Errr...ok, maybe it's I'm posting at nearly 4 am in the morning, but I can't really tell the difference in the attributes in this wish list that you've put forth, and between that often cited by the PAP leadership.

And with reference to the last para, does it not also depend on who defines the baseline or markers of success for the candidate(s)?

Ted- what other attributes do you think are missing or should be excluded then? Will love to hear your thoughts on that. Cheers.

Sze Meng, a few questions.

How important do you think that the survival of the Singapore as a system is dependent on the attributes of the PM?

We have so far have rather "strong" PMs, and arguably have many of the attributes listed.

I think an argument can be made that Singapore should focus on creating a system that everyone is replaceable, including the PM, and that Singapore can prosper even with a mediocre PM?

I personally think that Singapore will struggle to survive if bad people are elected into the executive - but mediocre people, should be okay.

To cut a long story short, how important do you think your listed traits are, considering the three major issues you have raised, to the future of the Singapore system?

Teh Si - I have paraphrase your questions, and correct me if I am wrong.

1. How important is it to have a "strong" or "good" PM, or PM with these traits describe in 2016?
Answer: Very important assuming the current one party dominated political system persists, due to the lack of robust check and balance by a substantial opposition (e.g. 20-30 opposition MPs will be substantial) in our political system.

2. Can Singapore survive with a mediocre PM?
Answer: Assuming current one party dominated political system persists, Singapore maybe able to survive, but unlikely thrive with a mediocre PM. Highly capable individuals will only be willing to be lead by more capable individuals,and a mediocre PM will not attract the most appropriate Singaporeans to the government. I think you may have to be more explicitly in defining "mediocre" if I can answer your questions better.

2. Shouldn't Singapore focus on creating a system that everyone is replaceable, including the PM, and that Singapore can prosper even with a mediocre PM?
Answer: Ideally yes, or of course lah. As of now, the group that has the power but has no incentive to do so, and the group (s) that have the incentive to do so do not have the power. Catch 22 situation. I love to hear your thoughts on the solution(s) to this situation.

For example, in the US, it is not the end of the world if the US president is not that capable, think Warren G. Harding, reportedly the worse President ever, but the institutional system allows the country to survive and even thrive. However, only some countries have such a robust governing system (i.e. Japan, UK, US, Germany, Australia etc)

Hey Sze Meng and Teh_Si,

Alright, I cannot tahan already, concerning the robust institutional system that can absorb the damage of a mediocre leader, I think you two are dancing around the bush that is democracy. =) Let's just say it: a democratic system is such a proven system in world history. For one, Sze Meng's examples are democracies. Tell me if I am mistaken, but the ideal leader according to your attributes, Sze Meng, is one who is also of a democratic bent (communicate sincerely, culture of dissent, fair to dissenters and opposition, appeal to grassroots), though not a democrat or democratizer per se.

Why not take it further? The ideal PM, preferably now than the next one, would make sure that our institutional system of governance not depend on having an ideal PM for Singapore to thrive. The ideal PM would democratize the system in such a way as to provide buffer for the system to absorb both external (e.g. economic recessions, political conflicts) and internal (e.g. succession crises, mediocre leadership, ethnic tensions) events. See it from another angle, it is about the dissipation of risks.

Hi Sze Meng,

Sometime back, I also took a jab to predict what the next Prime Minister should look like. Actually, I have been thinking a bit more about it. A lot of people always talk about the impact brought about by the final departure of our current Minister Mentor (maybe retired or *politically correct* ...). From the way how the system is set up for political leadership in the current government, it is likely that there will be two ex-prime ministers to be around to "help him out".

The other thing I am not inclined to believe that the future PM will be from the 30s-40s. It is likely to be one of the current cabinet ministers or members of parliament. Well, we will know in 5 years time. :)

Dan

"The ideal PM would democratize the system in such a way as to provide buffer for the system to absorb both external (e.g. economic recessions, political conflicts) and internal (e.g. succession crises, mediocre leadership, ethnic tensions) events."

