaining the old mechanisms of control. Its model is thus a skilful blend of two historically opposed systems—ï¿½autocracy and democracy, and hence is not unlike the existing Singapore model. Indeed, China graciously acknowledges that the inspiration had come from the tiny city state. For back in the 70s Deng Xiaoping paid a visit to Singapore, was shown around by Lee Kuan Yew, and must have been so impressed that he took back ideas which resulted in the eventual remaking of China. While little Singapore had been in no position to tell the world that the so-called autocratic Lee Kuan Yew model was really the most democratic in creating wealth and a middle class, China, the new behemoth, makes this claim with every confidence and flair. It attracts a large following. It proudly ushers in a new era in history. When China and Singapore thus stand side by side on the world stage, the Lee Kuan Yew legacy will be celebrated in a way that he could never have dreamt of.

I did warn about a writer’s imaginative excesses! We can also be hopelessly, incurably idealistic and romantic, continuing to believe in those intangibles and abstractions called freedom, human rights, the human spirit, etc. which have no place in the realpolitik of the China-Singapore model but which thankfully are provided for in the still existing system of liberal democracy. This system is by no means perfect but it is history’s best shot at achieving justice in an imperfect world. For even if the real-life practice of democracy is dismayingly far from the ideal, as is indeed evident everywhere, the very presence of the ideal means that there can be international disapproval and redress. But remove it, declare its demise, and there will be a rapid backward slide to the old abuses that it had tried to correct in the first place.

The futuristic China-Singapore model of governance, despite its glow, lacks this sacrosanct quality of the democratic model. For instead of the premise that since leaders are likely to abuse their power, the necessary checks and balances must be given to the people, the China-Singapore model has it the other way round: the leaders themselves are good enough to be entrusted with the checks and balances. Clearly, the model will only work in the hands of righteous, impeccable leaders such as Plato’s philosopher-kings or Confucius’ rulers carrying the mandate of Heaven. But as we all know, in the real world there is a depressing lack of such. A Deng Xiaoping or a Lee Kuan Yew may never come our way again. After them, such a model could be disastrous.

If man does not live by bread alone, a nation does not survive in the long term by material prosperity alone. I’m going to risk being churlish and say that as long as Singapore’s leaders do not pay heed to the fundamental needs of the human spirit, they can never be called wise, only clever, and as long as the nation they lead is admired only for its material achievements, it can never be called great, only successful.

http://catherinelim.sg/2008/02/23/a-challenge-for-the-future-democratising-the-lee-kuan-yew-model-of-governance/#more-25

xtreyier

10 Dec 09, 08:50

Originally posted by Atobe:

Your clitoris has been clipped, treat it well with the medicine dispense to you from the Institute of Miscreant Hums that was specially set up to handle Taiwanese 'hum' dying to be a Singapore Citizen.

Dear Angel7030

It is with utter horror and revulsion that I watched the repetitive and continued senseless personal attacks hurled against you by that repulsive piece of self-admitted shit known as Atobe.

Infact, it is more than personal - it went even to a lady's modest private part, such as the post I qouted from that detestable nick and placed on top. If this is not a verbal outrage of modesty, i know not what else is!

This is the kind of freedom of speech that piece of self admitted shit desires. But this is not speech's freedom and the dignity it was supposed to bring, which entails a responsibility to each other within a civilised society ,

That piece of self admitted shit only wants to shame you, cast you in the worst light with self made up fabrication of your goodself, to make others believe such fabrications, to deny you your freedom and flee from here, to stifle your voice.

All this is constantly done to wear you out, to tire you, to sicken you, and hurt you, simply because that self admitted shit fears you and what you say, and longs to destroy the cheerfulness and humour you bring here, in place of the doom and gloom the fecal waste often used here to control and sow discord amongst politically naive others.

Unfortunately for that nick, not many are naive anymore, and are in fact sicken by such attacks.

That nick used by the self admitted piece is beyond any words of condemnation by such distatesful actions, a reputation tattered and torn by the revelation of what that nick truly is after so many long years here, and a constant reminder of deprivaties used by that nick to be remembered notoriously with disgust forever, no matter what else is to be said comming from that name.

