Connect with us

Current Affairs

Singapore beyond Lee Kuan Yew

No one knows what S’pore will be like but S’poreans will rise to the occasion, says speakers. Deborah Choo.

Published

15 years ago

on

Deborah Choo

“The price to Singapore of the PAP’s extraordinarily successful half-century of governance is that the system is now particularly vulnerable to the internal self-renewal of the PAP itself.” – Ho Kwon Ping.

International journalists, students, officials, bankers and representatives from established institutions gathered at the National Museum Gallery Theatre yesterday afternoon. They were there for the inaugural Asia Journalism Fellowship (AJF) seminar organized by the Temasek Foundation, Nanyang Technological University (NTU).

The session was chaired by Cherian George, a researcher at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information,NTU. The seminar was titled, “Singapore Beyond Lee Kuan Yew: Institutionalising The Singapore Way”. 

The event brought together two distinguished guest speakers, namely Kishore Mahbubani, Dean and Professor of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, and Ho Kwon Ping, Executive Chairman, Banyan Tree Holdings; Chairman, Singapore Management University; Chairman, MediaCorp Pte Ltd.

Mr Mahbubani raised three pertinent issues. Firstly, whether it is legitimate to pose the question of Singapore’s prospects beyond Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew.  Mr Mahbubani acknowledged that many internationally had raised similar concerns, some expressing pessimism over Singapore’s future after MM Lee; one being Professor Samuel Huntington, who had said: “The honesty and efficiency that Senior Minister Lee has brought to Singapore are likely to follow him to his grave. “

Mr Mahbubani  feels that the question boils down to MM Lee being an “extraordinary leader”, who is admired as a nation builder, an international statesman, and an effective and persuasive leader.

MM Lee’s legacy

Second, what has Singapore done to ensure that MM Lee’s legacy will be protected? Mr Mahbubani listed seven measures undertaken, namely an “exceptional” education system, national service, strong public institutions, a political party who had “learnt the art of winning elections”, ethnic harmony, meritocracy, and stamping out corruption.

However, when it came to the question of a Singapore after MM Lee, his take was that no one can be sure what this will be. He speculated three scenarios, one: a seamless transition, second: a significant reversal of the legacy left by MM Lee, and third: PAP continues to rule Singapore, but with a strong opposition force.

Mahbubani emphasized that Singapore must be able to conceive the notion of failure, so as to prevent the country degenerating. This was something which former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee, had told him, after the PAP’s monopoly of Parliament was broken in 1981. “As (Dr Goh) has wisely told us, failure happens when we fail to consider the possibility of failure,” said Mr Mahbubani.

Mr Ho Kwon Ping felt that MM Lee had already passed the first test all great leaders faced, which is to personally engineer the transition to the next generation of leaders. However, whether MM Lee’s legacy would last beyond several generations, to become “enshrined in lasting, sustainable institutions”, is still unknown, Mr Ho said.

Singapore “stable, but static”

He is, however, confident that Singapore will see a new generation of leaders coming forth in the self-renewal process. But Mr Ho raised doubts over whether the PAP will continue to advance its current one-party dominance by producing its future leaders in which Singaporeans may or may not support in the future. His other concern is whether tomorrow’s generation can weather a change in the political climate which may see more opposition entering the scene.

He described Singapore’s political equilibrium as “stable, but static”, and feels that a multi-party political system would serve to benefit Singapore. He, however, maintained that “intentionally dividing the

PAP into two sister parties taking turns at the polls to lead the country, is an artificial, unworkable idea.”

Singapore vulnerable to PAP’s internal self-renewal

He cautioned that though Singapore has enjoyed good governance in the past 50 years, it has inevitably also made us particularly vulnerable to the “internal self-renewal of the PAP itself”. Citing China’s political system, he said, “We do not know the process by which Xi Jin Ping, a relatively unknown heir apparent to President Hu Jin Tao, was assessed, tested, and then given the mantle of succession. But a system of internal competition, evaluation, and selection clearly exists. And the system, however non-transparent, is sustainable and meritocratic – and it works.”

Echoing Mr Mahbubani’s stand on a Singapore beyond MM Lee, he concluded, “The only possible answer, since we have not yet crossed that bridge, is that we do not know. But future leaders will certainly not enjoy the huge political legitimacy arising from approval by Lee Kuan Yew.”

Mr Ho expressed uncertainty over the one-party dominance in the post Lee Kuan Yew era, but said that should it succeed, “they will have created a new model of political governance which will genuinely challenge the fundamental assumptions of Western liberal democracy with its requisite two-party model.” He remains confident that the future generation will “rise to the occasion” when the time calls as their “sense of belonging is strong”.

The younger generation

When TOC asked him on his views on the impact of the brain drain in Singapore, Mr Ho said he is not too worried about this, as all Singapore youths want to see the world, but they would return eventually. 

Mr Ho disagreed that Singaporean youths are apathetic, as they “may be disinterested in electoral politics, but they are increasingly involved in civil society and community issues.”

The only difference is that the media medium used to air their views is different from that of the older generation. He said, “They seek expression not in Speakers Corner but in alternative digital media and social networking sites.”

The government realizes that it cannot control the new media, and it is good that the government is engaging in discussions at the grassroots level to find out more about it, he told TOC.

Addressing the government liberalizing its hold on the mainstream media, Mr Ho felt that the government has and is adopting a “pragmatic” approach to satisfy the younger generation’s thirst for democracy, but also being cautious not to upset the heartland, nor “endangering” social stability.