I fully agree, but I am more of a realist. I will push your statement further that an ideal PM will ensure that there is a vibrant and high quality opposition representations (20-30 opposition members in Parliament) in Singapore to ensure that we do not depend on only one party (as we assume a robust and matured democracy is effective).As of now, there is little incentive for a new PM to do that.My question to you: Does the current or even new PM has the incentive or the political power to do so?

Won't his own party members balk at the face the PM wants to dilute the own party power? Isn't the institutional arrangement of our Singapore democracy of "first past the post" and "one-person-one-vote" tenets barriers for the PM to do what you suggested?

"See it from another angle, it is about the dissipation of risks."

To dissipate risks, you will have to dissipate power. (i.e. don't put all your eggs in one basket lah). However, can a political party in our political system allows it leader to dissipate power before the leader loses credibility?

From this angle, even if a new PM want to build a more robust system, can he actually execute on it? If so, what does the new PM needs to execute on this noble intention?

Bernard,
"The other thing I am not inclined to believe that the future PM will be from the 30s-40s. It is likely to be one of the current cabinet ministers or members of parliament. Well, we will know in 5 years time. :)"

Based on my analysis, it seem unlikely for the next PM to be from the Cabinet or a current PM IF the next PM will take over when he is 52 and below. http://szemeng.blogspot.com/2007/08/implications-of-younger-successor-to.html
Of course, this is assuming the next PM must take over at 52 and below, and it takes 14 years to join politics to become a PM. My question is why PM Lee kept talking about having a younger next PM. I can understand if he mentioned it once, but I think he mentioned it at least a couple of times in different occasions. That said, anything can happen in politics =)

Sze Meng,

I am trying to work out who within my age group will be eligible for the next PM (hmmm, look at my Pre-U seminar book since a few of them went on as scholars). Anyway, I tend to see that he mean that the next person will become PM younger than he was. Both SM Goh and himself become PM in the 50s, compare to MM Lee who become PM at the age of 35 (which I don't think that it's possible today).

So, let's assume that person is now within early 30s, first, we require him or her to have a family. For men, it's an unwritten rule that you have to be a family man to join politics. Next, we need this person to know most of the ministries, or at least must hold the portfolios of finance, defence, education and possibly home affairs. Then with that kind of rotation, it will be something at least about 10-15 years. So, yes, it's possible, you get a PM at the age of 45 at least. :)

Of course, given the complexity of our government today, being a PM at 35 is almost impossible.

Bernard - I agree that 52 is a more realistic cut off age to reverse the older age trend of PM, as PM Lee was the oldest to become PM as compared to SM Goh(49) and MM Lee(35).

However, to get someone at 45, it means someone must enter Parliament in the next election in 2011 at 35, and have at least 10 years to be proven (being Minister of Finance, Defence, Home Affairs and DPM) if PM Lee step down in 2021. So the person should be around 30 now. 45 may be an aggressive "young" age. This assumes the next PM is NOT in Parliament.

Anyways, this is solely based on what PM Lee says, and there is nothing to state the next PM cannot be older than 52 lah. Not sure if anything drastic will happen if the next PM is older...=)

Hey Sze Meng, alright, let's shake the democracy bush! =) Don't mind, let me turn the question around, I think you'll need to show me that there is incentive or even narrow self-interest for the next PM to have the qualities you suggest. Those 3 parameter issues would probably have been resolved or at least substantially addressed by the current PM and his team, unless you think they won't (which therefore brings up another interesting question, why not?). If the system is cranking along fine in dealing with these 3 challenges of globalization, what incentive does the next PM have to be NOT mediocre and just continue to crank the wheel? What incentive does the PAParty have to NOT choose a mediocre PM so that we can all cruise along? I am also a realist, it is precisely those 3 parameter issues that will give any PM who face them the political incentive to democratize.

