:p
Cabinet “reshuffle”: Is it for self-renewal or self-preservation?
March 31, 2009 by admin
Filed under Top Story
Leave a comment
By Fang Zhi Yuan and Eugene Yeo
Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has described his recent Cabinet reshuffle as another step in the long process of self-renewal. (read article here)
Mr Lee added that there is no change in the total number of office holders in this reshuffle and he is keeping some of the older ministers to help out so that they can provide experience and advice, while younger ministers drive policies.
If this was indeed Mr Lee’s original intention, then he had misrepresented himself for choosing the wrong word to describe the reshuffle as keeping 2 ex-Prime Ministers and 1 ex-Deputy Prime Minister in an already bloated cabinet can hardly be considered as ”self-renewal”.
Mr Lee Hsien Loong has been the Prime Minister for 6 years. During his first speech as Prime Minister, he promised to build an “inclusive” society for all Singaporeans. He has failed to live up to his promise. Our income gap has widened under his watch. Political is dissent is clamped down harshly through a series of draconian laws. Singapore society is less free than before and citizens have few avenues of expression other than the internet.
It was also during Mr Lee’s reign that the ministers’ salaries are jacked up by more than 80% to peg it to the private sector much to the chagrin and dismay of ordinary Singaporeans who are struggling to make ends meet. In spite of earning 5 times more than United States President Barack Obama, Singapore became the first Asian country to enter into recession. Both our Sovereign Wealth Funds suffer disastrous losses and the culprits have yet to be called to answered for their mistakes.
Given the dismal performance of Mr Lee, he ought to offer to step down by the next election if not now and hand over the reins of government to another leader who has the capability and vision to bring the nation forward. We are in urgent need of a change in direction and a rethink of the usual tried and tested methods of governance.
The global financial crisis has exposed the flaws of the American economy and its renumeration system for Wall Street financiers whose unbridled greed brought the entire world down to its knees. We cannot afford to continue chasing after GDP growths and other economic indicators while neglecting the development of our precious human capital.
It is common in modern democracies to see changes in government every couple of years. The Americans change their President every four or eight years. The Labor Party of the United Kingdom has been in power for over a decade and they are about to be booted out soon if the latest poll ratings of their popularity are accurate.
Singapore needs a real change in its current leadership if not an outright change in government. Since the PAP has monopolized the majority of the talents found in Singapore, we can only place our hopes on an internal change to give us a leader who is brave enough to do away with the obsolete “mandarinate” system of Lee Kuan Yew and restore real democracy based on the principles of responsibility, accountability and transparency in the way the Singapore government operates.
Lee Kuan Yew has often used the threat of political upheavals and economic ruins to dissuade Singaporeans from voting for the opposition. In reality, Singapore is the only country in the region which can survive a change in the political status quo and emerge from it stronger because we are such docile, pragmatic and peace-loving people.
Since the opposition is far too weak to mount a serious challenge to the PAP, its only fear lies in a schism within the echelon of the leadership. As long Lee Kuan Yew is still around, the PAP will remain united in one monolithic entity. It is therefore imperative for the Prime Minister to put in place a 4th generation of leaders who believe in his father’s system of governance and willing to run the country using his doctrine which explains why he is taking a long time to deliberate over the personnel to put in positions of power and influence.
This is not self-renewal, but self-preservation. Will Lee Kuan Yew want to see his legacy being dismantled from top to bottom by his son’s successor after he is gone just like how the Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi did to his precedessor Mahathir? His son was put in place precisely to ensure continuity in his policies.
In the first major resuffle of the cabinet in the late 1980s before Goh Chok Tong became Prime Minister, many first-generation leaders were either retired voluntarily or forced out by Lee Kuan Yew so as to put the second-generation of leaders handpicked by him firmly in control of the government while he remained in the cabinet as Senior Minister to supervise and monitor his successor.
The second generation of leaders should have been retired years ago after Goh Chok Tong stepped down to make way for the fourth generation. Why are Goh Chok Tong, Wong Kan Seng and Jayakumar still holding senior positions within the cabinet?
It is likely that Lee Kuan Yew does not yet have full trust and confidence in the fourth generation of leaders. Dr Ng Eng Hen is always his blue-eyed boy, but his popularity and support within the PAP itself remains a suspect. Both Dr Vivian Balakrishnan and Tharman were mavericks in their youthful days. Who can forget Vivian’s explosive expletive against Lee Kuan Yew’s failed ‘graduate mother’ scheme when he was the President of NUSSU and Tharman’s visit to exiled student leader Tan Wah Piow in London?
Though they have appeared to follow his instructions and exhortations so far, who knows if they may revert back to their “rebellious” old selves after he is gone? All Singapore needs is one Gorbachev or Badawi to completely destroy Lee Kuan Yew’s “mandarinate” system and restore democracy to the nation.
The PAP should trust itself to win in a free and fair election solely on merits without any gerrymandering or character assassinations. It can well afford 5, 10 or 15 opposition MPs in Parliament to challenge them without resorting to dirty tricks to “fix” them.
Why then is Lee Kuan Yew so adamant at keeping the opposition at bay, especially genuine opposition leaders like JBJ and Chee Soon Juan who dares to confront them heads on? Because all you need is to have one “troublemaker” in Parliament to ask sensitive and difficult questions and you will lose whatever credibility you have in an instance.
Singapore’s fourth Prime Minister is already in the present cabinet. Mr Lee Hsien Loong made a freudian slip when he remarked during the interview that the PAP needs two general elections at the very least to groom a leader. He will be almost 70 years old after the next two elections. Can he or Singapore wait that long?
Among the PAP’s current crop of leaders, the potential candidates to take over Mr Lee are Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, Finance Minister Tharman and Community, Youth and Sports Minister Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
Both Lees have not made up their minds. Who can they trust most to preserve their legacy and to protect their interests after they have left the scene? Mr Lee Hsien Loong can always “retire” to become a Senior Minister like his predecessors, but his clout is considerably less compared to the senior Lee.
What if the new Prime Minister decides to pander to populist sentiment and enact a “Freedom of Information Act” which will reveal the extent of GIC and Temasek’s losses? What will future generations of Singaporeans think of their founding father?
The next Prime Minister of Singapore, whoever he or she is, should feel free to expunge remnants of Lee’s influence completely from the government, civil service and judiciary and relegate it to the history books for our children and grandchildren to judge for themselves the merits and faults of Lee Kuan Yew.
Is he truly Singapore’s savior or a hero turned villian during his later years? Will there be Singapore without Lee or is there no Lee without Singapore? Nobody is irreplaceable in Singapore. Prime Ministers can come and go, but our Constitution, our Pledge and our People will remain forever on this land we call home.
