Singapore beyond ...

Possible Singapores, beyond LKY
Tuesday • April 21, 2009 (Thanks to TODAY)
Loh Chee Kong

A PEOPLE’S Action Party (PAP) split by internal schisms. Future leaders bereft of the "huge political legitimacy" that could be gained from endorsement by the man with unmatched moral and historical authority. These are some of the leadership fates that could befall a post–Lee Kuan Yew Singapore, as hotelier Ho Kwon Ping sees it.

And such "imponderable" scenarios could help explain why a "system of elders" is now taking shape in the political landscape.

"Perhaps it is to restrain factionalism, arbitrate disagreements, groom and assess future leaders, that the positions of senior minister and minister mentor have been institutionalised," said Mr Ho, who feels the PAP’s "extraordinary cohesion" over five decades has owed much to "the forceful personality of Lee Kuan Yew".

Mr Ho, who is also MediaCorp chairman, was speaking yesterday alongside Professor Kishore Mahbubani at a seminar organised by Nanyang Technological University’s Asian Journalism Fellowship programme. The topic? "Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising the Singapore Way".

Of this future, Prof Mahbubani, who is Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, would not rule out a "significant reversal" of Mr Lee’s legacy, or the rise of a stronger Opposition usurping the one dominant party system – though he gave each scenario only a "one-sixth probability".

While a "smooth and seamless transition" was a two-thirds likelihood, Prof Mahbubani harked back to the words of former Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee, after the PAP’s long monopoly of parliament was broken in 1981. "As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure."

So, for instance in the unlikely event of a strong opposition arising, would Mr Lee’s legacy be weakened? In fact, the "sharper political debates" arising could make Singaporeans more aware of the "precious political legacy they have enjoyed", said Prof Mahbabuni.
On the other hand, as has happened in South Korea and Taiwan, it could also lead to the old legacies being quickly lost and forgotten by the new generation. "I am frequently shocked when I meet younger Singaporeans who have never heard of Dr Goh," he said.

Both speakers were not alone in expressing uncertainty over how Singapore’s future, sans Mr Lee, would play out. During the Q&A session, which was off-the-record, the audience raised concerns such as how the country would be deprived of its most astute and influential critic – and whether Mr Lee’s legacy, or indeed Singapore, could unravel.

While Mr Lee’s retirement would "create a huge political vacuum", Prof Mahbubani believes Singapore has "done a lot" to protect his legacy, such as instilling a deep culture of meritocracy and incorruptibility.

And Mr Ho had no doubts Singaporeans could "muddle their way through", even if the PAP’s leadership renewal "fails to deliver what it has done for the past 50 years".
Mr Lee’s greatest legacy, he said, "is that the Singapore which he so passionately shaped will outlive not only him, but even his own party, should that ever come to pass.

The reason: In his single most critical imperative – nation building – Mr Lee has largely succeeded, said Mr Ho, who has found young Singaporeans to own a strong sense of involvement and ownership in the country, contrary to stereotype.

"Equally contrary to some people’s wishful thinking, there is not likely to be dramatic, broad-brush social or political liberalisation," said Mr Ho. "This is not a pent up society waiting for the demise of the strongman in order to overturn highly unpopular laws."

Rather, the Government has the support of the politically-vital heartland in its pragmatic, incremental approach to change, even as it responds to tomorrow’s generation, he said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Thanks to The Straits Times)
April 22, 2009
THINK-TANK
Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew
By Ho Kwon Ping

HISTORY judges great leaders by two criteria: first, whether they are able to engineer a transition to a succeeding leadership. And second, even if they do pass the first test, whether their legacy lasts beyond several generations.

The very fact that we talk of Singapore beyond, rather than after Lee Kuan Yew, implies that he has already passed the first test. Of course, some may say that his transition from prime minister to senior minister to Minister Mentor represents only a change of job titles, not a fundamental letting go. But the history of other charismatic nation- founders has been far less encouraging.
The temptation of power works powerfully against voluntary retirement. Charismatic leaders seem to possess more courage than wisdom when it comes to their retirement. And so Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro and others diminished their legacies by failing the first test: knowing when to step down.
In recent history, only China's Deng Xiaoping has succeeded in passing both tests. He not only ensured a smooth succession, but also created a stable, sustainable political system as his legacy.
Unlike China's, Singapore's Deng is still around - vibrant, though slower of gait and mellower in temperament. Can Singapore maintain beyond Mr Lee a system that is responsive to its citizens, able to deliver steadily improving livelihoods and capable of leadership self-renewal?

My answer is obviously 'yes' - otherwise why would I have my family and my business here?

But there are two qualifications:
First, it all depends on whether renewal within the People's Action Party (PAP) can produce leaders of sufficient calibre so Singaporeans will continue to support this unique one-party-dominant system. Because if the PAP fails at self-renewal, we will be sailing in uncharted waters.
And second, should the waters ever turn choppy, can tomorrow's generation find their way through the storm, with or without the PAP?