I personally thank you for your fortitude, your courageous resilence to show readers here, for unmasking that foul cretin and what that despicable nick politically stands for.

Even though as hideous as those attacks had been, your cheerfulness and aplomb had never diminished, an attitude many can learn from in the face of cruel and senseless gross attacks by spiteful others.

My heart goes out to you, even though strangers we may be. I am sure I am not alone with such views. Thumbs up, girl!

Kuali Baba

10 Dec 09, 09:15

Originally posted by Atobe:

Someone once said that - "A Lie repeated often enough will soon be taken to be the Truth"

Vladimir Lenin

I'm back

10 Dec 09, 09:34

Loading..

Sometimes, meritocracy means some people move faster than others. Paul Barter, Ups and Downs in Plaza Singapura. http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulbarter/2878161851/in/photostream/

Meritocracy: Look at the method, not the substance

By Jian

Published: June 10, 2009

Like many other things we take for granted, an uncritical understanding of meritocracy is undesirable. Yet, we often examine meritocracy from the perspective of the substance of meritocracy. We debate about what constitutes merit, whether we should include or exclude examination results, critical thinking or ability in sports, music and so on. But little attention is given to the methodology of meritocracy.

By methodology of meritocracy, I mean the principles on which we select people based on merit. It is not so much of the asking of “what is talent”, but the how, when, and who of talent. How do we choose to measure talent and merit? How can and how shall we recognise it? When in a lifetime should we measure it? Who should be recognised as meritorious? How do we ensure the best person suits the job?

To answer these questions, I would like to propose two different ideal types of meritocracy: egalitarian survival meritocracy, and elite fast-track meritocracy.

The “how” of Egalitarian survival meritocracy is that it operates on leveling the playing field and then stipulating a challenge based on a stipulated measure of merit. The “who” is that everybody should be playing equally. As a product of solidaristic social democracy, Scandinavian universities students are all given a government stipend to live on and are provided student housing. if we can assume that there is little that can happen to disadvantage a significant student population, the best will naturally become to best in fierce and honest competition.

Then, the “when” of egalitarian survival meritocracy should also be as flexible as possible. Everybody will be given a time limit to finish, but for those who want to finish faster, they ought to be able to do so. If we are truly committed to the idea of everybody starting at the same starting line, then we should not extend the finishing line for those who can finish quicker.

But there are many problems with egalitarian survival meritocracy. It will be incredibly cutthroat and organizationally messy after the egalitarian start. Many weaknesses of Singapore’s education system will be exaggerated under such a system: increased competitiveness based on blind adherence to an unholistic criteria, a greater neglect of a spectrum of human experience under pressure to achieve, and if implemented too early, we might be overworking our young children. Hence, the aspect of “survival of the fittest” comes together with an egalitarian meritocracy. In addition, organizationally it will place a great strain onto the system to actualize an equal playing field and to support all those who meet the stipulated criteria.

On the other hand, elite fast-track meritocracy does away with the survival of the fittest and an equalizing same starting line. It is a coping strategy for systems which need to train meritorious individuals within a short period of time. The “how” of fast-track is that it is a method that has less uncertainty and may be faster than that of egalitarian survival democracy. Using a pre-defined set of criteria, we judge the aptitude of current players for future challenges and for those lucky enough to make the cut, they are nurtured with privilege so that they can quickly develop the merit required, i.e. the so-called elite. Hence the logic of “fast-tracking” individuals.

The who of fast-track meritocracy is not all players, but players who have an advantage now. You can imagine companies or political parties grooming certain candidates to become the next CEO or prime minister. These candidates enjoy the insight of their seniors, the networking opportunities granted by their closeness to their mentor and other fringe benefits not enjoyed by their peers. If mentors adhered to survival-styled meritocracy, they would allow as many players as possible to become candidates, set challenges, slowly weed out the poor and observe the best be the best.

