Let’s harness our collective strengths across party lines, eschew arrogance in all forms, reduce the phenomenon of mounting voter frustration and preserve our unity as a nation

The political landscape is rapidly shifting, with new opposition parties being formed and major leadership changes within the incumbent ruling party … Anticipation of the next GE is mounting

by Dinesh Senan: 11 April 2019

As is to be welcomed, the performance expectations demanded by a more educated and financially secure populace in the democratic nations of the world today, of their appointed representatives in government,  (than was prevalent just a half century ago), are now far broader.

And this is a good thing.   For this represents the flowering of democracy, yielding a more colourful, more beautiful garden in which to live our lives more fully, qualitatively and quantitatively.

Yet, this broadening of expectations, representing a greater diversity of aspirations, imposes ever greater challenges and strains upon the creaking strictures of the old Westminster Model of parliamentary elections, where the simplistic and crude first-past-the-post, winner-take-all outcome effectively lays asunder the strengths of the ‘losing’ party.   

Whilst the old Westminster Model might have been satisfactory 50 years ago, today’s electorate has perhaps a far more sophisticated and realistic awareness of the limited capability of any one political party to be able to meet all of its diverse expectations, across a growing multiplicity of requisite competencies in governance.

In this winner-take-all scenario, the winning party is almost invariably the one that commands the strongest competencies in the ‘base level’ areas of governance, (the more ‘physiological and safety’ related needs, comprising material / economic needs of food, security and shelter).   This party will likely always win, in a simplistic first-past-the-post wins scenario, as not all areas of governance carry equal ‘weightage’.   Because those areas of governance represent the more essential ‘need to have’ competencies.   But the other ‘less or non-essential’ and ‘specialised’ competencies, (comprising the more psychological and fulfilment-related needs, including civil liberties and  freedom of expression, the promulgation of the arts and culture , and the more ‘specialist competencies’ including healthcare, transportation, etc), carry relatively ‘lighter’ weightage, and will therefore be more likely to be laid asunder at the ballot box within the current Electoral Model, as they are, relatively speaking, merely ‘nice to haves’ when seen from within a Maslow-esque hierarchy of needs.   

And when forced to make just one ‘either/or’ choice, the electorate is effectively bereft of any ‘real’ alternative, to a political party that clearly dominates in the ‘need-to-have’ competencies.   Hence, in the Singapore context, the growing frustration of an electorate which perennially sees the same dominant party winning outright control of the House, mostly due to its undeniable prowess and half century of tangibly demonstrable capability in the provision of the more ‘base level’ realms of governance.   At the expense, perhaps, of the ‘nice-to-have’ competencies.

Hence the growing collective sense of frustration of today’s electorate, with the overall quality of the governance it is able to obtain.

Such systemically-induced frustration, (resulting from the ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral model), is arguably also the central underlying reason for the phenomenon of the ‘angry voter’ seen to be escalating in many democratic nations of the world.   Where voters are largely left to choose between Party A or Party B, when neither is likely to be able to satisfy all the requisite governance competencies expected of the voter.   Resulting not necessarily in thoughtful votes being cast for carefully contemplated leadership and positive change through the endorsement of the most competent of electoral candidates, but rather in votes being cast against the status quo, and to signal outright unhappiness of the voter.   Not quite the same thing at all.   And sometimes with significantly detrimental consequences for the nations concerned, as is perhaps being witnessed in the UK and the US today.

So what are we, the citizens, to do, whilst still operating within the constraints of the current electoral model?

Whilst there may, at some more distant point in time, eventually emerge a more sophisticated and much needed ‘upgrade’ to the Westminster Model, (Model 2.0?), wherein voters might then possibly get to more sensibly elect their representatives for each specialised area of governance distinctly, (as has previously been envisaged and described by this author earlier:  see The Straits Times: May 15th, 2015:  “A novel proposal for political reform”), thereby possibly going a greater distance towards the better and more competent realisation of the electorate’s many different expectations of its government, such an ‘evolutionary’ Model 2.0 is not likely to emerge for several more years.   Evolution takes time.

In the interim, however, we must strive to find some way to reduce the escalation of such systemically-induced voter frustration.

This, I believe, can be accomplished, even within the current Electoral Model, through a change of our mindset.   The prevailing Model, which is characterised by adversarial, ‘opposition’ politicking, might perhaps be replaced with a Higher Spirit of ‘enlightened co-governance’ in parliament, even amongst a growing multiplicity of political parties in the House.

This can be achieved through a conscious choice that we the citizens of Singapore might make, as we collectively contemplate how we might steer the way forward in our continued growth and progress as an ever-happier nation.   Avoiding as best we can the voter-frustration-engendered pitfalls that have befallen other democratic nations of the world.   By harnessing as much as possible the available governance competencies, (comprising both the base and upper levels of the hierarchy of needs), regardless of party affiliations.

We can do this, if we, (this is the collective ‘we’:  embracing every private citizen, every public servant and every politician regardless of political party), adopted a Higher Spirit, and a higher Mindset that embraces the following:

• We resolve to act always, first and foremost, as one united people … we resolve therefore that even if we belong to different political parties, we first recognise the underlying Singaporean identity in the members of every Party;

• We strive to drop the ridiculously stultifying notion of ‘opposition for the sake of opposition’ in politics … it’s an archaic notion and is entirely unnecessary for an enlightened people … and without losing the voice of our respective Opinions, which may very well differ robustly, we might consider to drop the archaic label of ‘opposition party’ too, and regard ALL parties as ‘co-governing parties’ within our One House;

• We replace it instead with the Higher Spirit of ‘co-governance’, where we listen deeply and respectfully to each other, regardless of party colours, and recognise that differences of Opinion are not necessarily the same thing as differences of Principle.

A Higher Vision:   

If we can achieve these here in Singapore, many benefits would accrue.   Each party might then be able to welcome with humility the constructive criticism from another party in the House, regardless of whether it is the dominant one or not, and be genuinely willing to give credit where credit is due, regardless of party.   Operating in this Higher Spirit within the House, no party need be seen as a threat to the others.   A complementing of competencies might then sensibly emerge across the House, for the ultimate benefit of all Singaporeans.   Non-dominant parties may then also strategically and smartly choose to focus only on certain more specific areas of governance when they campaign for a seat in the House, and when they build and organise their parties, along more specific lines of governance-competencies, whilst removing the need to ‘pretend’ to be a ‘replacement’ of the dominant party especially in the ‘base level’ realms of governance.   Non-dominant parties could also help extend good ideas to refine the implementation of policies propounded by the dominant party, where the underlying principles may be shared, though the implementation could be improved.   This would require the dominant party, concomitantly, to set aside arrogance and be willing to truly listen, and to always allow for reason to triumph.

This call to be led by a ‘Higher Spirit’ could not have been better enunciated than by Thomas Jefferson.   At a time of grave tension and great stress within the fledgling United States, between the Federalists, (with monarchists amongst their lot), and the Republicans, (led by Jefferson), the latter’s enlightened words at his Inauguration drew handshakes between the ‘adversaries’ thereafter:

“All … will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;  that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.   Let us then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind … Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.   We have called by different names brethren of the same principle.   We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.  If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbedas monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”

–  Inaugural Presidential Address of Thomas Jefferson:  March 4th, 1801

How we govern ourselves as we move forward is really a choice we might make.  I pray that a Higher Spirit of respectful co-governance might be allowed to prevail across all party lines, despite the pitfalls of the current Westminster Model within which we are still operating, by trusting in our collective oneness as fellow Singaporeans in striving to do what’s best for our Singapore.   It is ultimately a matter of our collective choice … and it is not so idealistic as to be entirely beyond us, acting as one united, mature, and more enlightened people, to make.

In an Alternative Electoral Reality … giving Diversity a fairer chance

by Dinesh Senan: 20 September 2015

Singaporeans have voted resoundingly for the PAP. But was that necessarily synonymous with a vote against Diversity in the House? Or does the current winner take all Electoral Model inadvertently mask the possibility that Singaporeans might very well have desired both?

