Military elitism in Singapore
Would it be beneficial to have more military alumni members as part of our ruling elite?
Photo By: Synchroni
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ April 4, 2009
SINGAPORE - A brief scan of our Singapore cabinet members’ profile yielded an interesting statistic. 6 out of 21 (Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Mr George Yeo, Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr Teo Chee Hean) of the current cabinet were alumni of our military.* Another thing all six of them have in common is that they are winners of prestigious overseas scholarships. Other top civil servants and executives of government-related firms who hail from the military are Mr Philip Yeo and Ms Ho Ching respectively.
It seems we do share a common trait with some of our ASEAN neighbours after all, especially those whose military elites form part of the ruling elite. The late Suharto seized power in what was alleged to be a CIA-backed military coup. For Myanmar, let’s just say that their cabinet is ruled by the military junta in its entirety.
Thus, it seems there are reasons for our military to be proud of its high flying alumni. But the pertinent question is why the bias in favor of military alumni? Detractors have always heaped scorn on the obvious gulf between our military and the real world. Everything is so rigid, and rules have to be adhered to. Violating them would lead to negative consequences. And criticisms have been raised about the deplorable attitude adopted by a number of commanders who are regulars. It has been noted that such regulars cannot survive in the real world if they do not change their attitudes.
Indeed, this poignant point was captured in an interesting piece titled “Don’t knock us, our rice bowls are not iron” by Ho Ai Li and Susan Long on the fates of top military scholars during the twilight of their military careers. An alarming observation according to corporate observers and recruiters was that these scholars leaving the military service lacked the global perspective and struggle to keep up with their peers who have by then accumulated a wealth of experience. Mr Na Boon Chong of Hewitt Associates commented that a typical corporate leader has to face up to the challenge of guiding companies through significant industry changes besides managing them. He further observed “such a leader requires a depth of specific industry experience, which retiring civil servants or military officers often lack.”
Executive headhunter Mr Richard Hoon made a more damning observation:”Maybe only one out of 100 can adapt to the corporate world. The rest have to work hard and undergo personal coaching to be ‘demilitarised’.” He further commented that such officers “have a certain bravado, talk in a certain way and have a certain mindset that’s not attractive to employers. They used to be officers, always managing others. But stripped of their uniform, they’re just ordinary people with a difficult transition to make.”
And wouldn’t the coalescence of ex-military scholars within our ruling elite lead to a groupthink phenomenon? A groupthink phenomenon is brought about by homogeneity of the group members’ background, and in this case, former military bureaucrats. And a very big disadvantage of this phenomenon is that members of the club remain non-receptive to viewpoints outside the comfort zone of their consensual thought. Would this lead to a reinforcement of bureaucracy-style administration in our government? It seems to be the case.
Doubts have been raised about the ability of ex-military scholars to transit to the real world, yet ironically, they form a substantial part of our ruling elite. Shouldn’t diversity be promoted in the first place so that there can be adequate representation of diverse interests?
*The Kent Ridge Common is grateful towards LCC for pointing out that Mr Lim Swee Say is also an armed forces scholar
Reference
1) Article by Ho Ai Li and Susan Long. Reproduced in Elia Diodati’s blog
Would it be beneficial to have more military alumni members as part of our ruling elite?
Photo By: Synchroni
By Kelvin Teo ⋅ April 4, 2009
SINGAPORE - A brief scan of our Singapore cabinet members’ profile yielded an interesting statistic. 6 out of 21 (Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Mr George Yeo, Mr Lim Swee Say and Mr Teo Chee Hean) of the current cabinet were alumni of our military.* Another thing all six of them have in common is that they are winners of prestigious overseas scholarships. Other top civil servants and executives of government-related firms who hail from the military are Mr Philip Yeo and Ms Ho Ching respectively.
It seems we do share a common trait with some of our ASEAN neighbours after all, especially those whose military elites form part of the ruling elite. The late Suharto seized power in what was alleged to be a CIA-backed military coup. For Myanmar, let’s just say that their cabinet is ruled by the military junta in its entirety.
Thus, it seems there are reasons for our military to be proud of its high flying alumni. But the pertinent question is why the bias in favor of military alumni? Detractors have always heaped scorn on the obvious gulf between our military and the real world. Everything is so rigid, and rules have to be adhered to. Violating them would lead to negative consequences. And criticisms have been raised about the deplorable attitude adopted by a number of commanders who are regulars. It has been noted that such regulars cannot survive in the real world if they do not change their attitudes.
Indeed, this poignant point was captured in an interesting piece titled “Don’t knock us, our rice bowls are not iron” by Ho Ai Li and Susan Long on the fates of top military scholars during the twilight of their military careers. An alarming observation according to corporate observers and recruiters was that these scholars leaving the military service lacked the global perspective and struggle to keep up with their peers who have by then accumulated a wealth of experience. Mr Na Boon Chong of Hewitt Associates commented that a typical corporate leader has to face up to the challenge of guiding companies through significant industry changes besides managing them. He further observed “such a leader requires a depth of specific industry experience, which retiring civil servants or military officers often lack.”
Executive headhunter Mr Richard Hoon made a more damning observation:”Maybe only one out of 100 can adapt to the corporate world. The rest have to work hard and undergo personal coaching to be ‘demilitarised’.” He further commented that such officers “have a certain bravado, talk in a certain way and have a certain mindset that’s not attractive to employers. They used to be officers, always managing others. But stripped of their uniform, they’re just ordinary people with a difficult transition to make.”
And wouldn’t the coalescence of ex-military scholars within our ruling elite lead to a groupthink phenomenon? A groupthink phenomenon is brought about by homogeneity of the group members’ background, and in this case, former military bureaucrats. And a very big disadvantage of this phenomenon is that members of the club remain non-receptive to viewpoints outside the comfort zone of their consensual thought. Would this lead to a reinforcement of bureaucracy-style administration in our government? It seems to be the case.
Doubts have been raised about the ability of ex-military scholars to transit to the real world, yet ironically, they form a substantial part of our ruling elite. Shouldn’t diversity be promoted in the first place so that there can be adequate representation of diverse interests?
*The Kent Ridge Common is grateful towards LCC for pointing out that Mr Lim Swee Say is also an armed forces scholar
Reference
1) Article by Ho Ai Li and Susan Long. Reproduced in Elia Diodati’s blog