1. Widening income divide with apparent slowing social mobility given the continual embrace of the globalized economy with increasingly competitive neighboring countries. The income divide is not going to be resolved by welfare (which is targeted at the poorest) or any other measures, it is here to stay, and history tells us that it is rising inequality which extends the franchise to the working classes. There are several theories to this, I mention two: (a) the income gap politicizes the working classes, leading to democratization as an alternative to their radicalization, (b) the elites democratize to direct the economic grouses of the working classes to political outlets either as political concession or political pressure valve.

2. Differing demands and potential tensions between the "original" Singaporean and "naturalized" Singaporean as the continual significant influx of foreigners choose to take up citizenship Same as above, but replace working classes with middle classes who are affected by foreign talent policy.

3. Increasingly educated and online population acknowledging the credibility of the vocal "elite dissenters". The personal success of these "elite dissenters" are less beholden to the local governing elites and they will be more eager to question policies by harnessing the internet; these dissenting voices will be augmented by pockets of vocal specific interests groups Less significant as the previous two taken alone, but will be significant if they become intelligentsia voice for either (1) the working classes and/or (2) the middle classes; democratization is a natural call of the wild of this class.

So then, the incentive is clearly there, unless the current PM is not a realist! Now, the question of political power is more interesting because it is more complex. Does the current PM have enough control and credibility with regards to his party to democratize? I think it depends on how skillful he is as a politician, and this is one attribute that is missing in your list! As such, he should not be aiming explicitly to surrender parliamentary seats, which is simply suicidal. But he can commit himself as a PRINCIPLED HONOURABLE MAN to democratize the system, remove all the anti-democratic obstacles (like gerrymandering and pork-barrel-upgrading), and come away all credible with the public which will give him the credibility to deal with his party. This will also force the opposition into becoming a credible opposition that focus on political representation and policy criticism rather than complaining about political injustice. The PM loses a few seats but gains a stronger legitimacy, the opposition wins a few seat and becomes a credible representative force (if not, they get booted out by the people like SDP losing their 2 out of their 3 seats in 1997), the people get a better working system of political representation. I say its a win-win-win situation for Singapore.

Sze Meng, I don't know, I'm just an ordinary serf who's trying to eke out a living. How dare I request anything more than what the heavens have deemed I deserve in a Leader :)

Maybe you should ask those who design games such as RPGs or RTSG like the Romance of 3 kingdoms, they probably can tell you what attributes are missing from your list. My point in the first comment still stands as an observation, nothing more to it, I'm surely entitled to that even as a modern day serf.

And the stated preference by the PM to have a younger successor seems a little contradictory to the current day's theme of promoting people to work beyond the official retirement age. Not that there isn't anything wrong with having a 'young' PM, but the signal it gives is that the establishment still prefers younger people to take over the reins, so how will this translate to the people on the streets, I don't know but it strikes me as a little un-congruent.

Dan - well put. This is something at the back of my mind, but I think you articulate it very well.

So I should actually elaborate on my point "In the face of a more discerning populace in 2016, the PM has to be perceived as fair by the oppositions during the election process to gain the electoral legitimacy to govern." under - Perceived as fair by the dissenters and opposition. However, I think the following para should actually be under honesty and integrity because this is a character trait.

The next PM should also be a principled honorable politician to build a more robust working political system for Singapore by not hindering the development of a credible, high quality and substantial opposition. Specifically, he will choose to ensure a level playing field for the opposition to compete in the electioneering process, and even outside the election windows. By being fairer in perception and substance, he will gain more credibility with the increasing discerning public, in order to consolidate support for himself within the party. A level playing field during the electioneering process will more likely to continue attracting highly capable individuals to serve Singapore through Parliamentary representation as members of the ruling and opposition parties.

Does that sound like what you are trying to say? I will add this as an addendum to the article later. Thanks!

Also, I think the three major issues will be there because of current policies and global trends which Singapore has minimal control. However, I do think the current PM and his team is constantly trying to address these negative implications of these issues in a relatively positive fashion, but these issues will persist in 2016. Of course, I will be wrong, but at least, this is my stake on the ground for discussion.

Ted - thanks for your observation. Please always welcome to share your thoughts. I appreciate it.

