by: Ghui/

George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua were both politicians who have made contributions to Singapore. George Yeo especially, was an outstanding Minister for foreign affairs. However, both have resigned from active politics after failing to win in Aljunied GRC in GE 2011.

I am disappointed by their respective decisions because it signals a lack of willpower and commitment. Every politician suffers setbacks in his or her career. All politicians the world over have lost elections and many have come back to fight another day. Most, were victorious eventually. Each failed election campaign is a learning experience after all. Singapore is unique in this because the PAP has been the ruling party for over 50 years with little or no competition, leaving us with a generation of politicians who seem ill adept to fight.

This begs the question; do our PAP candidates lack qualities which real politicians should possess? Are they in fact, true politicians?

In an article entitled “The PAP and the idealism of Nuns”, the writer quotes Laurel Teo, a Straits Times journalist who once wrote “Being an MP is still about helping people, but it is also about wielding political power. One is not asking for scheming Machiavellian types, but those who enter politics must know this. Know why they want that power, and how they intend to exercise it.”

How true! In that one statement, she has identified the difference between a “do gooder” and a real politician. While not undermining the importance of altruistic commitment, politicians must possess additional qualities such as foresight, leadership, charisma and most importantly, tireless persistence coupled with the ability to conquer setbacks. He or she must also possess a certain degree political awareness and realism.

Perhaps there is an inherent problem in PAP’s selection process. New candidates do not appear to take up the challenge of standing for elections (or walk overs) by their own volition. In recent years, it would seem that the candidates are handpicked by senior PAP cadres and invited to serve. Candidates would be selected from a pool of “elites” who have a track record of community service and volunteer work. This therefore rules out home grown politicians within the PAP and creates the “packaged” politician. Most of these individuals may never have had political aspirations had they not been “invited” to “join the club”.

The negative impact of “packaged” politicians is the creation of a “super volunteer”, ill suited to the challenges of the political stage. Someone willing to serve but without an “individual” opinion. In fact, some have no opinions at all! Take Tin Pei Ling as an example. When asked what policies she would change if elected, she replied that she would alter nothing as all existing policies work! This disturbing lack of thought on policies signals an administrator, an able one perhaps, but not a person with the political acumen and skills to qualify as a genuine politician. This lack of awareness for what true politics entail impedes a candidate’s ability to engage the voters. After all, if a particular candidate is unable to effectively articulate what he or she believes in or what policies he or she represents, how can such candidate convince voters of what they are voting for?

As Laurel Teo states “These may be do-gooders, but by appearing not to have given much prior thought to a topical issue, they make themselves look as politically apathetic as the worst of the Singaporeans”. In its selection process, the PAP has unwittingly created a breed of politicians who are politically apathetic!

In an article entitled “The 4Cs which leaders need”. Teo Ser Luck described himself as “not a natural politician”. If candidates had not been “manufactured” would someone like Mr Teo have ventured into the political arena?

Not all “created” politicians have been dismal failures of course. In the history of Singapore, a fair few have made genuine and significant contributions to Singapore. However, the drawback of such candidates is complacency and an inability or unwillingness to challenge the status quo. After all, why bite the hand that feeds you?

Juxtapose these “produced” politicians with those who have willingly stepped up to the plate. They have joined opposition parties and contested in GE 2011 without having to be “invited” to participate. You could not have a starker contrast. Take Nicole Seah for instance. She was quick witted at interviews as opposed to Tin Pei Ling’s scripted responses.

There are also other shining examples of enduring and persistent commitment.

Chiam See Tong is one such steadfast figure. Chiam entered politics in 1976 but only won his first election in 1984. At each failed election campaign, he increased his vote share, finally beating Mah Bow Tan with 60.3 % of the votes. In GE 2011, he lost in the Bishan Toa Payoh GRC. Despite this defeat, his age and his ill health, he has said that he will try again. This tenacity and strength of character is truly inspirational and is what defines a genuine politician. Chiam is willing to work hard, possesses a heart for service, realises the importance of engaging his voters and above all, has a “never say die” attitude. Someone who is willing to soldier on no matter the odds. His ability to be “one with the voters” earned him the ongoing loyalty of Singaporeans.

Another familiar figure is JBJ. Despite all his setbacks, he always picked up the pieces to try again. He never gave up till the day he died. He will go down in the annals of Singapore history as the man who was never daunted by defeat, a true hero among heros.