Both ideal forms of meritocracy put the premium of merit over other qualities such as kinship, race or religion. However, the fundamental difference between elite fast-track meritocracy and egalitarian democracy is the timing, the fairness and the starting line. Elite fast-track meritocracy does not need an equal starting line in the beginning: whoever is ahead now will be considered now. Under elite fast-track meritocracy, the better become the best and whoever falls back stays at the back; under egalitarian survival meritocracy, there is no systemic bias for the better as they continue to compete in the same fashion with the same people. Finally, timing should be flexible under egalitarian survival meritocracy, but timing can be rather rigid to accommodate the fast-tracking of individuals under elite forms of meritocracy.

Now the question is, what kind of meritocracy do you want to be? There is a dilemma of resources to be fast-track meritocracy is the simpler and quicker of the two. For systems that require responsiveness of technically talented people to changing circumstances, it seems to be the more desirable of the two. On the other hand, while fast-track meritocracy has the interest of the system as a whole, egalitarian democracy is fairer to the individual as it is more committed to the principle of equal opportunity. How can we best solve the dilemma?

Wmyongj

10 Dec 09, 11:14

Xtreyler, well said.

Fantagf

10 Dec 09, 11:47

Singapore practises good governance, has strong leadership - this is a overrated comment.

lao wang mai kua , zi mai zi kua! What a international disgrace!!!

Does ah Wong consider making major mistake and not take responsibility for it as part of what he said in the article???

angel7030

10 Dec 09, 12:05

Originally posted by xtreyier:

Dear Angel7030

It is with utter horror and revulsion that I watched the repetitive and continued senseless personal attacks hurled against you by that repulsive piece of self-admitted shit known as Atobe.

Infact, it is more than personal - it went even to a lady's modest private part, such as the post I qouted from that detestable nick and placed on top. If this is not a verbal outrage of modesty, i know not what else is!

This is the kind of freedom of speech that piece of self admitted shit desires. But this is not speech's freedom and the dignity it was supposed to bring, which entails a responsibility to each other within a civilised society ,

That piece of self admitted shit only wants to shame you, cast you in the worst light with self made up fabrication of your goodself, to make others believe such fabrications, to deny you your freedom and flee from here, to stifle your voice.

All this is constantly done to wear you out, to tire you, to sicken you, and hurt you, simply because that self admitted shit fears you and what you say, and longs to destroy the cheerfulness and humour you bring here, in place of the doom and gloom the fecal waste often used here to control and sow discord amongst politically naive others.

Unfortunately for that nick, not many are naive anymore, and are in fact sicken by such attacks.

That nick used by the self admitted piece is beyond any words of condemnation by such distatesful actions, a reputation tattered and torn by the revelation of what that nick truly is after so many long years here, and a constant reminder of deprivaties used by that nick to be remembered notoriously with disgust forever, no matter what else is to be said comming from that name.

I personally thank you for your fortitude, your courageous resilence to show readers here, for unmasking that foul cretin and what that despicable nick politically stands for.

Even though as hideous as those attacks had been, your cheerfulness and aplomb had never diminished, an attitude many can learn from in the face of cruel and senseless gross attacks by spiteful others.

My heart goes out to you, even though strangers we may be. I am sure I am not alone with such views. Thumbs up, girl!

Oh! please dun make me cry....so warmth...but i have to cry..excuse me.

As said before, hatre and anger lies in every men and women life, just like my Uncle, Atobe, to be precise and others small flies. They need an avenue to expel their hatre and anger of our govt, i understand them, they feel betrayed, forsakened and lonely that turn all these emotions to what they are now. I alway believe in cause and effect. There must a cause behind them that affected their lives. I believes they are smart and intelligent people, full of hopes and passionate for people of Singapore. But the agony of unable to change the environment to suit them bring about nothing but more frustration leading to both physical and mental illness.

Moreover, they failed to see bigger picture in life, life is not about wining, it is about having a better living for all, you need to have that compassionate system in you. To be a great true leader, you need to think for others, many others who are in heaven.

If the constant personal attack can calm, please and be enjoyable for him, I should say i had successfully contained him. In another words, i would rather be in hell than in heaven, just to make sure he is ok and enjoy life rather than focusing on his sad and unsuccessful life that may hurt him more leading to poorer health. For life is not long, be happy, as long as he is happy, I am ok.