In relation to the theoretical alternative competencies-based New Electoral Model, which I had written about several months ago, (published in the Straits Times, May 15, 2015: http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/a-novel-proposal-for-political-reform), I feel it is worthwhile contemplating just how our electorate might have had a very different outcome, having both the competencies of the PAP in the House, as well as the (supplementary) competencies of focused opposition parties, each contesting in their respective Chambers of competencies, to serve the nation better as a whole.

Three key questions come to mind, as I reflect, post-GE, on the theoretical alternative Model: How the outcome could have been different? And why would that model be better? Who would gain from such a New Model?

How the outcome could have been different:

In that conjectured alternative Electoral Model, (which would doubtlessly need substantive fine-tuning in its details in due course, should it be deemed worthy of deeper study for the betterment of our nation), it is proposed that there could be several Chambers of Governance, each taking care of cogently-linked functional clusters, such as, for instance, an Economic Development Chamber, (comprising economics, finance and trade governance), and perhaps a distinct Healthcare Chamber, a distinct Transportation Chamber, a Law & Civil Liberties Chamber, etc. etc.

In that scenario, (as had been more fully outlined in my earlier article), each citizen would get to vote for the candidates of their choice, from amongst all of the candidates put forth by each party that might be contesting for the available seats within each distinct Chamber of Governance. So if there are, say, 5 Chambers of Governance in the House, with 5 seats being contested within each Chamber, the citizen simply votes 5 times … 1 for whichever party’s candidates they think most competent to run each Chamber.

Now some parties might choose to contest for all Chambers of Governance. Other parties might instead choose to focus on putting forth candidates in only certain specific Chambers.

Thus any party believing it has the right competencies to lead any specific Chamber(s) of Governance, could more smartly focus on those Chambers concerned, and put forth their best candidates to run for the seats in just those Chambers.

Why would that model be better?

Consider this ground reality: not all Chambers of Governance are equal in weightage. The Economic Development Chamber carries a higher weightage for the conservative, thinking voter, than any of the other desirable yet less foundationally important Chambers would. The current Model is thus incontrovertibly skewed in favour of the party that can best provide this base level / foundational economic development governance. The consequence of which is that all other desirable / aspirational competencies do not get to be distinctly chosen from amongst other opposition parties which are less capable of rendering strong economic development leadership than the incumbent PAP, as the current winner take all Electoral Model effectively precludes this.

I would argue that the Economic Development Chamber of Governance, (responsible for the GNP of the nation, commanding such governance skills as the Ministry of Trade & Industry and the Ministry of Finance wields), would always carry a higher relative ‘weightage’ in the minds of the thinking, conservative voters, than any of the other Chambers. Reason: The Economic Development Chamber goes to the most foundational level of governance that any society needs … namely the base economic level of primordial physiological needs fulfillment. Thinking, conservative voters will always tend to wish to secure this governance capability within the House first and foremost. All other capabilities will, relatively speaking, be ‘nice‘ to have, once this foundational capability is in place. Those other supplemental / aspirational capabilities are indeed much desired, as well, but resting on top of the former competency.

In other words, the Economic Development Chamber is akin to a ‘need to have’ competency, whilst the other Chambers are akin to ‘nice to have’ competencies, resting on top of the former foundational competency. Thus, the Economic Development aspect of governance will always effectively carry a heavier weightage for the conservative voter than the other governance chambers. And so, we the electorate are not likely to be able to have both the need and the nice … the foundational and the aspirational diversity … within our House, for so long as we have the PAP dominating the economic development realm of governance.

My central argument is that the prevailing Electoral Model, (effectively ‘coercing’ the electorate to pick on a wholesale party vs party winner take all basis), will always tend to favour the PAP today, (given the PAP’s relatively predominant and masterful competency in this Economic Development realm of governance).

Thus, the current system effectively precludes the emergence of any other aspirational competencies which could have been distinctly focused upon by opposition parties. No thinking citizen can readily deny the PAP’s dominance in this Economic Development governance capability. And I would go further to say that neither would most of the opposition parties here either. And hence, the rather unsurprising outcome: citizens vote predominantly for the PAP. But not necessarily against having a diversity of supplementary competencies in other Chambers of Governance … but the latter simply cannot be given expression in our House, due to the strictures of the current Electoral System.

Would this envisaged New Electoral Model benefit ALL Key Stakeholders in a GE?

The key stakeholders are: The Nation at large and the Political Parties, Incumbents and Opposition challengers alike. I would contend that all would benefit.

As for the Opposition, I would say the alternative New Model allows for them to Focus on diligently building their teams, to strive to lead within their specific chosen Chambers of Governance. To take a hypothetical example, a candidate such as NUS Prof. Paul Tambyah, (who recently ran unsuccessfully under the SDP’s Opposition flag), might well have stood a pretty strong chance of winning the seat(s) within the Healthcare Chamber, within the New Model envisaged, whilst the PAP might also have, in all likelihood, gone on to win the Economic Development Chamber’s seats. Thus Opposition candidates might fare better in future GE’s if they were able to contest for specific Chambers in which they might possibly be able to serve the Nation better than the PAP. And perhaps not have to even pretend to be ‘in opposition’ to the PAP’s tremendously admirable strengths in the Economic Development Chamber. The net result is that the Opposition, in focusing its core competencies and strengths within specific Chambers, would then have a fairer chance at getting to enter the House to help develop supplementary / aspirational policies in the other Chambers of Governance, for the betterment of the Nation.

As for the PAP, I would submit it would have absolutely nothing to lose within this fairer, New Model: If the PAP believes it has all of the competencies needed to run all of the Chambers of Governance, it should simply field its candidates accordingly, across all Chambers. And let the voters decide. The PAP would then be forced to beef up not just its competencies in the realm of economic development, but also to build stronger competencies across all of the other Chambers of Governance as well.

As for the Nation, I would contend that ours is a maturing electorate that has growing aspirations: not just for the base economic development governance needs to be met, but also for other specific, supplemental / aspirational areas of governance, which no one political party might realistically be expected to hold the very best competencies needed to lead the Nation.

The net effects

The New Model would thus effectively help ensure that all parties work harder to strive to build strengths in the areas of competencies they might each choose to focus upon.

The New Model would now level the playing field for alternative parties to also step forth, without necessarily having to replace the PAP in its economic development role, bringing into the House other supplemental / aspirational governance strengths.

Thus, diversity would be granted a fairer chance at co-governance expression in the House, alongside the PAP’s dominant economic development competencies.

And the Nation as a whole would emerge with a stronger collective team of legislative leaders of varying competencies, from across a multiplicity of co-governing, (as distinguished from adversarially opposing), parties.

Parting thoughts

I do recognize that contemplating the re-modeling of the Electoral System is an idealistic goal. One that would involve considerable careful discussion and fine-tuning in the details of its mechanisms.

Yet I believe that the electoral model we have inherited from the West so long ago, should still be seen as capable of evolving. And on our own terms as a young nation, to best serve our own true foundational needs AND aspirational desires.

The envisaged New Model is effectively a call for us to step out of the box, and for us all to imagine and to explore a smarter, fairer, less adversarial, new paradigm in democratic parliamentary representation …

One that moves away from simplistic adversarial party vs party winner take all systems, (wherein the strengths of the losing parties are lamentably lost to the Nation altogether), and into a higher-functioning House filled with the most competent of patriots from across a multiplicity of parties, getting the very best leadership assets from across the land into our House for the betterment of our Nation. In a spirit of national synergistic co-governance, rather than all-out adversarial ‘opposition’ to one another.

I am reminded, too, of our late Founding Father, Lee Kuan Yew, who back in the year 2006, spoke of his vision of having a robust multi-party parliament for Singapore in the future, when he said that “a First World Parliament not only needs a First World government, but also a First World Opposition”.

I believe we can get to such a First World Parliament envisaged by Mr Lee, more swiftly and effectively, in our own way, through a fundamental re-thinking of our inherited, archaic, prevailing Westminster-based Electoral Model.

