44th National Day

[Grievous]

Why should the next Prime Minister be in his 30s?
by Quak Hiang Whai
05:55 AM Aug 10, 2009

I AM now resigned to the fact that there is very little chance that I will be Singapore's next Prime Minister.

Apart from the fact that I'm not currently involved in politics or policy, it has now been made crystal clear that my age is also a big hurdle to whatever slim chances I had of leading the nation.

In fact, leaving me aside, it appears that we should rule out Singaporeans who have reached the very top of their field across a wide spectrum of society, because - like me - they are not in their early or late 30s.

In a dialogue session with senior journalists last week, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong "is looking for someone to come in at the next election, have some years of experience in government, and who can take over (as PM) ... He is looking for someone in their early 30s or maybe late 30s. Someone who can rise to be Prime Minister is not easy to find".

To be fair, Mr Goh did add this caveat: "I'm not saying that there is no one in the Cabinet now who can take over. There are a few people, but they are only a few years younger than (Mr Lee)."

I have long wondered if it is a wise move, especially in the hunt for leaders, to place such a heavy emphasis on age, or in this case, youth.


LESSONS FROM THE PAST

If age was such a deal-breaker in politics, the United States would never have elected a sprightly 69-year-young Ronald Reagan, who led the super-power energetically and effectively.

At the other end of the political spectrum, in communist China, where politics is sometimes literally a matter of life and death, how would you explain the return of the ultimate comeback kid Deng Xiaoping.

Returned to power at the age of 74, he unleashed the economic reforms which have made China one of the most important economies and engines in the world today.

If age was an issue, Britain would not have seen the appointment of Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the age of 66.

He went on to lead Britain through its darkest hours during World War II. And if that was not enough, Mr Churchill came back as Prime Minister in 1951 for another term when he was well into his 70s.

Yes, I have heard the refrain that Singapore is a very different nation: A young nation, a non-homogenous population, a people with a small talent pool.


SHORTAGES, RESTRICTIONS

We talk a lot about the shortage of talent in Singapore.

But have we allowed this worry to lull us into a sort of "group think'' by always looking for leaders from the same places and with the same profile?

In recent years, there are those who have argued that while attitudes have shifted, Singaporeans are not yet ready for a non-Chinese prime minister, nor a woman prime minister.

Do we really need to add another restriction, that he must be in his early or late 30s?

Why can't the next prime minister be any of the other Cabinet ministers, regardless of whether they are older than Mr Lee, or why not Mr Goh himself for that matter?

Someone, in his late 30s, reminded me that a young leader would share the same experiences as a young electorate in this new globalised world.

The assumption, to me, is that it would be more difficult for an older leader to relate to young Singaporeans. By the same logic, would a younger leader be less able to relate to older Singaporeans? Or would a well-educated scholar from a middle-class family be disconnected from the average Singaporean?

Mr Deng Xiaoping may have been 74 and a hardcore communist when he returned to power but he, too, understood the world had moved on, and he was prepared to listen and move with the times.

Another argument that I have heard in favour of younger leaders (and I'm not even going to debate the issue of them being healthier given all the sudden deaths around us) is that they would be able to offer a sense of stability and consistency of leadership over a longer period. Again, I do not believe that an older person cannot do the same given their more matured outlook and experience.


TIME TO DITCH THE OLD TEMPLATE

I feel that what we need in a leader is someone who is able to mobilise his team and people, adapt to the changes around him or her to ensure progress for all.

We need someone who can think out of the box and when needed, tap on the expertise and experience of a good team around him.

It was just as well that former Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan reminded us last week that what Singapore needs is new markets, new products and new ideas.

Perhaps it is time to ditch the old template for leadership succession. Sex, race, education - and now age - should not matter as much.

This issue of youth and succession reminds me of two memorable quotes from Mr Reagan.

In the 1960s, a group of protesters confronted Mr Reagan, then a Governor and accused him of failing to understand them.

One of them said: "Governor, it's impossible for your generation to understand us ... You didn't grow up in a world of instant electronic communications, of cybernetics, of men computing in seconds what once took months, even years, or jet travel, nuclear power, and journeys into space..."

When the young man finished, Mr Reagan replied: "You're absolutely right. Our generation didn't have those things when we were growing up. We invented them.''

Some 20 years later, during the US presidential debate in 1984, then Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale highlighted Mr Reagan's age as one of his potential shortcomings.

Mr Reagan's reply: "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience."

The writer, aged 45, recently completed his Masters in Public Administration at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.

[Grievous]

What have we done for our Merdeka Generation?
by P N Balji news@mediacorp.com.sg
05:55 AM Aug 10, 2009

I BELONG to the Lucky Generation. Born soon after World War II into a tumultuous world, by a twist of good faith and fortune, we became the early beneficiaries of Singapore's economic success.

Three moves catapulted people of my generation out of a Singapore in the backwaters to a Singapore in the ocean of prosperity: the Central Provident Fund (CPF), high salaries and housing.

A young Singaporean recently gasped in awe as I told her that there was a point in our lives when we were forced to save 50 per cent of our monthly salaries, 25 per cent paid by ourselves and the other 25 per cent by our employers. At age 55, for many of us, there was more than a cool million dollars waiting to be collected.

It was about the same time that Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his team decided that Singapore should up the economic game and move into producing high-end goods. That was done by forcing companies to pay their workers higher wages or move their operations out of Singapore.

The result: Those lucky enough not to work in the Singapore sweatshops saw their salaries rise by $1,000 a month. Can you imagine what this kind of extra income, and that too in the early 1980s, could have done to your bottom line and your spirits?

And, finally, housing. Thirty-three years ago, I bought my first home (not house, as today's Singaporeans like to say) for $97,500. Home, sweet home, it provided more than a roof over our heads, appreciating in value many times over. Many profited by buying and selling and then re-buying and re-selling as the country turbocharged its way into an economic never-never land.

Believe it or not, a friend of mine paid a deposit for a town house in Faber Garden and just weeks later sold it for a profit of $100,000 because the property agent had found a willing buyer. That was in 1990.

As my mind goes back to such stories of the Lucky Generation this National Day, I can't help but think of the generation before us, the Merdeka Generation.

The group that gave the People's Action Party (PAP) its biggest break by voting the then opposition party into power in the 1959 elections with a 43-51 majority in Parliament.

Would we have the Singapore that we see today if not for that momentous day on May 30, 1959? Highly unlikely.

That generation is now in their 70s, 80s and some even in their 90s. There are an estimated 191,000 of them, some in good health and happily retired, some bed-ridden, some breaking their backs cleaning up after us in food outlets and even some being pushed in wheelchairs by the maids at some of our parks.

At 8.22pm last night, many of us stopped for a moment to take the Singapore pledge.

It is time to start thinking of another pledge, this time for our Merdeka Generation: We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge to look after our Merdeka Generation by taking care of their needs and wants in a way that they can live their golden years in happiness and look back at the nation they helped to create with joy and pride.

The Government can go one step further by easing one of their biggest fears: Health care. Put aside a bare minimum sum to take care of their health needs.

Is that too much to ask of a nation that might not even be a dot if not for these people?

P N Balji is a veteran journalist.

[SanNiang]

The author obviously do not know what is 过河拆桥 and not knowing this is the kind of efficiency our gov is adopting.

[SanNiang]

the reason is because in US, Americans decide the next premier, while in SG, Lee Hsien Loong decides the next premier.