"But he can commit himself as a PRINCIPLED HONOURABLE MAN to democratize the system, remove all the anti-democratic obstacles (like gerrymandering and pork-barrel-upgrading), and come away all credible with the public which will give him the credibility to deal with his party. This will also force the opposition into becoming a credible opposition that focus on political representation and policy criticism rather than complaining about political injustice."

I think a really astute PAP PM would do that if he/she wants to appear generous in giving a level playing field, but equally he/she can also timed these political liberalisations such that it gives a good impression to the voting polity but yet not enough for the alternative parties to make effective use of the new breathing space to dent the PAP political machinery in the future polls.

I also find it interesting that Sze Meng stated that the preferred PM should also build coalition with the ex-PMs, personally I think the system of having SMs and MMs are a political anomaly that should be strike off as soon as humanely possible. There are not many convincing reasons for the retention of such a system. I do think the millions of dollars in pension would be enough to compensate any ex-PMs for the loss of power and prestige right?

Dan,

If the system is cranking along fine in dealing with these 3 challenges of globalization, what incentive does the next PM have to be NOT mediocre and just continue to crank the wheel?

The system is not cranking along fine lah. It's under siege and we're not coping very well if you ask me. The next PM where got time to choose to be mediocre if he can help it? :-)

What incentive does the PAParty have to NOT choose a mediocre PM so that we can all cruise along?

You're assuming the party gets to choose. :-) Even if the party gets to choose, you're suggesting that given the choice between a good PM and a mediocre PM, they will choose the mediocre one?

If you want a good reason why a PM might not want to democratize, I can give you one. It makes the country more of a pain to run. Even now, it's already a handful. :-P If the next PM is convinced like his predecessors that he can always find good and capable successors, then it makes no sense to democratize and make life harder for your successor.

The KTM is all for setting up a robust system so that the system will survive regardless of who the politicians are. The thing however is that unlike you, the KTM doesn't think that democracy is the reason why a political system survives. The KTM thinks that more likely, it's just a matter of scale.

Why do people only look at the US? Did people forget that China also had the Cultural Revolution. Also, do people not know how many bad emperors China had? Has China survived?

Agree with the concept of dissipation of risks, but in general, to achieve something like that, what you need is not an insurance company, what you really need are enough people willing to be insured (i.e. pay the premiums). With an insurance company and only one or two fellas who want to be insured, doesn't work very well lah. Scale sir. You need the numbers. Does this principle truly apply to Singapore? Not entirely sure as yet, but mulling over it. :-P

KTM,

I agree that the PM should NOT be mediocre even if the political system is going to be more robust. The PM will have to be "solid" to thrive in a more competitive political environment.

Do you think the system is "not cranking along fine" because precisely it is not "more of a pain to run". Do you mind elaborating on these points - "not cranking along fine" and "more of a pain to run" if you have the time. If not, no worries. =)

Also, I am not entirely sure of your insurance example - do you mind elaborating? What analogy are you trying to describe when you talked about paying insurance premiums?

Thanks!

Ted - why do you think SM Goh and MM Lee are still in the cabinet? The key explanation is that they will be able to provide good counsel to the current Cabinet because of their extensive policy and political experience as a PM (noticed other ex-DPMs or Ministers are not invited to these roles). In addition, they have taken on special external roles (SM Goh to Middle East)for the Singapore government, leveraging on the relationships they have build over the years with foreign governments and leaders. Do you agree with the "official" reasoning? Feel free to not answer if you rather not do so, I am just curious what you think. Cheers.

Here is my cynical take to things instead of adopting a political naive perspective to say "if it's not broken why fix it" reasoning to why the ruling party politicians should allow dissent.

In politics, it is not possible to deny your opponents lee way such that they can end up taking over you. What PAP did for upgrading and lack of grace over their opponents (such as banning bicycle events), was totally the norm of what politicians do in the US and UK, for example, go and see how many ways the Texas republicans go and gerry-mander the entire state to force out Democrats or the UK Labour party closing hospitals close to the Tory constituencies. The part about able to allow dissent is going to be impossible for whoever enters into politics, whether it is in the ruling party and any other party. In the words of Leo McGarry from my favourite series "The West Wing", "This is a political reality."

