‘No one wants to join an unpopular party’
By Seah Chiang Nee
Many years ago when the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was on a visit to a developing Asian country, he received a last hour request for a meeting with the host leader.
As an accompanying journalist, I was alerted to it by the screaming police sirens when Lee returned an hour later.
This was in the 70s.
I asked the PM later what that was about, and he said, off the record, that the host PM had wanted to hear first-hand how Singapore — the world's new nation — had organised itself from scratch.
Lee had told him that a nation of three million people would need at least seven or eight like-minded capable leaders for the Cabinet.
And it had to be supported by an outer ring of at least 20 or 30 top civil servants who were dedicated and corruption-free, such as permanent secretaries, police chief, etc, Lee added.
Since then, he has seldom stopped talking about good leaders.
A few years later, several of us journalists were discussing a related subject — what would be the tell-tale signs that portended the People's Action Party (PAP) going into decline.
A veteran reporter replied: "A decline will start if fewer and fewer people turn up for its (recruitment) 'tea sessions'."
That was the Golden Era of the 70s, when the PAP was an inspiring party and shortage of talent seemed a far distant possibility — even before Lee tried to build it around sky-high salaries.
He granted scholarships to the crème de la crème students, monopolising them for the government — and, of course, keeping them away from rival parties.
The talents came. Many had a passion for public service. They obviously did not join for the money, since there was not much of it to talk of.
(The recent outflow of talent from the PAP to its opponents surprised many people, including myself.)
I remember the era of gotong royong (self-help) in which thousands of volunteers armed with shovels and changkols dug drains and paved roads free of charge.
Soldiers, civil servants and students toiled under the weekend sun; businessmen contributed sand and cement and hawkers offered food and drinks.
I was touched to see Lee and his ministers — in short-sleeves — leading these ant workers.
Lee, Goh Keng Swee and their colleagues never gave themselves large salaries or promised anyone the easy life.
Yet voters loved them and flocked to the call for sacrifice.
I think that was the magic of nationalism that was in all of us — even now with society so badly divided.
It needs a great leader with a bugle to revive it.
Today, Lee's son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, knows that to restore the PAP's former glory, he would need to attract a fresh crop of talented young leaders who have fire in their bellies.
When the government unveiled some candidates who appeared to be less impressive than their rivals, I marked it down for a poorer election showing.
Between now and 2016 (and beyond) if the PAP fails to gather people more capable and passionate than its rivals, it will be eventually replaced.
In recent times, Singaporeans have regularly lamented that the quality of political leadership since Lee's generation has declined — despite higher education and richer rewards.
Would Singapore have a better standard of living today if it were governed by the first generation leaders?
To this question, I generally get mixed answers.
Yet, when the question is reversed — Will the present leaders have done better had they been in power during the 60s and 70s?— almost everyone I met replied "No."
Fortunately, the seniors have left behind enough infrastructure and achievements to give us all a continuing lift upwards.
Lee Jr has a tough time ahead assembling a dedicated group of Cabinet leaders and bureaucrats with stout hearts, not just a propensity to earn top dollars.
Secondly, this search must be extended to the grassroots system for people who can make or break the PAP's image.
Most people don't deal face-to-face with the PAP.
They do, however, have dealings with people in Town Councils or with community representatives.
(I understand that constituencies are short of as much as 20 percent grassroots workers, which need to be filled by foreign permanent residents).
In the face of the PAP's tremendous resources, it seems like an easy task, but far from it.
Attempts to lure private sector talent fared poorly in 2011, possibly because of the wide public resentment against the PAP.
No one wants to join a party he thinks is unpopular.
What it failed to do in 2011, it will be even harder to achieve in 2016, especially with the political contests getting tougher.
With winning becoming more uncertain, talented Singaporeans may decide to give the PAP a wide berth in the next election.
But good Cabinet ministers, top-rate permanent secretaries and dedicated community leaders are needed by every party.
They are the backbone of a successful national entity, something the ruling party once had in abundance.
During the weeks before the election, it became apparent that the co-founder of Singapore was becoming more pensive than ever before about the long-term survival of his party.
Lee Sr probably knew his party's "tea sessions" were drawing a poorer response.
The future will depend on how the Prime Minister carries out his pledge to move closer to the younger electorate.
If he can pull it off, it could once again sweeten the ground for this political party that still possesses significant strength.
A former Reuters correspondent and newspaper editor, the writer is now a freelance columnist writing on general trends in Singapore. This post first appeared on his blog www.littlespeck.com on 14 May 2011.