Today’s political system pits political parties against one another. Can Singapore create a system where voters pick competent candidates from different parties to form the government?

by Dinesh Senan: Published: The Straits Times, Singapore: 15 May 2015

AS SINGAPORE marks its 50th year of independence, perhaps the greatest challenge going forward lies in maintaining the highest quality of relevant and effective political leadership, at a time when the profile and aspirations of the electorate are rapidly changing.

Today’s citizens are far more empowered, with better education, greater wealth, and more far­reaching and swift influence ­ especially through social media ­ than the populace led by our founding fathers 50 years ago.

In broad terms, the political landscape continues to be largely dominated by the People’s Action Party (PAP), created by the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew. Despite Singapore’s economic progress, the PAP’s overall popular vote has been slipping sharply: from 75.3 per cent in the General Election of 2001, to 66.6 per cent in 2006, and 60.1 per cent in 2011.

This downward trend evidences the growing diversity of expectations of our rapidly changing populace, which today aspires to having much more than just economic growth and development.

Based on this trajectory, one could expect that increasingly more seats are likely to be won by opposition parties. And one would wonder if votes would be cast “for” the opposition’s competent ability to lead the nation or, rather, “against” the dominant party.

This throws up a deeper question: Voters under the current system by which political leadership is assembled must make a simplistic either/or choice between parties. But is there another way?

Rather than party­versus­party, what about the possibility of making choices based on the specific competencies and leadership categories actually needed, that might best address prevailing aspirations for improving the nation? These are skills which the leadership of no single party might, in reality, totally possess.

Ailing system

BUT, first, you may ask, what ails the current system?

Essentially, Singapore’s system is based on an adversarial party­versus­party Westminster model. It has many virtues ­ and many inefficiencies.

For instance, legislative houses in Western­styled democracies are often burdened by the debilitating effects of gridlocks, governmental shutdowns, and negative or smear campaigning, engendered by a zero­sum­game mentality battle for control along party lines.

In a world of growing diversity, those systemic inefficiencies are likely to erode the effectiveness of leadership in the West.

Does Singapore necessarily need to keep to this same pathway? And how could we reduce the adversarial impact of an “opposition”­based partisan system?

Such questions are relevant to Singapore because in an increasingly competitive world, the electorate should most ideally try and hold on to the most capable political leadership assets available to serve the electorate ­ regardless of party affiliations.

What gets lost in the current party-­versus-­party system are the strengths of the “losing” party which could otherwise still have been of value to the nation.

Especially for a small country like Singapore, where the talent pool for top­notch political leadership is constrained (in terms of the smallness of numbers, from a normal bell­curve distribution of talent perspective, when measured against a very small population base), any loss of leadership strengths due to the structural set­up of the electoral system is a tragedy for all.

Consider the loss of the invaluable experience of Cabinet minister George Yeo, a tireless patriot who lost his seat in Parliament at the 2011 General Election when the People’s Action Party team in Aljunied GRC was defeated by the team from the Workers’ Party (WP). Mr Yeo, whose portfolios had included Information and the Arts, Health, Trade and Industry, and Foreign Affairs, then retired from politics.

The Aljunied electorate, in wanting the opposition WP leader to have a voice in the House, had apparently “no choice” but to vote along partisan lines, despite the many governance and leadership skills that Mr Yeo had to offer to the electorate and for the broader benefit of the nation. Yet, many in Aljunied might have been quite happy to have both the opposition leader’s voice in Parliament, and that of Mr Yeo.

An alternative governance model

AHEAD of the next general election (which must be held by January 2017), this is perhaps an opportune moment in Singapore’s development as a nation to explore structural alternatives to the current model, to reduce the raw, adversarial impact of the party­versus­party­based system of governance.

It is common today to hear grumblings that the dominant party is failing to meet the aspirations of the people in some areas such as housing policy, transport and healthcare.

And yet, the same citizens who feel disappointed in the PAP also do not deny the party’s many positive capabilities, in economic development, for example.

And they may not yet see an alternative opposition party that is fully ready to take on all of the roles of the dominant party with equal capability to deliver, either.

However, the current political system effectively requires them to adopt an either/or choice. They are in effect obliged to register their discontent with the perceived failings of the dominant party by voting “wholesale” against it, even if they may not think the opposition can form the government. I would ask if this is a case of the electorate being forced, by virtue of the current electoral model, to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water.

Furthermore, as Singapore society becomes more diverse, and increasingly polarised, it is uncertain if the leadership required to bring the country to its fullest potential resides in just one political party.

Indeed, it is becoming more unlikely that any one political party could competently lead a nation across all aspects of governance, to the entire satisfaction of a diverse populace.

This is not unique to Singapore

Many electoral systems around the world have had to grapple with eroding support for dominant parties and to share power with smaller parties.

Many modified electoral systems are already in use elsewhere. Examples include proportional representation (where divisions in an electorate are represented in proportion to the actual electoral support gained, within the House).

Then there are numerous voting methods, such as the party list proportional representation and single transferable vote methods. Under party list proportional representation, political parties define candidate lists, and voters then vote for a list.

With single transferable vote, voters rank individual candidates in order of preference, enabling them to also vote across party lines and elect independent candidates.

There are numerous other hybrids, adapted by various countries to suit their specific national needs.

A new model

CAN Singapore consider creating its own model to allow, instead, for a capabilities-­based legislative assembly structure, separate and distinct from a municipal body?

One problem in politics is that the skill set needed to run a government is quite different from that needed to run a municipal authority.

To tackle this, we could have a bi­cameral house. Elected mayors can take care of constituency affairs in a Lower House. In the Upper House, however, candidates from different political parties or independents can put themselves up for election into specialist “chambers of governance”.

This more sensibly spreads out the arenas of political competition for seats within the House, allowing for the most competent parties and independents to contest the specific chambers wherein they believe they have the strongest levels of relevant competence and capability to lead.

For example, each chamber of governance could take care of cogently linked functional clusters, such as economics, finance and trade matters. Another can take care of education, social and family matters.

At an election, voters would choose which candidates they want for the different chambers. They need not pick them from just one party. These chambers of governance promulgate national laws. All parliamentarians can debate the laws, but final decisions on such specialised national areas of governance would be taken on Bills and budgets through voting within each chamber.

Overall coordination of the government would be done by the Cabinet, which consists of representatives from the various chambers of governance.

The details can be worked out, but the key point of my proposal is to have a system that allows voters the option to pick from talent across political parties.

So, instead of having each political party simply position itself to represent the electorate across all aspects of government, and then vie for as many seats as they can possibly muster, my suggestion of a competencies­based Parliament spread into several chambers of governance now allows parties to focus their talent and recruitment on specific areas.

Thus, one party may build talent in the area of social policies; another in business and finance. And parties now don’t necessarily get thrown out just because they don’t have all the competencies across all categories of governance that we the electorate might wish to have in our House.

The reader may ask at this point how these chambers are to cohere as one House. The Cabinet, drawn from representatives across the chambers, is to coordinate the functions of government. The prime minister is then chosen from among the Cabinet members, leading synergistically across these co­ governing chambers to achieve diverse yet harmonious leadership, where loyalty to nation among all elected representatives is now paramount.

The advantages of such a system are several

One, it allows voters access to talent from many political parties, and does not restrict them to one.

Two, each elected chamber representative will be accountable to the entire nation, and not just to any one constituency.

Three, it separates the municipal from the national governing function. This allows deeper concentration of expertise. It also isolates the government of the day from malfunctionings within an estate. So if a fishball stick isn’t cleared at a foodcourt, the mayor is responsible, not the entire national government.

My proposal is, of course, a tentative one. The structures of democracy are still evolving. Many others can put forward more detailed and more workable solutions.

My hope is to stimulate the search for a more effective electoral model to optimise the process by which we secure the right blend of relevant political assets and competencies in Parliament, in order to achieve optimal synergistic political leadership for the country.

What we currently have, however, is an electoral system that hinders this.

… and hoping that our younger Singaporeans might somehow gain a sense of the sheer immensity of his contribution.

by Dinesh Senan: For The Straits Times, Special Supplement for LKY’s 90th Birthday: 23 September 2013

A heartfelt thank you letter, as his 90th birthday draws close, is well due to our Founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

This letter is not about deifying the man, nor suggesting that one needs to agree with everything he has said and done.