KTM, glad you are joining in the rumble through the bushes ;) ... am not saying the system is fine now. Not sure we are under siege (where the barbarians, which gates?), but yes the challenges are here today. My point is hypothetical since the whole discussion is future-oriented, and I am pointing to the incentives to choose a not-mediocre PM. Interesting thing about choosing the PM, if the party cadres do not choose, who/what chooses then? Given the choice, IF the system is cranking well and we DON'T NEED a good PM, who/whatever chooses may very well choose a mediocre PM because of other considerations (for example, charisma or because of political dynastic lineage).

You are assuming that a democratic country is harder, more painful to run. Perhaps it will pain an autocrat or technocrat who wants control of things and people as elements of a functional machine, but a democracy runs very much by itself, not dependent on particular individuals, buffering and spreading the risks through the system, so it is actually easier to run. For sure, one thing is hard to do in a democratic system: to impose one's will quickly and efficiently, so it will be hard to change policies quickly and without resistance. And the latter is not a bad thing. In any case, it has already become hard to change policies quickly and without resistance, perhaps that's why you are saying it is a pain to run Singapore. In other words, the democratization is already happening with the population becoming increasingly politically active - if this is not transformed and harnessed institutionally and systemically, then Singapore will remain a pain to run. In fact, democratization may perhaps help the system become more efficient and less a pain to run.

China surviving bad emperors, perhaps, but with great, great cost of lives - we don't have that luxury. In any case, the China you are referring to died with the Republican revolution in 1911, that is, the imperial system of dependency on the emperor's ability and the bureaucracy's talent did not survive globalizing capitalist modernity (in the last globalization, which took the guise of Western imperialism). Even the current China, born in 1949, with Mao marching into Beijing, had to change to survive this capitalist modernity. Furthermore, the pressure for democratization is increasingly felt in China today.

I agree with you on one thing: why keep harping on the US? The US, as BL rightly shows in his cynical comments, is not a good example of democracy. And scale-wise, we are more like the Scandinavian, Switzerland or the Low Countries, which are democracies that have remained economically nubile and innovative. And anyone remember an outstanding statesman from those countries? They don't have any/many because they don't need one because their democratic systems do not depend on these.

Sze Meng,

Do you think the system is "not cranking along fine" because precisely it is not "more of a pain to run".

If the system is cranking along fine then how come we got so many anti-estab kay pohs? All very free and nothing to do with their lives huh? :-P As for "pain to run", Dan has explained on my behalf.

Also, I am not entirely sure of your insurance example - do you mind elaborating? What analogy are you trying to describe when you talked about paying insurance premiums?

Insurance example serves to illustrate that you need a certain critical mass to pool and share risks. Paying of premiums is a red herring. :-)

Dan,

Not sure we are under siege (where the barbarians, which gates?)...

Whoever said anything about the barbarians being at the gates? Perhaps they are already in the city? :-P The way I see it, the system needs no barbarians. It is perfectly capable of imploding by itself without external assistance. External factors like globalization and unfriendly neighbours certainly do not help. :-P

China surviving bad emperors, perhaps, but with great, great cost of lives - we don't have that luxury (emphasis mine).

Precisely my point. Scale in itself helps already.

In any case, it has already become hard to change policies quickly and without resistance, perhaps that's why you are saying it is a pain to run Singapore.

It is as you say. :-)

They don't have any/many because they don't need one because their democratic systems do not depend on these.

And what do their systems depend on you think?

Democracy is not a bad thing as you say. What most people seem to fail to understand are two things: (i) it's a package (there are a lot of accommpanying socio-economic factors that make it work); and (ii) there's a problem of transition (i.e. how do we get there from here?). :-)

Hey Sze Meng, sorry didn't reply to you, as I got excited by KTM's entry into this bush =). Yes I think very much so that's what I am saying. Perhaps this democratizing thingy doesn't quite fit into one single character trait, but something that pervades the traits. The PM would most definitely need the "courage to make the tough decision" to democratize, and in fact, to read your post more closely, it seems these are the character traits necessary not just for the PM to run the country well but also to democratize the country, but then I have been arguing that the two things are converging.

