Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Running the country

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Running the country

Someone criticized me for not providing an alternative solution to the current practice of relying on scholars to run our nation.

I like the system adopted in America. The citizens elect the President based on the platform of policies presented by the candidate to the people. After taking office, the President appoints suitable people to manage the various departments and agencies of the government. These appointees have to be approved by the Congress – whose members were also elected by the people.

This system allows the Present to choose the most suitable candidates from the political, business, community and academic establishments. There is no shortage of talents. The appointees are people who share the President’s visions and strategies, which were also chosen by the people. Most of them are leaders in their own right and are likely to have wide knowledge and experience of their fields.

Critics may argue that the American system does not produce the economic success that is achieved by other models, such as Singapore or China. These critics overlook the fact that economic performance is not the only factor, although it is an important factor, that determines the election of the leaders. This factor has to be balanced against other factors, such as the social policies, quality of life and America’s role in providing security and leadership to the world.

The democratic nature of the American system gets the right balance of policies, that are suitable for the challenges of the time. They are even able to elect an African American to be the President!

A negative factor for the American system is the power of the business lobby. It has led to the wide gap in income and wealth – a factor shared by the Singapore system. I hope that under President Obama and the Democratic control of both houses of Congress, the situation will be changed over the next few years – for the better of America and the world.

The lament of the shortage of talents in Singapore is a product of our Singapore model. We reap what we sow.

There is a workable alternative to the Singapore model of using scholars to run the nation. We should examine if the American system can be adopted here. The small size of Singapore actually makes it easier for the country to be managed. We only need to have an open mind and explore other models.

Tan Kin Lian

15 comments:

Anonymous said...: The small size of our population is oftenly quoted as the cause of our shortage of talent in politics. (e.g. PM states that it is difficult to find the fourth PM for Singapore.) But Norway, Denmark, Ireland etc have similar sized population as that of Singapore. They are not short of political talents. Why? The root causes of shortage of political talents are due to (1) citizens are apathethic about politics, and (2) real top talents by nature do not like to be confined within a rigid framework imposed by PAP (i.e. either joining PAP or confining to political wilderness due to the unleveled playing field.) Hence our real top talents are channeling their energies to non-political areas. They can be found in business and profession sectors to pursue personal goals instead of in politics to pursue national goals. This is a real concern for all citizens.; September 01, 2009 10:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Scholars or non-scholars not important. But, must have common sense. Cheers !; September 01, 2009 12:57 PM
C H Yak said...: I believe whichever system is adopted, there is still a way or platform for policies to be debated and presented to the electorate before the voting process.

Our system does allow political parties to present their manifestoes. But what we cannot see is the American way of healthy debate before vote casting.

In our previous elections, certain opposition parties did invite the ruling party for open debate about policies. But the incumbent party refused to accept these invitations to debate. I do not understand why?

Instead parties are given airtime to present their manifestoes, allocated based on the number of candidates fielded.

As a result we often see and hear uneven airing of views and opinions. It is often said that the ruling party is given favourable explosure due to the alignment of the local press and media with the Government due to its GLC status. In the US election, there is an equal playing field for debate. The airing of manifestoes should be given equal airing time. If the TV media is again restricted in the next election, I hope the opening up of the Internet for podcasts, etc, will help to overcome this shortcoming for the electorate.

Uneven airing of manifestoes is a setback for the electorate, not the political parties. This is also about "fair" politics which Mr Tan once mentioned in another post regarding a speech by the Indonesia VP-elect then. To me this is about being "fair" to a more sophisticated electorate which must be given the time to mature with our political system. Politics is not just between the incumbent and the opposition parties, more importantly the electorate must be respected.

To be as "organic" as the US in appointing the best talents to head the various sectors and portfolio, the only way is to deviate from our present practice of appointing scholars as "Permanent Secretary" to the various Ministries and other KAH (key appointment holders).