It is a pause for reflection on his sheer dedicated effort over the arc of his entire adult lifespan, and his phenomenal vision, and on his accomplishments for the betterment of our country and of our people. And this note is meant to be a chance to simply show him our appreciation.

I am sure that the number of older Singaporeans who are aware of how profound an impact Mr Lee has had on their own lives is large, and that many will join in the spirit of this note to him. But more importantly, I pray that the younger Singaporeans amongst us might strive to gain at least a vicarious sense of just how great and improbable a contribution this man has made … in his head was a very, very grand idea, of entrepreneurship par excellence, and at the national level …

I do predict that history will carefully assess and consequently enlarge even further the full impact of his overall, weighty legacy, both at home, and upon the world at large, in the decades to follow.

But right now, it is simply about recognizing, with gratitude, his unstinting tenacity and life-long commitment to strongly leading and transforming what was not so long ago a very troubled colony, (flummoxed by communist insurgencies, triads and gangsterism, illiteracy, racial riots, low education levels, a near-absent industrial base, inadequate public housing, rampant unemployment and poverty), into the vibrant nation-state of today. A nation whose presence, participation and influence on the global stage today is out of all proportion to our tiny base.

And in saying thank you, it is perhaps timely to briefly to contemplate LKY the Man and some of his core attributes.

LKY The Man: Authentic, Pragmatic Visionary

Authenticity

Perhaps underlying and powering all of his accomplishments has been the tremendous force of his own Authenticity. This is a rare condition where one displays a strict ‘inner alignment’ or congruence of inner feelings, thoughts, words and deeds. Consistently, and regardless of who the audience might include. This means that what he feels, and thinks, he says and he does. Period. This attribute requires more than a modicum of self-confidence and courage, and it captures his commanding nature as a man. One may not always agree with such persons, but they agree with themselves, and they are quite impossible to ignore.

The attributes of such rare authenticity include bluntness of expression, and provocativeness without too much concern for political correctness. As Lincoln has said, “Towering genius disdains a beaten path.” LKY has never needed to be popular, never refrained from charting bold new courses, nor from speaking his mind, including lashing out at others whose opinions he did not agree with, as well as bearing down with his intolerance of any perceived standard of human performance lesser than excellence, or smacking of mere mediocrity. Nor has he tolerated the inability of our people to work together for the common goal of building this country, even if it has occasionally meant redefining common, hallowed notions of democracy, preferring instead what he calls ‘guided democracy’ to strongly and impatiently suppress resistance, and push forth initiatives that he knew would be right for the nation, even before the rest of us might have been fully ready to agree with him. And by and large, his firmness has yielded growth for Singapore.

This attribute of consistent authenticity leads inevitably also to the corollary attribute of Influence.

Consider the following grand statements by other world leaders:

“I have had the privilege of meeting many world leaders over the past half century; none, however, has taught me more than Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s first premier and its guiding spirit ever since.”
– Henry A Kissinger

“In my long life in public service, I have encountered many bright, able people. None is more impressive than Lee Kuan Yew.”
– George H. W. Bush

“In office, I read and analysed every speech of Lee’s. He had a way of penetrating the fog of propaganda and expressing with unique clarity the issues of our times and the way to tackle them. He was never wrong.” Margaret Thatcher

“Lee is ‘our senior who has our respect’ … ‘To this day, you are still working tirelessly to advance our bilateral relationship, and you have my full admiration’.” – Xi Jinping

This is global influence of the most extraordinary kind. You cannot buy the ability to influence. LKY has earned it, through his lifetime of consistent inner alignment, and in the process, has certainly helped raise the image of Singapore, and thereby of us Singaporeans, in the world’s esteem today. We have him, in no small measure, to thank for this.

His influence at home was also a highly critical factor in enabling him to build and lead a powerful team in Cabinet, who together with him have shaped modern Singapore.

A Pragmatic Visionary

“I’m an idealist, but without illusions.” – J F Kennedy

It is far more probable than not, that we shouldn’t be anywhere near as developed a nation as we are today. And it is especially difficult, I know, for the younger ones amongst us to really get this, their having grown up in the midst of a bustling, modern metropolis.

The odds, back in the early 60s, were heavily against us succeeding at all, let alone at this pace … and to a huge extent, it was LKY’s audacious vision for us, (“Starship Singapore: Going boldly where no fishing colony has ever been before …”), and more than an ounce of willful determination that proactively put us on this unusual pathway to rapid development and progress.

Eschewing the wisdom of conventional development economics, he chose a bolder vision for us: to leap-frog our way into export oriented activity, (drawing in hard currency for our nascent economy), rather than first going through the traditional pathway of import substitution, (stemming the outflows of hard currency). His formula: believing that sheer hard work would enable us to succeed, if we pragmatically focused on building the supporting infrastructure to accommodate the best companies of the world, and if we focused on educating our workforce to provide the requisite high caliber support services for such businesses. And what then followed was an LKY-led ‘sales and marketing’ effort, including waylaying Global CEO’s of MNCs flying thru neighbouring airports, to come ‘visit’ Singapore for a few hours, where they were often personally met by LKY and his fellow Cabinet Ministers, who ‘sold’ those CEO’s the vision of the Singapore that was to come, where world-class Regional Head Offices of leading businesses would soon be thriving. Of course, what he was ‘selling’ hadn’t actually been built yet, but they bought into his vision and sheer determination. And the result was confoundingly incredible: within a few short years, we had an inflow of thousands of MNCs setting up their Regional HQs here, and the rest, they say, is history. And it needn’t have happened that way at all. But for his passion.

Whilst grandiose dreaming is easy … any fool can do that … LKY was at the same time, brutally pragmatic in setting our goals. His classic view has always been that Singapore has to take the world as it is, because “we are too small to change it”. His Cabinet was also consistently pragmatic when it came to matters of international trade, staying deliberately ‘neutral and non-aligned’ during the Cold War, doing hearty business with both sides of the divide. Our guiding mantra was that ‘we would trade with the devil to survive’.

LKY: The Leader by Example … and the Lessons Taught

Above all, he has been a teacher, who rolled up his sleeves, took the mantle of leadership of, and accountability to, the people, and then taught several pivotal lessons, for us and our future generations to contemplate, by direct example.

In closing this note, I would most like to say thank you to Mr Lee for teaching us, by his life’s example, these lessons:

• That tough times demand tough-minded leadership;
• That we should always dare to dream, but with our feet planted firmly on the ground, recognizing too that no one can stop us but ourselves, from choosing to step up to bat in the bigger boys’ league, if we wish to;
• That we should always be willing to work hard, to pay the price for our success, and that no one owes us a living; and
• That choosing excellence in all we do, is the only default-setting standard worth dedicating our lives to.

And most of all, I wish to thank you for leaving me, and my children, a Singapore we are all so very proud to be a part of in this world.

by Dinesh Senan: Published: The Business Times, Singapore: 17 May 2011

It was a big mistake on the part of many within the PAP, just a few short months ago, to have so confidently assumed that the “old head vs heart divide” issue was “largely a thing of the past”, as so many within the party had believed and had shared with me then. Thatʼs precisely why the party was so evidently caught flat-footed when faced with the exceptionally strong display of sentiments by the People, by Singaporean standards, in taking the PAP to task, whilst demonstrating unparalleled support for the Opposition, which characterised and set apart this GE from all previous ones.

However, what will be a bigger mistake by far is for any of the political parties here to believe that this was the watershed election. (“Watershed” = a “continental drainage divide” in which the waters on each side flow to different oceans … or a “major drainage divide” where the waters on each side divide, never to meet again). Taking the colloquial meaning of a dividing, or turning point, and judging by the macro-level trend of overall popular vote slippage garnered by the PAP, (75.3% in the GE of 2001, 66.6% in the GE of 2006 and 60.1% in this 2011 GE), I feel that it is clearly the next one that will be the real “watershed election” for our country.