KTM, that's an interesting extension to the discussion, those two points, and one can look at the Scandinavian examples for some answers to the package and transition (and that will answer your question on what their systems depend on). Can't play in the bush now, busy, soon I promise, laterz.

Dansong,

Despite my cynical comments about the failure of the US system, I do think that they can be admired for their constitution, amendments and checks and balances. Particularly their founding fathers seems to have a way to handle checks and balance so well that they impose a seperation of Church and State, and also how if some crazy guy like George Bush come to power and cause a mess, the system of checks and balance they left behind has somehow turned the tide on him. This is one thing which Singapore is lacking, as we don't seem to have the checks and balances to hold our leaders accountable. I can grant them that they are capable and qualified, but whether they do a good job, it may be good to have the voters decide instead of letting them blow their own trumpet.

*grumbling in the bush*

What Bush? Needs Freedom of Speech. Quite substantial ambit required too. Not sure we are moving in that direction. Salutes optimistism of many.

Sze Meng:

I think it was quite obvious I don't buy into the official explanation of the need for having a SM and MM in the cabinet. If you can point out which other democracy in the world have created special cabinet roles two times in a roll with every change of the Prime Minister, I'll be much grateful for it. Of course, let me pre-empt you or anyone that saying this is Uniquely Singapore doesn't quite cut the cake, a point we can debate on later.

The role of the Prime Minister should be first and foremost to LEAD the country in all aspect of Social-political-economic governance together with his team of Ministers and Ministers of State. I don't see how effective can the PM express his/her brand of leadership and imprint on the office if he/she has to always take the advice of his predecessors into SERIOUS consideration before making his/her own judgement. Seriously, if Malaysia had really followed this style, do anyone think bilateral issues can make any headway with Dr. Mahatir acting on behalf of PM Abdullah on Malysia-Singapore issues with MM Lee?

Ted- thanks for sharing. That said, do you think Dr Mahatir will make so much "noise" if he was a "SM" in PM Abdullah Cabinet?

KTM - I guessed my point is that maybe the system is not cranking along fine because there are not enough robust actual dissent (aka make it harder to run) taken into serious consideration in major policies. Then again, this statement cannot be proven because Singapore has always been relatively easier to run as compared to most democracies with substantial opposition. Maybe the outcome will be worse for Singapore if we had 10-20 opposition members in Parliament or not. An analysis of the cost and benefits to Singapore (not the ruling party) will be very interesting assuming Singapore has 15-25 opposition MPs since 2001.

How about this attribute:

"The willingness to get paid S$ 1 per year"

PS: Michael Bloomberg gets US$ 1 per year for governing a city of 9 million (NYC).

How about this attribute: "The willingness to get paid S$ 1 per year" PS: Michael Bloomberg gets US$ 1 per year for governing a city of 9 million (NYC).

In other words, we are looking for someone who already (independently of his mayorship) has 5.5 Billion USD in net worth (or maybe half that, since Singapore's population is half of NY)?

Dr. Mahatir's personality is well known, I would think any PM of Malaysia would shudder to have him in the cabinet. What's worse, to have him embarrass the administration from within or without?

FYI, I've actually sat through our national parliament session once, it was during the Ministerial salaries debate this year. The deputy Speaker of the Parliament was quite deferential to the MM, and even reminded MP Low of Hougang that he cannot ask for points of clarification to MM's demand of an answer on a certain point. The PM was quite comfortable in letting a senior figure to put on the heat for him on the opposition, I'm not very impressed with that.

Ted,

You said, "Dr. Mahatir's personality is well known, I would think any PM of Malaysia would shudder to have him in the cabinet. What's worse, to have him embarrass the administration from within or without?"