The system flexibility does exist. It is just a matter of implementation, following conviction.; September 01, 2009 2:40 PM
Tan Ah Kow said...: Mr Tan,

You have to realise that the American system is not the one shaping the way its society is organised. Neither is it likely such a system in Singapore would work if the 'people' -- or substantial portion of those -- are prepared to make it work. Bottom line is ... it's all about the mindset.

Even if you say one day 'we' decide to change to the US system as you suggest it. The question remains, how do you get from the system we got to the US model? Who are the 'we' to institute such a change? Do you build new institutions to change mindset or do you try to change a mindset and then create institution to meet that change?

In a system like the US model, the citizen of the country must have the mindset that the President of the Country is a servant of the people and not the other way round. Ok in practice, this ideal is not a neat but the core of the mindset must be there. Hence, in the US, people are prepared to lampoon their president. People are also not afraid to express their opinion. Likewise, other institution of state such as the judiciary or the legislature must be prepared to let's say disagree with each other. Can the say be said about the Singapore DNA?; September 01, 2009 2:43 PM
Tan Kin Lian said...: Hi Tan Ah Kow,

I agree that it will take a lot of effort co change the system, including changing the mindset of the people and the leaders.

And it will take a lot of time, so it will not be easy.

But, we need first to agree that there is another way, and that a change is desirable. We can worry about the details of the implementation later.

If people (not you) keep a closed mind, then there will be no change. We will have the same mode for the next 50 years.; September 01, 2009 2:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr Tan,
Why don't you set up a viable party to take up the challenge of leading Singapore into a brighter and free from persecution political future.
I believe a lot of Singaporeans are waiting for your leadership. We want an alternative voice.
You can count me in.; September 01, 2009 2:58 PM
C H Yak said...: For "change" to take place, we must first recognise the "need for change".

What can we change? There are two parts.

(a) the mechanics of politics as determined by the ruling party. The incumbent must recognise this need. If not there must be independent acceptance (But by whom. Can the public exercise this independent acceptance?

(b) the mindset of the people, which primarily is to overcome the "fear about change".

To initiate "CHANGE", I believe all must trust that change will improve our system and allow our political system and the electorate to mature. It means respect for a more sophisticated and or educated electorate, not "fly-by-night" politics and political dominance.

Hence, I see the tactics by any incumbent to create and extend the "barriers of entry" as if our country is just an economic entity or industry as a setback. It perpetuates a "closed" system. And a closed system I believe will lead to entropy or a natural death. This natural death is now taking the form of " little or no talents " entering politics. Even the ruling party is finding it a problem, but it fail or ignore to realise that we need a more "open" approach to politics.

A closed system may perpetuates an incumbent party to rule a country, unless a "revolutionary change" takes place, but will this leads to a "social decay"? An incumbent party can try to perpetuates its rule and benefits from the system by altering the "barriers to entry", but will the nation progress as a whole politically or have the electorate remaining "infant". In this we must recognise the "need for change".; September 01, 2009 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: It always amuses me when I see Singaporeans listening to those who preach this and that. The preaching about coming out with an alternative if you have something to complain about must have come from a moron. What these morons are saying is that people should come out with solutions to their problems while they are being paid a high salary and sitting on their problems while waiting for non-salaried well wishers to do their work for them, write it down, get the postage and envelope to mail to them, wait for their high falutin replies, if any so that the high salaried moron can then act high and mighty to decide whether to accept or reject your proposal. I would prefer not to indulge the highpay moron so he or she can act up and feel important!; September 01, 2009 4:30 PM
Tan Ah Kow said...: Mr Tan,

I hope you don't take my earlier comment as accusation of naivety on your part. That was not the intent on my part.

The real intent of the comment is basically about how we should approach this path of change, in the general sense, in the Singapore context. So in relation to your comment, my (personal) feeling is that trying to reform institution by moving to a new model is probably not fruitful and at best a academic exercise. So in a sense my comment is really a skepticism of your diagnosis or prognosis. Of course, my views could be wrong but my disagreement with you view should in no way be seen as accusation of naivety of your part.