Accordingly, in order to influence that future GEʼs more critical outcome, (ie as either a critical trend affirming or a trend reversing outcome), it will be necessary for parties, (incumbent or challenging), to accurately identify, and then sincerely and genuinely acknowledge their respective biggest challenges that lie ahead of them, before rolling up their sleeves and getting down to addressing those challenges squarely and candidly, and with greater direct and sincere engagement with the People.

And all this will need to be done within the context of the new political environment that the internet age has ushered in, most specifically in that there is now effectively no “statute of limitations” in cyberspace for anything said or done in the past, however distant in time, when it comes to influence-peddling within the realm of technology-empowered campaign tactics. In this digital age, no party can avoid anything said or done in the past simply by ignoring it. The only way to lessen the impact of the past will be by directly confronting it with the People, and addressing the issue squarely with the People. Any party that sticks its head in the sand as regards past issues will most assuredly be rudely “techno-kicked” in its behind, and will come off looking no smarter than the bird-brained ostrich.

Key challenges facing the PAP

In this landscape, and in the main, it is very much the Head v Heart challenge that still besets the PAP: the party still holds on to controlling power in Parliament largely because it currently still has a sound and large enough set of intelligent, capable heads within its ranks.

The prevailing “head-related” issues are doubtlessly complex, and will include addressing the need for policy changes impacting matters such as facilitating more affordable homes for young couples, striking a finer balance on immigration policy that also inevitably poses a competitive threat in certain, albeit limited, areas for jobs and seats at educational institutions against Singaporeans, and in ensuring that the top level growth benefits of the country are seen and felt to trickle further downwards to benefit even more Singaporeans. These arenʼt easy areas to tackle. However, the reality is that most Singaporeans have very little doubt that the PAP, with its arsenal of competent brains and experience behind it, will not fail to deliver quality solutions in all of these realms, once they set their minds to it. But thatʼs just NOT where the PAPʼs biggest challenges lie.

The partyʼs biggest challenge is in turning the tide in regaining the hearts of the People, which are fast slipping into precariously low levels of support, (a classic case of a depleting “emotional bank account”), and almost to the point of tipping the balance of votes away from the party altogether, (a watershed outcome), and this despite the partyʼs undisputed head-based strengths in policy development and governance. Head-based ʻsmartsʼ alone are simply not enough for this changed electorate.

The PAP will have to truly and humbly engage in serious-minded introspection, to identify just where these heart-based and painfully ʻdistancingʼ challenges lie, before genuinely and candidly acknowledging them in discussion with the public, and then be seen to sincerely address them.

Picking up on sentiments from an unusually, and pleasantly, robust and healthy level of political discussions across Singaporeans of all age groups over these past few months, here are a few of the more persistent heart-based challenges of the PAP which are most often brought up for discussion:

Why does the party pay its officers so much more than the average politician worldwide for public service work?

• Whether in salaries, bonuses and/or pensions, this is a matter that potentially calls into question an important aspect of the overall moral authority of the PAP as it seeks to continue to lead the People. It is no doubt a prickly issue which the party simply cannot avoid speaking more candidly about with the People of Singapore. And especially when the rising cost of living is hurting more and more Singaporeans, the relatively extraordinarily high levels of pay of the party leaders makes it less possible for the People to truly connect with the members of the party, or to believe their leaders can actually “feel” their pain.
• Any attempt at portraying purely economic based supporting rationale for the recruitment and retention of the best talent to serve in high public offices of trust just wonʼt cut it any further. That completely misses the point of what the People are trying to say to the party. That is, saying that the best leaders will only serve the country when their own pockets arenʼt too badly affected just doesnʼt wash with the higher notion of privilege and honor in wielding the mandate of trust placed in their hands by the People of Singapore today. A certain sense of ʻnobilityʼ of public service in high office is lost, however this issue is diced in purely clinical, economic terms. The counter-argument as regards loss of income during public service is that at any rate, post-retirement, many opportunities still abound for proven, senior politicians to earn good money, for instance, in serving on corporate Boards, through book publications and through international public speaking circuits etc.

The PAP doesnʼt yet sound like it fully embraces the notion of “Servant Leadership”

• For sustainable leadership in todayʼs world, voters demand that the tone and the language of the PAP must demonstrate transcendence from mere “Leadership” and into the higher realm of “Servant Leadership”. It is a tone of voice that needs to be watched. Humility needs to be truly and completely embraced at all levels within the party. The more educated and financially better off Singaporean populace of today, (so starkly different from the general population some 50 years ago, which was probably “grateful” that there were educated people in the party to do some of the complex thinking for and on behalf of the population then), will no longer tolerate any form of being “talked down to”. The party should check itself to see just where some of the former tones of voice are consciously or otherwise still carrying through in todayʼs communications with a significantly changed electoral profile.
• Today, no matter how smart a political aspirant may be, he still needs to be seen and believed to be humble, and to seek to persuade and win over the support of the citizens. The People expect to be talked to with respect, regardless of how intelligent the politician may be.
• The People will, in the end, always reclaim their status as Master of the house, with elected politicians performing as Privileged Servants. Any politician who starts to behave as if the People are lucky or privileged to have him or her serve them will be summarily disabused of such a skewed sense of self importance in this much-changed landscape.

The haunting legacy of previous harsh treatment of opposing voices

• Fear, intended or otherwise, (engendered through the earlier but not digitally forgotten era of incarceration of political dissidents without trial, law suits leading to the bankrupting of opposition members, etc, however justified), was arguably a very useful pragmatic, tactical weapon in speeding up the process of national development in Singapore in the past, (yes, too many cooks can pragmatically slow things down).
• But in todayʼs demonstrably changed and improved living climate, (where thereʼs no longer the presence of rampant communist insurgent threats and gangland triads running rife, which environment might well have lent some “legitimacy” to the partyʼs strong tactics of the past), such fear-inducing tactics, or derivatives thereof, will simply never work with the changed electorate of today. Threats, however veiled, will not wash with this electorate. Politicians will be reminded very harshly, if ever they forget, that they are in power only because they asked for the privilege, and the People gave it to them momentarily, and graciously, in trust …
• And hereʼs the real challenge: even if todayʼs PAP is saying that it is or wishes to be different from the PAP of the past, the party will never distance itself from the past simply by ignoring it. The party will somehow have to find the inner strength to address this matter candidly, and discuss this directly with the People of Singapore, if it wishes to have a chance of putting to bed these haunting things of
• the past, in a bid to reduce the impact of their being used against it perennially by both the opposition and members of the electorate.

Need for better face to face connection, at all levels of society

• The party, which is filled with extraordinarily capable, diligent and well-meaning leaders of integrity whose genuine care for Singaporeʼs growth and development isnʼt in question, will need to find more meaningful ways and means to ramp up its face-to-face communications particularly with the better educated and the better- off elements of society in Singapore, in order for any heart-based changes to be effectively felt by the People.
• The PAP has a very strong and well-deserved loyal following at the grassroots level of society, truly well-earned through its genuine, tireless service over the past 5 decades, primarily at those ʻheartlanderʼ levels, via its ʻMeet-the-Peopleʼ sessions. This is a strength insufficiently leveraged by the party, as the growing upper strata of society miss out, comparatively, on such opportunities for direct, face-to-face engagements with the real people who make up the PAP. This ability to connect on a face-to-face level is something the party needs to think about expanding, to reach the upper and better educated levels of society, and to address.