Is it possible for our ex-PMs to go the way of Dr Mahatir to raise difficult issues with the administration from without(for example, MM Lee outside the government raising the point we definitely need to consider IR etc even if the Cabinet hesitates to do so? ) if they are not the SM or MM? Is this a good reason to keep them in the Cabinet? Will you still let SM and MM leave the government once the new PM takes over?

I cannot speculate for sure whether is it possible for our ex-PMs to go the way of Dr. Mahatir, as it very much depends on their innate personality and disposition. Although an exception may be the MM.

MM Lee has the special position as the modern father of Singapore, albeit a reluctant one, his words, inside or outside the administration holds weight. He is unlike the rest of the old guards who are happy or maybe not too happily retired from active politics.

And talking about the MM, he's a political creature, unlike you, me, KTM, and I dare say most of the Singapore angle crew and commentators. He's most willing to participate in politics regardless of the role he plays, of course, having a role that possess power is good.

As for the current SM, it remains to see if he has the political ambition to secure for himself the position of being the next MM. I'm more concern about the internal politicking and power struggles, no matter how subtle, having an effect on the efficiency and working relationships with the rest of the Cabinet/Parliament.

So yes, I would be very happy to see the positions of the SM and MM go in the next administration, a more reconciled position would be to allow the existence of the SM position limited specifically to certain roles.

Ted- thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject of SM,MM etc. It is another uniquely Singaporean political feature, like our elected presidency. Cheers

Interesting dicussion on political succession...

I'm inclined to agree with KTM in that the system is bursting at the seams, primarily because it is apparently 'perfect' and evidently delivers success (an over-achievement perhaps?). Indeed the issue of scale is intriguing, and can doubtless be mentioned when discussing Singapore's economic future as well (but that's for another time).

I had pointed out elsewhere that our esteemed establishment has seen it fit to borrow from the democratic West (sans its confrontational tenet) and the imperial East (sans its mission of uplifting the masses through enlightened leadership). Could the issue of scale be in fact a convenient excuse to deny citizens the opportunity to experiment with ideas of genuine potency? Or are we, deep down, deathly afraid to 'play with fire'?

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised with the cosy bubble that the establishment has created for its citizens, nor should I be disappointed at the relatively little trickle-down effected of Singapore's much-vaunted economy. Too many establishment-led half-measures and back-flips have been taking place in recent times -- failed mergers in the transportaion and entertainment industires; divestments and acquisitions among major GLCs within the span of a mere decade; the Shenzhen debacle; adoption of a Code of Corporate Governance that is more form than substance in the wake of high-profile scandals to placate public opinion... I suspect that we are likely to remain repressed because there isn't a critical mass genuinely willing to go all out to risk for the welfare of the nation at large. As a cheeky aside, would resistance on the part of the populace to award ministers their due be related to the issue of scale? lol...

Dan, sorry to say that my take on China is differs much from yours. Imperial China lives on, only that in modern times it wears a communist cloak. Its leaders were insightful (fortunate?) enough to board the capitalist bandwagon, knowing that doing so would ultimately extend the survival of the political system. And if I may boldly add, it was the Chinese who were the original capitalists... ;-)

Commentators within and outside the borders of our island-nation are waiting to see when the bubble will burst, and whether anything will be left when it does occur. I submit that it is up to the citizens much more than the establishment or any such institution that the inevitable event is met with courage, determination and fortitude.

spursfan,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. May I ask whether you will mind elaborating on "the inevitable event" that you talked about? Just curious. Cheers

I would think compassion, integrity and leadership are the three most important qualities without which you cannot have a head of state who thinks for the people all the time and is not profit-motivated to think of ways to increase taxes collected for the government. He should be someone who loves his country and his fellow countrymen and definitely not someone who will be drawn into the administrative service just because it offers a comparable or higher salary than the private sectors. He is the people's leader not a mercenary!

I think one must have exceptional capability to lead us singaporean. Compassion, integrity and leadership are like what James said is the most important, but there is something unique that differiate between normal people and a PM.

