Singapore faces a trap of 22: its well-established formula of leadership renewal on competent technocratic applicants reaches its limits.
In the July 10, 2020 elections, Singapore’s political pillar, the People’s Action Party (PAP), won 61.2% of the vote and won 83 of the 93 seats. This further suggests the quo.
And yet all the symptoms in Singapore are now in political renewal. Current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has announced that he will resign before his 70th birthday, taking up position in 2022.
You are expected to deliver your fourth-generation team before that date. Heng Swee Kiat, who appointed DPM in 2019, is expected to be on the verge of taking over as the next prime minister.
While the PAP has tried to lead Singapore’s policy with elegant political fortunes, limits are emerging to its long-standing political good fortune formula.
The first detail of pap leadership formula is to explore singapore’s landscape in search of potential applicants and invite them to “tea sessions” with party members. The purpose is for applicants based on skills, network contribution and integrity.
Selected applicants run and potential candidates get on a fast track and ready for ministerial posts.
They are “apprentices” and “stress tests” by rotating them into a wide variety of non-easy portfolios and then appointing ministers on their performance.
The moment details the PAP leadership strategy implemented in the 1990s. Public servants were paid higher wages that were competitive with the top of the personal sector.
The idea was to lower the opportunity cost for capable candidates to pursue a career in politics and government administration as well as to disincentivize corruption.
Many Second and Third Generation leaders were selected for their outstanding technocratic capability. No question, the “apprenticeship’ system has worked very well for the party and the country.
However, as Singapore now enters so-called fourth-generation leadership, it turns out that, based on at least the explosion of messages on social media, young voters, in particular, are not positive about the transition to leadership.
Accordingly, the weaknesses of the apprenticeship system are now taking center stage.
Over the years, diversity has declined at the company level. An increasing number of ministers come from the armed forces, civil service or government-related enterprises (GLCs).
More and more are also selected from the same government scholarship programs and undergo a similar political “apprenticeship.”
Many observers that over time, this has led to a generation of leaders who have limited contact with the electorate and bases.
High wages have also fueled the sense that leaders are disconnected from the box, as they are immune to the maximum burden of living in Singapore.
A Malaysian newspaper, the newspaper Sin Chew, even described Singapore’s leaders as “Come from Heaven, from the Earth.”
A former PAP backbencher, Inderjit Singh, commented after the 2020 election that:
The global is complex, and many fourth-generation leaders don’t revel enough to solve some of the upheavals facing the country, especially those similar to the economy and certain social upheavals that require intelligent and fundamental disruption.
As expected, high ministerial salaries have allowed Singapore to have a reputation as a blank government. However, this was a double-edged sword.
This has also led the public to have high expectations and to be less lenient on shortcomings, which adds to the context of deficiencies in the control of the COVID 19 crisis in Singapore.
Questions have also been raised about whether higher salaries are needed for the relevant leaders. Comparisons were made with the leaders of other small countries such as New Zealand and Iceland.
In some sectors, public opinion believes that educational achievements, careers, and political learning have led the organization to reflect the image within policy-making circles. This has inevitably led to less than desired robust political debates.
This scenario is exacerbated by the small number of opposition members in the Singapore Parliament and by the lifestyles of some civil society organizations that may offer political alternatives.
In a recent article, Chan Heng Chee, a former ambassador to the United States, wrote, “We seriously discourage the thinking of the organization.” Group thinking has been highlighted through several well-meaning observers as one of the possible threats to Singapore’s future.
In this regard, the fact that the “learning” formula of leadership renewal favors leaders who tend to adopt a strictly progressive technique for policy progression does not help. It also favors adverse threat executives, concerned that they are temporarily followed across a variety of portfolios.
One of the first critics of this formula was former Singaporean President Devan Nair, who was in the workplace from 1981 to 1985. He said he produced “department store mannequins,” his florid language for highly technocratic leadership with limited policies compared to its founding generation. Leaders
The Progress Singapore Party (PSP) has expressed fears about transparency and conflicts of interest in the appointment process. Several ministers and their spouses hold key positions in public service and government-related business.
Although no express violations were raised, the PSP says this trend could potentially erode corporate governance in the future.
Many facets of Singapore’s economic style are being challenged through the electorate and opposition parties.
This includes targets for population expansion, dependence on foreign workers, emerging cost of living, adequacy of pension funds (CPF), public housing rentals (HDBs) and the role of SMEs and multinationals in the economy.
Many of these issues are based on fundamental assumptions made decades ago. Updating those approaches requires bold leadership which is willing to slaughter “holy cows.”
Former PAP MP Inderjit Singh said young Singaporeans who “need to see leaders with an entrepreneurial vision and spirit as our founding leaders, not managers, conformists and thinkers of organizations to guide Singapore into the future.”
Meanwhile, the variety base, i.e. at ministerial level, continues with educational achievements and technocratic functions in the public service and the military.
This produces leaders who are intelligent planners, managers, and executors. However, these leaders do not have a strong political delight at the local level.
This is why Singapore’s “apprentice” variety formula disagrees with the kind of leadership that the PAP wants to continue to dominate the political landscape. This is increasingly like a Catch-22.
Given the complicated economic clients for the coming years, it is that the PAP carries out some political renewal with broad public support.
Eventful days may thus be ahead as the PAP factors in the messages from the electorate in 2020 election to recalibrate its future governing plans.
Get updates
The Globalist is committed to protecting your online privacy. This privacy policy describes how The Globalist uses and protects your personally identifiable knowledge and is an agreement between you and The Globalist. By our website, you agree to be bound by our privacy policy.
The Globalist is committed to protecting your online privacy. This Privacy Policy describes how The Globalist uses and protects your personally identifiable data and constitutes an agreement between you and The Globalist. By using our website, you agree to the be governed by our Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy
The use of secure cookies is for the proper functioning of the site.
Improve content and site performance.