For what it's worth, my argument is really founded on the premise that given the state of play in Singapore right now, the first issue to be tackled really is at changing mindset. More fundamentally, to get people more active in shaping (i.e. support for change or support for status quo) the way our society operates. Currently, we have a situation where the vast majority of people are not prepared to voice their opinion one way or another.

Take the people from the PAP side who believe change is needed but want to do it from the inside. Even until now, many are still fearful of voicing their opinion and still leaving those who want to preserve the status quo to call the shot. You are the exception, who if you don't me saying, have been willing to come out from the establishment to make you opinion clear. I salute you for that stands.

From the opposition side, you have groups that are so hobbled by the system that they have become dependent on the government to set the agenda for them. The exception being the SDP, to which I must salute them for doing so, for being the only truly worthy of being prepared to change the status quo, how ever flawed they may be.

From the non-partisan group, which is the vast majority, you have a spectacularly on-committal bunch not just on politics but also on many aspect of social and economical makeup. For a start, these group should learn to stop boxing themselves up by hiding behind the 'I don't want to be partisan' attitude or shunning anything that is labeled 'politics'. Worst still the adopting the attitude to expecting others to do the dirty job of reform whilst not supporting those doers and even worst still criticizing when they are not prepared to support.

Even in the realm of 'bread-and-butter' issue, no movement seemed to have arisen to push for reform. By movement, I don't necessarily mean street protest, I mean more people of influence, such as yourself, coming out and grouping to pressure change either from the inside or speaking out. I mean has any of your peers come up to speak their mind about, say for example, the way Temaske is managed or to voice displeasure that the way the DBS handled the toxic investment?

Given the state as it stands now, all talk about following the this model or that model is academic at best. Really, what must be done now is to break the fear factor themselves. The SDP has shown one way, albeit a very painful approach, or your way. Until a critical mass where different groups of opinions can co-exist, it would be premature of speak of models where the foundation is built on contest of different view points on equal terms. When there is clear sign of a breakout from current mindset, then discussion of which alternative model would then become meaningful.

In any case, it is necessary to ask this question when the phrase "we must reform...": who are the "we" who is suppose to be doing the reforming. Is we -- revolutionaries (such as in the US where you have people like Jefferson, Washington, etc) -- who will be doing the reforming or "we" as in the government (i.e. in this context PAP leadership) or "we" the common people?; September 01, 2009 6:43 PM
Phoenix Life Insurance said...: The biggest issue in America is the two party system has become corrupt. Plus, you have liberals who own most of the media and they give the people the information they want them to hear.; September 01, 2009 7:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr Tan
You have missed the entire point of the "scholar system".

In a purely fictional country called "The mother of all Hubs", this is how the scholarship system is used.

The most obvious purpose is to identify bright, young people.

What happens next is not so obvious.

These bright young people represent a clear and present danger to the existing system. So they must be systematically "managed" and "neutralized" over their entire lifetime.

Encourage and incentivize them with scholarships to focus on academic studies, especially science and engineering. These subjects tend to create more obedient students because they are fact based. No critical thinking required.

Actively "fix" subjects like political science, history and philosophy which require students to think critically. Stigmatize the Arts by dumping the weaker students here.

Upon graduation, these scholars are bonded for about 8 years to the present system.

Next you pay these scholars above-market salaries and promote them quickly regardless of their abilities or talents. Encourage them to get married and have many kids.

These scholars would be in their early 30's by the time they finish serving out their bond period. Operating at positions above their capabilities with salaries unmatched elsewhere. Busy with wife and kids. Deeply in debt due to their housing and car loans. Maintaining an expensive lifestyle with overseas vacations and membership at country clubs. These scholars are too busy to think.