In a conversation about my academic and work plans post-NS with my aunt earlier in the day, she shot a most quizzical question at me - "So in the end, what's the most important thing?" The intended context I assumed was that of the conduct of day-to-day affairs.

So I answered her, "To do the right thing." Apparently that wasn't good enough an answer for her, so she chucked in an appendage - "Even when nobody's looking."

To do the right thing, even when nobody's looking. We can of course, segue into a lengthy semantical debate of what "the right thing" is, and it is the perennial challenge and prerogative of the members of a democratic society to ponder what exactly "the right thing" is, particular to their time and unique set of circumstances.

But rather, to cut to the chase, I would venture to say that integrity must be the bed-rock of superior leadership. Unflappable integrity swayed neither by ego, the desire for worldly gain, nor merely by emotional sentiments of a personal nature or otherwise.

Indeed there are many other qualities that are important - be it intelligence, charisma, or even an education in Oxbridge and the Ivy leagues. But these are mere tools. Always, it is the carpenter that matters more. Always, it is resourcefulness over the mere possession and hoarding of resources that acts as the central cause that effects positive progress in society over the long-term. One of the central functions of superior leadership which has always been, is that of enlightened stewardship - nigh impossible if integrity is found wanting.

Hopefully our future PM will be someone without the pretensions of ambition, disengaged the pathological pursuit of power which is sadly symptomatic of movers and shakers in the political arena. Ideally, someone who achieves the post not because he has gunned for it all along, but rather because he has being doing the right thing all along, and at long last is being recognized. Let it be someone who will possess courage and intestinal fortitude sufficient to exercise brutal honesty towards all he meets, and especially to himself at all times. In this particular context, the honesty to evaluate every policy, every decision made with the one vital question - "Is this for the greater good of my people?" It inevitably becomes more convoluted as its never an issue of black and white, for what's best for the people sometimes comes into conflict with what their sentiments compel them to desire for themselves. Here again, integrity unflappable enough to stay with the most beneficial course of action - even against the insufferable pressure of (possibly) misguided but well-intentioned masses - remains as more crucial than technical competence.

I do realize the above probably comes across as overwrought, abstract and abstruse, especially for the pragmatic individual - the well-intentioned Singaporean. I apologize for my long-windedness and urge everyone to feel entirely at liberty to shoot responses and flames my way. Hopefully I your help will assist me to further elucidate corporeal elaborations to substantiate my vagrant notions.

A very nice write up. Trifle idealistic. May I suggest you read up on the brotherhood press. I believe a comparative would provide a holistic pov. keep it up and do erase this at will. We are all getting quiet used to it.

well analysed. i sometimes wonder what PM Lee means by "grooming his successor". and i thought Singapore's a democracy?

Interesting....especially if....

What if the 4th Prime Minister is Ho Ching?

She is extremely well-qualified; and in fact more qualified than Mr. Ho Ching to lead the present Cabinet, if we believed in Forbes andn Time magazine rating.

I'm gonna be off tangent here. PAP looks set to bread the all time record set by PRI, the former ruling party of Mexico (PRI ruled Mexico for 70 years, ie. they were always returned to power in Mexican elections for 70 years until 2000). There is 22 more years to go to equal the record by PRI. I wonder if that is something to be proud of. Would we like our next PM to still come from the PAP?

randy: well analysed. i sometimes wonder what PM Lee means by "grooming his successor". and i thought Singapore's a democracy?

If our MM lives a long and prosperous life, by the time our PM "retires", we would have a MM, SM and whatever-newly-created-M to rule our country. Whether the new PM is capable or not is largely irrelevant. This is how democracy works in Singapore.

I'am gonna go off tangent as well. Moderately interesting write up. However, I dont believe it's reflective of reality. I will plumb for the BP assessment i.e the best candidate isn't a nice guy, he cant be, bc we all know nice guys always come last.

Give thats the case, where does grooming even come into the picture? Its essentially a Darwinian selection at work here - the fittest survive and make it all the way to the top, the weakest die.

That of course raises the question: what attributes does it take for the last man to remain standing on the heap?