Key challenges facing the Opposition

The People will also be watching the Opposition very closely, between now and the next GE, mainly from the perspective of how well they fare in substantive terms in the realm of real, specific policy influence and promulgation. It will not be enough for Opposition members who have been granted a few of our precious seats in Parliament now by the People, (and at tremendous real opportunity cost to Singapore, given the calibre of some of the outgoing political talent that has consequentially been set aside in the process, not least of whom is the ultra-capable colossus of Singapore politics, Minister George Yeo), to merely spot issues and highlight them. The Opposition members of parliament will need to move into and participate actively in the tangible solution development arena as well. That is, they cannot behave simply like armchair critics, when occupying parliamentary seats. 90% of the journey towards solution identification, it is said, is already traveled if you can, with accuracy, describe a problem. But if the Opposition doesnʼt then move further into solution design proposals, the electorate will hold them to account very strictly. It will be no excuse for the Opposition to say that the incumbent party has better access to data etc and so they should be better positioned to come up with political solutions. The bottom line is this: if you ask the People of Singapore for a number of our precious 87 seats we have in parliament, then, when the People give it to you, youʼd better be prepared to work harder to be much more than just an armchair critic. If all you wanted to be was just such a critic, then donʼt ask for a seat in that sacred House, but criticize away freely from the sidelines. These seats are meant for hardworking solution developers. And thatʼs what the People will be looking for in their Opposition voices in parliament.

The Next 5 Years & the Key challenges for Singaporeans as a whole

One thing is for sure: Between now and the next GE, the People will be watching very closely for tangible evidence of the following: (a) a genuine change in heart-based matters including those listed above, by the PAP and (b) sincere, tangible effort at new policy influence and/or promulgation by the Opposition whilst in parliament.

Having said that, there is also a corresponding duty on the part of lay Singaporean citizens, too, to work harder ourselves, if we truly want a more robust, accountable and high-performing parliament for our Nation. Beyond the public sector, (government), and the private sector, (business), we in Singapore need to develop and organise our largely under-developed social sector, (the “Third Sector”, per Peter Drucker), and take more responsibility ourselves for shaping the future we desire for ourselves and our families.

We ourselves need to be clearer and more vocal in expressing our evolving standards of expectations of the overall calibre of servant leadership we desire for our Nation.

We need to pay closer attention to the performance of our chosen parliamentary representatives, consistently, and not just at election time.

And if we are unclear in our expectations, or passive in our vigilance of their performance, then we will end up with the parliament we justly deserve.

by Dinesh Senan: Published: The Straits Times, Singapore: 30 October 2006

MINISTER Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s recent observation that Singapore is unlikely to develop its own culture within the next several hundred years raises the old question: What does it mean to be Singaporean? An adolescent nation, we grapple still to define our national identity.

Just where might it be found? Is it in the ‘stories’ that accumulate within the collective consciousness of a nation’s citizenry, layered generation upon generation?

The United States is grappling with a related issue, one that cuts to the core of what an American is. Its mooted ‘terror Bill” sanctions the use of torture when dealing with prisoners of war. This Bill has caused much angst, with Senator Hillary Clinton, in opposing it before the Senate, telling the story of how George Washington chose to deal with prisoners of war during the American Revolution.

She said: ‘It was at this time, among these soldiers at this moment of defeat and despair, that Thomas Paine would write, ‘These are the times that try men’s souls’. Soon afterward, Washington led his soldiers across the Delaware River and on to victory in the Battle of Trenton. There he captured nearly 1,000 foreign mercenaries and he faced a crucial choice. How would Washington treat these men? The British had already committed atrocities against Americans, including torture. As David Hackett Fischer describes…thousands of American prisoners of war were ‘treated with extreme cruelty by British captors’.

‘Washington announced a decision unique in human history, sending the following order for handling prisoners: Treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British army…(Thus) Washington…laid down the indelible marker of our nation’s values even as we were struggling as a nation – and his courageous act reminds us that America was born out of faith in certain basic principles. It is these principles that made and still make our country exceptional and allow us to serve as an example. We are not bound together as a nation by bloodlines. We are not bound by ancient history; our nation is a new nation. Above all, we are bound by our values.’

Such is the kind of ‘story’ that plays a key role in a society’s search for its own soul.

In another instance, when Egyptian Naguib Mahfouz, the only Arab-language writer to win the Nobel literature prize, died recently, Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak referred to him as ‘a cultural light’ who expressed ‘the values of enlightenment and tolerance that reject extremism’. That is the kind of statement which, when heard by Mr Mubarak’s fellow Egyptians, would have helped add powerfully to their sense of their own national identity.

Singapore, as a young nation, has been struggling with the issue of its national identity. Over the past four decades of heady, dizzying nation- building, we have searched in every direction outside of ourselves. We have looked at our multiracial, multicultural society, and enacted policies to protect this inherently precarious state of harmony. We have looked at the food that ‘brands’ us – nasi lemak, chicken rice, etc – and we have identified with that. We have looked at our spoken language, in all our Singlishness, and we’ve grappled with embracing it proudly as our own (can, lah!), while struggling with not wanting to compromise our command of the Queen’s English, so important for success in business.

We have identified with our older physical structures and landmarks, and have promulgated policies to try to protect those. We have identified with our systems of governance, and reputation for hard work, efficiency and integrity, and jealously pledged to guard those against decay.

Yet, we are still struggling with trying to find this deep sense of national identity.

The Straits Times columnist Ong Soh Chin on Sept 1 quoted her 30-something friend, who said: ‘I know that meritocracy, transparency, efficiency, material wealth and clean government are good values, and yet, I also know that few will die for them. I certainly won’t. Not for these utilitarian things…Higher values are what Singapore lacks…I want the country that I will die for to have Big Virtues. I want my country to stand for greatness and generosity of spirit.’

Have we, perhaps, been looking in all the wrong places? It is not quite to be fully captured within our systems of administration, in our physical structures, the food we prepare, our manner of speaking. It is a less tangible quality, and is perhaps ultimately to be found in the subtler expressions of our states of being.

As a species, ours is an evolving human story – one peppered with little and great acts of expression of our souls. These stories fuel our feelings of human unity and identity. When the story happens to come from one of our fellow citizens, then it also speaks to us of our identity as Singaporeans.

And they don’t all have to be grand stories. I know of an MP from the ruling party who reached into his own wallet for some $6,000 to settle an account for a constituent who was being threatened with a lawsuit by a hospital for unpaid bills accumulated by his wife before she died of cancer. The husband was a truck driver who had depleted his life savings to pay for his late wife’s treatment. This act of kindness was done quietly, without fanfare. But the few of us who knew of it were touched and the incident helped create a portion of this sense of identity.

Also, each time our leaders offer aid to our neighbouring countries, for example, during the 2004 tsunami, we gain a finer qualitative sense of who we are as Singaporeans.

Equally so, each time we wave a thank you, or fail to do so, to a passing driver who has given way to us. Every act of graceful expression, or otherwise, either builds or tears at the fabric of our identity of who we are as a people.

Not all stories are flattering, and some may instead cause dissonance, and even a distancing. Yet, the negative ones need to be heard as well, as they serve equally powerfully within the evolutionary process of our developing national identity, to tell us what we do not wish to be.

In any country, the tie between the rulers and the ruled will also have a strong impact on the collective sense of national identity. For instance, when our playwrights start to delve into sensitive questions that touch on our loyalties when we leave Singapore, or which deal with how our government might view or deal with the opposition, these too are instances of graceful expression by our compatriots.

Singaporeans often lament the relative ferocity with which our ruling political party deals with political adversaries. Some feel this to be unnecessarily fearsome and intimidating, when presenting the facts of their case firmly and fairly should suffice. Such perceived vigour in dealing with political opponents is, not surprisingly, often a cause for a certain distancing between the rulers and the people, not necessarily of the mind, but of the heart. Stories such as these affect our sense of national identity, and it is perhaps why the new leadership is actively seeking to reach out to younger citizens, and to encourage their engagement in open discussion with the party.

We are constantly absorbing stories from around us, large and small, and testing their resonance or dissonance within our deepest selves. Positive resonance felt at the emotional or soul level draws us in towards identifying with; dissonance makes us reject that story as not being in line with who we feel we are. And so we build our collective sense of a national identity, one such story at a time.

For a robust multi-party system, senior statesmen should guide future leaders – regardless of their parties

by Dinesh Senan: Published: TODAY Newspaper, Singapore: 31 May 2006

WHERE should veteran politicians go when they have moved beyond their prime executive leadership years? That is, when they have moved from the “bronze” medal, entry-level sphere of neophyte politicians, and even beyond the “silver” medal level of “seasoned” senior politicians?