Citing the heated debates over gay rights and the Public Order Act, Mr Ho argues that “incremental change is happening.”

“The society Lee Kuan Yew has shaped will not, as Prof Samuel Huntington predicted, follow him to his grave,” he said. “It may not look like the Singapore of Lee’s time, nor may the PAP rule un-interrupted forever, but the people of Singapore, the nation they inhabit, and the society they continue to shape, will thrive so long as our children know that the future of Singapore belongs to them.”

—–

Picture of speakers from Straits Times.

Read also: “Yes we can (survive)” by The Straits Times.

And: Possible Singapores, beyond LKY by TODAY.

—-

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

1 week ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Comments

Redditors question support for PAP over perceived arrogance and authoritarian attitude

Despite Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s warning that slimmer electoral margins would limit the government’s political space “to do the right things”, many Redditors questioned their support for the ruling PAP, criticising its perceived arrogance. They argued that SM Lee’s remarks show the party has ‘lost its ways’ and acts as if it alone can determine what is right. Others noted that the PAP’s supermajority allows for the passage of unfavourable policies without adequate scrutiny.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

19 September 2024

By

In a recent speech, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong warned that “if electoral margins get slimmer, the government will have less political space to do the right things.”

Mr Lee, who served as Prime Minister for 20 years, highlighted the risks associated with increasingly competitive politics.

“It will become harder to disregard short-term considerations in decision-making. The political dynamics will become very different,” he stated during his speech at the Annual Public Service Leadership Ceremony 2024 on 17 September.

“Singaporeans must understand the dangers this creates, and so must the public service,” SM Lee stressed.

SM Lee pointed out that Singapore faces formidable internal and external challenges in the years ahead, with rising expectations and demands from citizens.

As growth becomes harder to achieve and politics becomes more fiercely contested, he warned, “Things can go wrong for Singapore too.”

He urged vigilance in preparing for an uncertain future, noting, “As the world changes, and as the generations change, we must do our best to renew our system – to ensure that it continues to work well for us, even as things change.”

Critique of PAP’s Arrogance and Disconnect from Singaporeans

The People’s Action Party (PAP) experienced a notable decline in its vote share during the 2020 General Election, securing 61.24% of the votes and winning 83 out of 93 seats, a drop from 69.9% in 2015.

A significant loss was in Sengkang GRC, where the PAP team, led by former Minister Ng Chee Meng, was defeated by the Workers’ Party (WP).

In discussions on Reddit, some users questioned why they should support the ruling PAP, criticising the party’s perceived arrogance.

They pointed out that SM Lee’s recent remarks illustrate that the party has strayed from effectively serving Singaporeans and seems to believe it has the sole authority to decide what is right.

Others highlighted that the PAP’s super-majority in Parliament enables the passage of unfavourable policies without sufficient scrutiny.

One comment acknowledged that while many older Singaporeans remain loyal to the PAP due to its past achievements, younger generations feel the party has failed to deliver similar results.

There is significant frustration that essentials like housing and the cost of living have become less affordable compared to previous generations.

The comment emphasised the importance of the 2011 election results, which they believe compelled the PAP to reassess its policies, especially concerning foreign labor and job security.

He suggested that to retain voter support, the PAP must continue to ensure a good material standard of living.

“Then, I ask you, vote PAP for what? They deserve to lose a supermajority. Or else why would they continue to deliver the same promises they delivered to our parents? What else would get a bunch of clueless bureaucrats to recognise their problems?”

Emphasising Government Accountability to the Public

Another Redditor argued that it is the government’s responsibility to be accountable to the people.

He further challenged SM Lee’s assertion about having less political space to do the right things, questioning his authority to define what is “right” for Singapore.

The comment criticised initiatives like the Founder’s Memorial and the NS Square, suggesting they may serve to boost the egos of a few rather than benefit the broader population. The Redditor also questioned the justification for GST hikes amid rising living costs.

“Policies should always be enacted to the benefit of the people, and it should always be the people who decide what is the best course of action for our country. No one should decide that other than us.”

The comment called for an end to narratives that present the PAP as the only party capable of rescuing Singapore from crises, stating that the country has moved past the existential challenges of its founding era and that innovative ideas can come from beyond a single political party.

Another comment echoed this sentiment, noting that by stating this, SM Lee seemingly expects Singaporeans to accept the PAP’s assumption that they—and by extension, the government and public service—will generally do the “right things.”

“What is conveniently overlooked is that the point of having elections is to have us examine for ourselves if we accept that very premise, and vote accordingly.”

A comment further argued that simply losing a supermajority does not equate to a lack of political space for the government to make the right decisions.

The Redditor express frustration with SM Lee’s rhetoric, suggesting that he is manipulating public perception to justify arbitrary changes to the constitution.

Concerns Over PAP’s Supermajority in Parliament

Another comment pointed out that the PAP’s supermajority in Parliament enables the passage of questionable and controversial policies, bypassing robust debate and discussion.

The comment highlighted the contentious constitutional amendments made in late 2016, which reserved the elected presidency for candidates from a specific racial group if no president from that group had served in the previous five terms.

A comment highlighted the contrast: in the past, the PAP enjoyed a wide electoral margin because citizens believed they governed effectively. Now, the PAP claims that without a substantial electoral margin, they cannot govern well.

Continue Reading

Trending