By the time these scholars are in their forties, about 50%-80% will be facing careers that will be stagnating. Around this time, they start to wake up and think.

But it's too late.

Despised and distrusted by majority of ordinary citizens, these former high-fliers have nowhere else to go. They've got huge housing & car loans to repay, and an expensive lifestyle to maintain. Their children will also want to study at top universities in USA, and this will also cost a small fortune.

And the scholar cannot escape. No real skills to survive in the "real world" because early on, they have been promoted too quickly to learn how to get things done at the grassroots level. Due to constant job rotation early on in their career, they now find that they have no grassroots base or expertise when they are in their forties.

So no choice. Shut up and conform. Become the same deadwood employees they once despised when they were in their high-flying twenties and thirties.

In their fifties, these former scholars will be gently phased out to head top positions in harmless Non-government organizations (NGOs) to keep them busy and out of trouble. But even these NGOs are special. They are really BONGOs (Business-organized NGOs) and GONGOs (Government-organized NGOs).

The above is purely a work of fiction and will never happen in the real world.; September 01, 2009 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: In personal investment, we are warned not to put all eggs in one basket. Such an advice should be and are taken on board by most investors.

Now we have all eggs in one basket as far as governance of the country is concerned. Basically, as of now, there is no credible alternative to taken over from the ruling party. This says a lot how vulnerable we are as one people. We are taken ransom by the ruling party. If they fail (e.g. future leaders are not clean and white), we as country will be ruined.

But whoever now in power does not consider Singapore has politically put all her eggs in one basket. What a sad state of affair!!; September 01, 2009 8:34 PM
Sobri said...: This nags at my conscience.

There are people who were NOT on scholarships. They were critical of the government in their undergraduate days, or their working lives, until they got inducted into the ruling party. Then they either toe the line quietly, or openly give full support to government policies.

Of course there are also those who left the country after conflicts with those in power, but the conflicts stemmed mainly from personal ones, leading to bigger things.

The questions are:
1. Are there other more important factors involved than just $$$$$$, which we the critics could not see?

2. Would we, the critics, do the same things as those we criticise?

3. Do we criticise because of the politics of envy?

4. Are we willing to risk everything for our principles and walk the talk?

5. Or are we just criticising to let off frustration, every now and then, before rushing off to the next NANTAS or COMDEX exhibition to satisfy our material wants?

In other words, do we seriously want CHANGE or are we simply mouthing `change' with no clear plans in mind or the commitment to see it through?; September 02, 2009 10:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr Tan
I don't understand your post.
You said "I like the system adopted in America. The citizens elect the President ... the President appoints suitable people ...these appointees have to be approved by the Congress – whose members were also elected by the people...allows the President to choose the most suitable candidates...the appointees are people who share the President’s visions :"

Isn't that exactly what is going on in Singapore? We get a grand daddy (officially, elected into the system just like USA) lording over the whole system, and he, holds the greatest influence on who gets what posts. Sure, the appointees are supposed to be approved by a panel of officals elected into the system. But that panel is mostly gaki-nang anyway so invariably the votes will support the grand daddy's perceptions. EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH, SAME SAME. Perhaps i miss some point you made, but your post does not give any real reason why you thought the system in America is better, insofar as this particular aspect of governance, is concerned.

At the end of the day, if you get a lousy President or an arrogant Prime Minister you get a basket of yes-man cronies. This bunch could be scholars or non scholars, makes no difference. So the bottom line is just VOTE WISELY to get a proper, humble and intelligent person at the top and you can drop all this completely worthless discussions about whether a Scholar is better than a non Scholar.

REX; September 03, 2009 8:18 AM
Anonymous said...: You guys are still thinking party politics. The ancient model exalts no man to the highest office nor does it favor one type of beasts over the other.

Who will figure out what that ancient model is?; September 03, 2009 5:05 PM

Tuesday, September 01, 2009

Running the country

15 comments:

Blog Archive