Those who have excelled and still have their physical and mental faculties intact should consider, for the sake of contributing to the highest levels
of nation building, serving within the “gold” medal realm of
supra-partisan politics. That is, in the neutral domain of true statesmanship, offering their wisdom in the management of public affairs.

Veteran political personalities today – who are largely from the ranks of one political party – have much more to offer to the future of our nation by rising above their partisan roots, to help build what the younger generation wants and deserves to have: An intellectual space for a multiplicity of responsible leadership voices aimed at achieving the best for Singapore and her people.

The recent elections indicate that Singaporeans do want to have alternative views expressed in Parliament, but such alternative views must come from capable people of integrity.

They are hungry for more voices from citizens who may not necessarily agree with every policy of the dominant party, but who are nevertheless honest, constructive critics with national interests above partisan or
self interests.

They want this because they know instinctively that having some degree of creative tension in a Parliament house filled with such members will help the long-term process of coming up with the best options for the country and making optimal decisions.

On the economic front, we are now witnessing unprecedented levels of global competition. To stay still is not an option, as those who are not moving upwards will find that decay sets in swiftly.

All who are without intellectual property (IP) ownership of processes will eventually become the production outhouses working for those who own the IP. What this goes to show is that we need to organise ourselves as a nation optimally and put in place the best possible systems that will draw out the best ideas for Singapore.

Thus far, we have had the People’s Action Party scour the land for whom it considers to be the smartest people. Clearly, the party has been successful.

But ought we to continue relying only on this mechanism? Looking ahead, women and men of calibre may well find stronger resonance with credible alternative parties of the future.

My call is, therefore, for our current band of elder politicians to
consider anticipating our country’s political needs, draw upon their store of pragmatic nation-building wisdom and pitch in now to lay down the infrastructure for a robust multi-party Parliament in Singapore.

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, on a couple of occasions in the last two months, had dished out recipes for a First World opposition. He had also acknowledged that a First World parliament not only needs a First World government, but also a First World opposition.

What elder politicians like him can do is to transcend partisan politics
and step up into a “Council of Elder Statesmen”. Be available to guide the future process of governance, neutrally. Be readily available to counsel
and groom women and men of conviction and responsibility to build a career in politics, regardless of party platform.

Their guidance will help fertilise the ground for responsible future leadership in Parliament, whether through one dominant party or a multiplicity of credibly-led parties.

This council could have within its charter an aim to equip incumbent and aspiring political leaders with certain critical attributes. For example, historical perspective and depth vis-a-vis prevailing domestic and foreign issues, long-term planning and fostering national cohesion.

The council should not have the force of law. It could operate ideally and most effectively through the sheer force of respect for the experience and judgment of such elders.

Some parallels could be drawn with the roles that the revered Nelson Mandela and the King of Thailand play in their countries today – they speak from non-partisan positions, yet are devastatingly influential in the realm of nation-building and in fostering cohesion across the ranks.

In short, this is an argument for leveraging on the wisdom of our founding and veteran political leaders to try and create stable systems of governance that ultimately help ensure we have the best and brightest working for the ultimate good of Singapore.

by Dinesh Senan: Submitted to the Chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Finance Trade & Industry: 26 September 2003

Given the economic challenge we are presently addressing, it is simply not enough to only look at controlling our costs. There is a law of diminishing returns which operates on all cost-cutting efforts, over time. Whilst it is necessary for us to remain as cost-competitive as may be possible, keeping both eyes transfixed on this effort will not do us very much good, and may devolve into an exercise in mounting frustration, for it would not go to the root of the economic challenge before us today…..namely, where will our new revenues, or growth, come from, and how? At any rate, comparative cost assessments may only be meaningfully done when juxtaposed, in relative terms, against the revenue-generating capacity of our national economy. And towards this end, it will ultimately be the successful pursuit of net value contribution that will form the bedrock upon which one nation’s revenue-generating engine capacity may be deemed more economically viable than another.

We must therefore keep one eye strategically focused on the top line, that is, on new revenues which need to flow into our hands. This aspect of our economic redevelopment efforts has been largely ignored, or inadequately debated. There is a compelling need for us to establish a clear ‘mental framework’ that will help bring into sharp focus the key strategic directions in which we may choose to expend our new revenue generating energies.

A Value-Centric Framework for Action

It is suggested that what we need to place at the centre of our planning table is a notional Value Pyramid, the ultimate source of all economic growth. Using this as the focal point of our economic planning, we should then adopt a mindset that bravely (as ‘idealists, but without illusion’, per John F Kennedy) targets the planting of our flags at numerous strategic points on this Pyramid (aiming to have the highest possible average altitude of all our flags so planted thereon). From such bold Value Pyramid positioning targets, may flow our corresponding implementation efforts, and consequently, new revenues.

Just where should we plant our Target Flags?

(I) First, Let’s Start as Close to the Top of the Pyramid as we may think Achievable

What’s happening at the apex of the Value Pyramid globally is very exciting. It’s all about the fervent quest for the ownership of intellectual property (‘IP’), or the underlying knowhow of any area of expert human endeavour. In less than a decade from now, most countries will not so much seek to compare their wealth in terms of GDP/GNP output levels, as in terms of the worth of the collective IP owned by each nation.

When properly harnessed and protected, the Value contained within such packaged IP may be leveraged through the device of global licensing, yielding a smart, repeating source of revenues for each piece of packaged IP, which would correspondingly derive geometrically higher orders of economic return for the owners thereof, than for all who merely use such licensed packages to generate their downstream activity- based value and earnings therefrom (at the foothills of the Value Pyramid).

The race is therefore already on, with every nation effectively competing to carve out its niche at the top of this Value Pyramid, thereby effectively banishing all other laggard economies into lower rung positions on the Pyramid, in many cases irretrievably, where one has to sweat a lot more in order to eke out a reasonable rate of return, in relative terms.

The question then emerges for tiny little us … how high up this Pyramid should we realistically attempt to set our sights, at this stage in our economic development?

Starting at the Top, let’s analyse what goes on at the Apex of the Value Pyramid today, component by component, and then see if there may be some value contribution therein which we may set our sights upon for delivery to the global economy. In the realm of high-end IP ownership, what effectively happens is:

[a]   A confluence of (i) Human Domain Experts (who hold the knowhow / best practice methodologies of their vertical areas of specialisation within their heads) on the one hand, and (ii) Technological Design Architects (who have the ability to harness such knowhow within a technological platform that is capable of packaging the knowhow into a generic, licensable medium);

[b]   where this confluence may be catalysed by (iii) a strong Physical Infrastructure (wherein such technologically harnessing may take place), (iv) a strong Legal Environment (which provides for global IP rights protection) and (v) a supportive Financial Environment (which may help finance the costs of the overall exercise).

For us in Singapore, the most immediate piece of good news is that this realm of IP packaging, there is no need either for large tracts of land nor for a large population base. When we examine the pieces of the jigsaw above, it may be argued that, at least to a certain extent:

Re (ii): We already do have many high-end Technological Design Architects onshore in Singapore, including many highly talented technology experts who have come from India and made Singapore their home…..further, there already do exist certain new, high-end technological solutions which render it possible to ‘harness’ human domain expertise onto software platforms for generic deployment as packaged solutions , which such Technological Design Architects may utilise as facilitative tools here;

Re (iii): We have excellent Physical Infrastructure already in place, capable of facilitating such works, including Science Parks I, II and III, as well as numerous other world-class TechnoParks;

Re (iv): We already do have a strong, globally recognised and respected Legal Environment for the protection of IP rights around the world, (which has been further significantly enhanced via our recent Free Trade Agreement with the US)…..In this regard, it is worth noting that as we troop into the future, we will increasingly observe that the quality of Legal Protection provided will be of paramount concern to true global entrepreneurs, whose business sentiments may not so much revolve around notions of patriotism, as much as who can provide her/him the best and most respected global protection for their precious IP…..for as the IP rights go to the root of the value of the business built thereupon, the quality of the Legal Protection thereof will also largely determine the value and growth of the business, including such growth related considerations as the ability of such a business to be listed say in the US or elsewhere; &

Re (v): We have a Financial Environment that comprises a potentially healthy balance of Public Sector funding vehicles as well as Private Sector Venture Capital that may be made available to support and help catalyse such activities.