Much as I admire George Yeo for his contributions, he seems to lack this perseverance, announcing his retirement from active politics days after losing the election. While he gave a gracious speech, I was frustrated by his seeming lack of determination. I do not know George Yeo personally so perhaps he had his reasons. But the message sent by this prompt resignation is an unwillingness to fight the good fight. There was talk that Yeo could run for president but he remained undecided, disengaged and finally announced that he would not be running after all.

Perhaps, George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua, while being able administrators and civil servants were never put in a position whereby they had to really fight for votes. Be that as it may, wanting to fight for every vote is an essential quality every real politician should possess. Chaim is much older than both Yeo and Lim but his love for Singapore is such that he refuses to give up. JBJ was well into his 80s! To these old political veterans, I salute you. You are the real deal. To George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua, I feel somewhat let down.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

The unknown side of Singapore

Rockerchick takes her camera round S’pore and “found many impoverished people.”

扎吉哈冀国人投身建筑业 惟土木工程师薪资低于中位数

人力部兼国家发展部政务部长扎吉哈指出,过去十年从事建筑行业PMET的国人占比呈下降趋势,因此新政策的实施,是为了吸引本地白领能够重返建筑行业。 然而,扎吉哈也坦言,本地人倾向较舒适的工作环境,建筑业也被视为“干粗活”的行业;再者,雇主也可以聘请较低成本、技术较低的外籍工人取而代之。 建筑业占据新加坡国内生产总值(GDP)的4巴仙,因此建设局推断,我国建筑需求将从2021至2022年间,每年需要270亿至340亿元之间;从2023年至2024年,每年需要280亿至350亿元。 预见建筑业发展 扎吉哈表示,“2020年后,我们可以预见建筑行业的发展,尤其是将开启各大大型项目如樟宜机场第五号航站、裕廊湖畔花园的建设、滨海湾金沙与圣淘沙名胜世界的扩建、跨岛地铁路线的建设等。 他是在本月8日,于建设局和新加坡产业发展商公会(REDAS)2020年建筑环境与房地产展望研讨会上,这么指出。 建设局首席执行官林优扬先生向记者透露,有关建筑咨询模型专业转换方案,即协助中期职业的PMET提升技能转换行业之计划,并非相当成功,与医疗保健或制造业的专业人士转业计划(Professional Conversion Programme,简称PCP)相比,只有少部分建筑公司愿意接受。 因此,今年晚些将会推出建筑行业有关技能框架,协助毕业生与中期职业PMET进入建筑行业。 工程师的平均薪资比整体全职收入的中位数还低 若林优扬有关注他们在建筑行业的薪资水平,就会发现为何本地PMET不太愿意在建筑行业工作。…

柔苏丹:外人无权摆布柔事务 “别浪费时间在没意义事件上”

马来西亚柔佛州务大臣事件闹得沸沸扬扬,终在周日(4月14日)告一段落。惟苏丹依布拉欣表示,联邦政府不应该就柔佛州权威争议 “浪费时间”,直接剑指马来西亚首相马哈迪医生。 这位60岁的统治者在昨日新州务大臣宣誓就任后,于脸书上帖文说,“我建议政府不要浪费时间在没有利益的事情、诽谤和捏造事实上,只是为了转移注意力和混淆人民。” “相反的,请将注意力集中在人民福利和改善国家经济发展方面。” 柔佛州统治者和其儿子,皇储东姑依斯迈曾因前州务大臣拿督奥斯曼于上周辞职后,谁有权力委任新州务大臣,以及联邦政府是否有权商议柔佛事宜方面,与首相马哈迪医生隔空骂战。 马哈迪:我国非绝对君主制国家 今年已93岁的马哈迪医生表示,他有权谈论柔佛事宜,因为柔佛属于马来西亚的一部分。 《马来邮报》上周也引述他的话说,“我认为,如果任命首相和州务大臣的人是君主,那么我们的国家就不再是民主国家” 。 “人民选出政党,再由该政党中选出一名州务大臣的权力如被剥夺,这样,我们的国家将成为一个绝对君主制国家。” 苏丹依布拉欣周日说道,“柔佛政府存在已久,他有自己的问话和管理方式”。 “外面的人没有必要开始谈论谁有权力,以及如何管理州属。”…