http://themiddleground.sg/2016/09/04/khaw-pap-unseemly-response/Give a suggestion, get a PAP put down
Sep 04, 2016 06.00PM | Bertha Henson linkedin
by Bertha Henson
THE day after the National Day Rally (Aug 22), a reporter from a wire agency rang me for my views: What does the Prime Minister’s brief faint say about the fragility of leadership succession? I am putting this broadly, because the questions were rather indirect. But it was clear to me that the reporter wanted me to talk about how the lack of a designated successor is detrimental for Singapore. A few times, I interjected to tell him that we shouldn’t be “making a mountain out of a molehill”. The PM picked himself up and is alright. I also said that Singapore these days doesn’t have a “strongman” style of government, which collapses when the leader goes. The PM is more like First among Equals who seems to have been picked by his fellow Cabinet ministers.
How did I know, he asked.
I said that this was reported for Mr Goh Chok Tong’s succession and for Mr Lee Hsien Loong, the succession plan was clear. Mr Lee became Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) in 1990 and had a long runway to 2004 when he took over the mantle. Mr Lee was clearly from the third generation of leaders while Mr Goh was from the second. This time, of course, the signs are pretty mixed since both DPMs, Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam and Mr Teo Chee Hean, can be viewed as belonging to Mr Lee’s generation, that is Gen 3.0 or at most Gen 3.5.
I surmised that if anything happened to Mr Lee, one of them could move into the top job easily. As for who would lead the fourth generation, his guess on whom among the usual suspects would make the cut would be as good as mine. Things will probably get clearer in the next Cabinet re-shuffle when it would be time for someone younger to make it into the DPM ranks – in time for the PM to retire after the next general election (GE), as he himself had said.
We were talking in circles, I know. Then we moved on to how the People’s Action Party (PAP) picks its leaders. The textbook answer is that the cadres pick members of the Central Executive Committee (CEC), who picks the secretary-general, who as leader of the party, becomes Prime Minister if his party wins the most seats.
As for whether the job goes to the person with the most votes in the CEC which can have up to 18 members, including six co-opted members, I confessed that I didn’t know. The PAP is a monolith with a conference of cardinals who are sworn to secrecy about their choice of Pope, I said. Also, the party chief-to-PM process didn’t happen for both Mr Goh Chok Tong and Mr Lee Hsien Loong. Mr Goh became party chief in 1992, two years after he became PM. Mr Lee became party chief four months after taking the top job in 2004.
That part, I said, was opaque.
It seems opaque is a bad word to use, looking at how PAP chairman Mr Khaw Boon Wan tore into The Straits Times (ST) commentator Mr Han Fook Kwang’s column suggesting more transparency in the selection process.
The PAP, and by extension, the G seems to have a nasty way of taking down critics. So Mr Khaw, after expressing surprise at the column, said: “He, of all people, should know that the process by which we choose prime ministers is anything but “opaque”. He has worked on many books with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and heard Mr Lee describe in detail leadership succession in the People’s Action Party (PAP).”
The PAP might want to consider that because he knows the process better than most, Mr Han might be saying something worth thinking about. Or is this a reminder that Mr Han, ex-Editor of ST, should know better than to “rock the boat”.
Mr Han’s column made two points, including how top politicians seemed to be drawn from the ranks of the civil service and the military – which is a fact – and warned of the danger of groupthink. “A system that is perceived to favour those from the public service will naturally deter outsiders,” he said. Mr Khaw did not acknowledge this point, nor argue against it.
Instead he settled for what the PAP has always said:
“We scour the country to find able, honest and committed people to field in elections. Possible candidates go through a rigorous vetting process. This begins the day after every general election.”
“The most promising among every cohort of MPs are then brought into government. They work with senior ministers, and are tested and stretched in a range of portfolios. In the process, they become confident in their roles and gain the trust of the people.”
In other words, it just so happens that the best are from the public service or the military.
Mr Han’s second point about leadership succession was about how the PM was finally chosen. He said: “If it follows from the previous script, it is likely that some time between now and the next GE, the appointed successor will break away from the field and be promoted to a senior position to signal his anointment.”
“Who makes the decision, apart from the PM, though isn’t clear.”
Here, it seems that Mr Khaw is correcting wrong information that Mr Han provided, on the role of the PM. The PM has no say in who his successor will be.
Mr Khaw wrote: “Older ministers, including the current PM, will stay out of the deliberations. This is as it should be, for it is the younger ministers who will have to work with the new PM and help him succeed.”
Mr Khaw’s letter, published in ST, was accompanied by an article on the appointments of PM Goh and PM Lee in the past. You can read it here. Yes, the PM does not have executive decision-making power over this, but surely his views matter?
Mr Khaw acknowledged that the PAP doesn’t have a party chief-to-PM process. It’s the other way around. “The new leader will also have to be elected into the PAP’s Central Executive Committee, and become the party’s secretary-general.”
So the new PM has to at least get enough party cadre votes to make it into the CEC in party elections. But Mr Khaw doesn’t say how he vaults from CEC member to secretary-general. Number of votes from the cadres? Voting by CEC members?
Then Mr Khaw goes on about the divisive process of selecting the head of the government in Australia, Britain and the United States. Some choice phrases: “prodigiously expensive”, ”deeply divisive”. “internecine struggle” and “brutal contest”.
Here in Singapore, however…..
“We are lucky to have had leadership cohesion over five decades, across three generations. The shared sense of purpose among ministers, and the consciousness that becoming PM is a responsibility to be borne and not an ambition to be sought, means the ruling party is not riven by factions.
“Why would we want to exchange this calm and rational process for periodic political bloodlettings that leave deep and lasting wounds, both within the party and the body politic?”
But what did Mr Han actually say? He wrote that in Britain, the Conservative Party leader is chosen by MPs (note that this is a much bigger group than the Cabinet). He said that the Labour Party uses not just MPs, but also registered party members to settle on their choice. Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party’s candidates for leadership must be endorsed by at least 20 members. The US has a long and complicated process that ends in a party convention.
“Obviously there isn’t a right or wrong way, and every party has to decide how best to do it,” said Mr Han. He suggested that the PAP rank-and-file have a more direct hand in picking the leader.
“It isn’t clear such a system will work because it is unlikely there will be many contending candidates. It is just not the done thing here for anyone to put himself up for the party leadership. But it shouldn’t also be such an opaque decision that no one knows what is happening until the succession announcement is made.”
“Being more open and transparent would help Singaporeans understand better why a particular person was chosen and how the assessment was made. It would be good if the ruling party discussed openly the merits of various ways in which this could be done.”
“It should make for good politics.”
By Mr Khaw’s reasoning, the ends justify the means. We’ve always had good outcomes, so why talk about the process? We know best.
Mr Khaw and the PAP probably think they have the last word on the issue. Of course, they do. No one outside the party can influence leadership renewal within the party. Maybe the party rank-and-file are happy enough with the current opacity.
But it surely doesn’t mean a citizen can’t make suggestions without receiving such an unseemly put down?