Let me address these qualifications in turn.

Unlike the dynamic equilibrium of a two-party-dominant system, where the pendulum swings regularly from one party to the other, Singapore's equilibrium is stable but static. There is no process allowing for a ruling party to renew itself through defeat in the polls. An entire nation can be renewed that way, as when Mr Barack Obama succeeded Mr George W. Bush in the United States. Of course, as events in Thailand have shown, a multi-party system by itself is no assurance of stability, let alone of renewal.

The argument adduced by the PAP for our one-party-dominant system is that Singapore is too small; there is simply not enough talent to even fill one ruling party, much less two potential ones.

For Singapore's sake, the PAP had better be sustainably competent, because there is no tested opposition party as fallback for the country. The price of the PAP's extraordinarily successful half-century of governance is that the system is now vulnerable to the success or failure of the PAP's own internal self-renewal.

Will the Singapore system of self-renewal work after the present generation of leaders depart the scene? We do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Mr Lee.

The risk to successful self-renewal in Singapore beyond Mr Lee does not derive solely from the paucity of talent in this country or the difficulty of identifying, recruiting and grooming leaders.

Another risk is the spectre of internal schisms within the PAP. The party's extraordinary cohesion over the last 50 years is due not only to its compelling vision and its centrist positioning, but also to Mr Lee's forceful personality. Whether factionalism can be kept in check after this present generation of leaders - including its mentor - have left the scene is an imponderable.
Perhaps it is to restrain factionalism, arbitrate disagreements, groom and assess future leaders, that the positions of senior minister and minister mentor have been institutionalised. Once derided as sinecures, these offices resemble a system of elders found in other governance structures, from the tribe to the clan to the church and temple.

Both the PAP and the Chinese Communist Party believe that they can buck the trends of history and create sustainable, uncorrupted, vibrant and responsive parties which can rule uninterrupted for longer than a half century. Certainly, their track records to date give reason to take their claims seriously, even if the weight of history is not on their side.

If they do succeed, however, they will have created a new model of political governance to challenge the assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.

Perhaps this explains why advocates of Western liberal democracy are so adamant that the Chinese or Singaporean systems will fail.

This leads to my second qualification. If the PAP, for whatever reason, does fail, will Mr Lee's legacy unravel? Or can Singapore somehow muddle through even if the PAP's leadership renewal process fails to deliver?

Perhaps because he is the quintessential realist with no illusions about the difficulty of creating a nation out of different ethnic groups, Mr Lee made nation-building the single most critical political imperative of his leadership. And he has largely succeeded. No Singaporean nor foreigner questions today that we have a shared identity, common values and aspirations. This is no small achievement.

And so, 44 years after independence, the acute sense of vulnerability which suffused the Lee era with an urgent dynamism is inevitably giving way to a more relaxed and confident nation. Will that translate into a complacent and cocky generation? Or will a sense of 'concerned gungho-ness', shaped by the collective memory of vulnerability but also inspired by the promise that theirs is a destiny that they can determine on their own, define my children's generation?

Contrary to stereotype, young people today are not apathetic. They may be uninterested in electoral politics, but they are increasingly involved in civil society and community issues. They seek expression, not in Speakers' Corner, but in alternative digital media and social networking sites. Singaporeans studying overseas remain engaged about Singapore issues and many are returning home because their sense of belonging is strong.

Equally contrary to some people's wishes, there is not likely to be dramatic, broad-brush social or political liberalisation in the Singapore beyond Mr Lee. This is not a pent-up society awaiting the demise of the strongman in order to overturn highly unpopular laws. The present government has the support of the politically critical heartland in its pragmatic approach to liberalisation. Incrementalism - fine-tuning laws to accommodate the more liberal younger generation while not upsetting the heartland, nor endangering social stability - is the cornerstone of PAP's philosophy. It will outlast Mr Lee.

There is evidence that this incremental change is happening. Visitors to Singapore marvel at how we have managed diversities of race and religion so well. But now that we are a cohesive nation, there is a need to encourage a different kind of diversity - in outlook and analysis. Thankfully, the once-rigid Singapore system is beginning to cultivate and celebrate diversity in our schools and universities, in social and cultural life. The definition and measures of success and achievement are also broadening.

In short, the Singapore of Mr Lee is changing - as it should - and as he would have wished it to. The society Mr Lee shaped will not, as the late Samuel Huntington predicted, 'follow him to his grave'. The future Singapore may not look like Mr Lee's Singapore, nor may the PAP rule uninterrupted forever, but Singapore will thrive so long as our children know that its future belongs to them.

For there is nothing stronger than the sense of ownership: What you own, you defend.

The writer is chairman of the board of trustees of the Singapore Management University. Think-tank is a weekly column rotated among eight leading figures in Singapore's tertiary and research institutions.

The above column was originally part of an address delivered on Monday at a seminar organised by the Asia Journalism Fellowship, a programme of the Temasek Foundation and Nanyang Technological University.