What then appears to be ‘missing’ is the Human Domain Experts component. Here, whilst this is indeed a key ingredient in the picture, all is not lost for us. For it is argued that we may creatively set as our initial goal the ‘Packaging & Protection of IP’ for the global market, as our targeted economic value adding activity, such that:

[a]   We market and aggressively position ourselves as a ‘prospective partner’ to all Human Domain Experts from around the world, such that

[b]   We work with them in order to design the packaging of their knowhow, to be built within our high-end technoparks, with participating funding agencies as may be required (public and/or private sector financing being available as options) and strong global IP rights protection for the resultant packaged knowhow, as well as the ability to contribute to a certain extent towards the global distribution of the resultant packaged IP (through our private sector and GLC networks); &

[c] Where we in turn negotiate a fair percentage of co-ownership of the resultant packaged IP. (Here, to the extent that financial and other contributions towards the development of such packaged IP solutions shall have come from our local participating private sector businesses and / or local private sector funding agencies, we may thereby witness the emergence of co-ownership of such globally-viable packaged IP solutions by our own private sector players).

Whilst we may not realistically expect to be able to fully own the resultant IP, (which would position us at the very apex of the Value Pyramid), given that we may not have all of the requisite pieces of the jigsaw ourselves, the above proposition would nevertheless effectively see us adopt a mindset that proactively seeking to plant our flags almost at the very apex of the Value Pyramid. In due course, as we develop an even more entrepreneurial society, we may hope to emerge with fully-owned packaged IP, developed through the inputs of Singaporean Human Domain Expertise. However, given our small population size and the normal bell-curve distribution of talent, this will not be so easy to achieve (yet it is not impossible, if we think of the astounding success of the numerous small Scandinavian countries).

It is therefore argued that emerging with a co-ownership of global IP is not a bad prize for us at all, within the very near-term. For even though we may not have all of the pieces of the jigsaw to participate unilaterally at the apex of economic value-adding activity, we may nevertheless emerge, through smart planning and synergising, with at least a partial ownership of IP for ourselves, and a real value contribution to the world at such exalted levels. At least, we will already be ‘in the game’ at this strong position on the global Value Pyramid, upon which we may seek to build upwards as the years go by.

In order for such a goal to succeed, it may be useful for us to consider establishing a focused ‘Centre for IP Globalisation’ in Singapore, responsible for the disciplined implementation of such a high-level goal. A focused Centre such as this would effectively be responsible for pulling together all of the above components of activity as we are able to harness, whether onshore or offshore, and then to be responsible for a concerted global marketing effort to help bring awareness to the Human Domain Experts around the world of our ability to help them in the harnessing, technological packaging, financing, legal protection and eventual global distribution of their knowhow, so as to draw them towards working with us.

(II) Looking further down the Value Pyramid…

Whilst not all of our population may realistically be able to contribute at this apex level of economic value- adding effort, we would also need to look at ‘how’ we structure ourselves, both at the public sector policy levels as well as at the corresponding private sector planning and activity levels, in respect of further Value Adding Activities down the Value Pyramid which we may also aim to participate in.

For activities further down the Value Pyramid, it may be necessary for us to create an environment that strongly encourages active regionalisation through a Value Chain Dispersal approach, to maximise our returns, avoid the perils of a hollowed out economy, and also help us stay economically viable and relevant in respect of the economic value adding activities that do remain, at any point in time, to be carried out in Singapore. Towards this end, George Yip’s book, entitled ‘Total Global Strategy’, is highly instructive.

Again, starting from the perspective of the Notional Value Pyramid at the centre of our planning table, we should be able to see that all our economic business activities are really a composite of value adding ‘steps’, each occupying a specific, though transient, position on the Value Pyramid. The challenge then is to be able to adjust our mindsets such that we no longer hold on to the sentimental notion of planting a flag at one point on the Pyramid, and then clinging on to it forever. That does not work, for the world is characterised by change. And those who can truly embrace change, (this is counter-intuitive, as our brains are naturally drawn towards patterning / habit forming), are the ones who will undoubtedly thrive. Such people will also adopt policies and mindsets that encourage fluid change.

The following approach may be helpful: if we were to start to see our business activities as composites of value adding steps, rather than as a single unit of activity, we might then be able to strategically analyse on a component-by-component basis which of those steps may most optimally be located where, at any point in time, and then plan the coordinated execution of such efforts accordingly, working in tandem with a policy environment that provides incentives for the private sector to plan and execute their activities in this strategic manner.

Let’s take a random and perhaps overly-simplified example: assume ABC Pte Ltd has been in the business of publishing magazines.

(a)  editing

(b)  typesetting

(c)  printing

(d)  binding

(e)  packaging

(f)  distribution.

For simplicity, let’s say that the value adding ‘steps’ involve:

The traditional way of looking at this activity would be to see the whole series of steps as comprising one block of activity. In this way, the private sector owner of ABC would calculate his economic returns quite simply, toting up the costs of executing all of the above activities and subtracting that from his revenues, to determine that every dollar invested in this business in Singapore may yield, for example, S$1.20.

In this example, if the proprietor of ABC were to consider merely replicating his business’s entire value chain, ie activities (a) to (f) above, say in China, he may see that S$1 of his, invested in the replicated value chain in China, may then yield him a return of say S$1.60. If so, we should assume that it will not take very long before he asks why he should continue to invest any further dollars in his operations here. If this is not properly addressed, then the fear of hollowing out of our economy may well become a reality for us.

However, a tweak in our policy environment, based on Value Chain Dispersal considerations, may yield a different outcome. If, for instance, the proprietor of ABC was granted strong tax and other relevant financial incentives by the government against a regional / global business plan that saw his expanded business activities structured such that, say, step (a) may best be carried out in Singapore, steps (b) and (c) may best be done in Malaysia, steps (d) and (e) most optimally done in Thailand and step (f) coordinated from Singapore, the net results may be:

1. From the proprietor’s perspective, he may now see a net yield well in excess of the S$1.60 earned through simple Value Chain Replication in China, for every S$1 invested, as each step of the economic value adding activities is now carried out in its respective optimal location for the time being (although the management of the business becomes more challenging for the proprietor of ABC); &
2. From our national perspective, if we encouraged the proprietor to plan his activities along such ‘Value Chain Dispersal’ lines, by offering him specially reduced tax rates on the economic steps that do remain to be done in Singapore, (in addition to the nil tax on offshore profits remitted to Singapore), we may then see that, over time, all that does remain to be carried out onshore, in terms of value adding activities, will necessarily be relevant and best suited for our environment, at any one point in time (thereby avoiding as best we may, the threat of a hollowed-out economy, which could otherwise happen).

It is recognised that such a Value Chain Dispersal framework may take some time to be put into effect, particularly as great mindset shifts will be involved within both sectors —- namely, the public sector will have to find new ways to offer compelling ‘holistic’ incentives to the private sector players to redevelop their business activities, moving offshore what’s not cost-effectively done here, whilst keeping that portion that is best done onshore still running here, but within a composite regional whole.

At the same time, our private sector operators will have to embark upon the more complex management path of building and earning a sustainable growth business across numerous national boundaries. However, not to do so may not be an option at all for either sector. The result of failing to have such an encouraging public sector policy environment may be a hollowed out economy. And the result of a private sector that does not wish to take on the challenge of such complex value chain dispersals of activities may be that our businesses never achieve truly globally competitive operational status to survive, let alone compete.

As an example, and as discussed by George Yip in his afore-mentioned book, Toyota Inc in the US has so diversified its economic value adding components within the process of manufacturing each car, that whilst the final assemblies are done in the US, the components are actually manufactured in more than 50 different countries. And their strategic approach taken is so meticulously planned that every such component of activity is actually carried out in a minimum of 2 different localities, so as to avoid the perils of being held ransom to economic and/or political risk occurring at any of such countries of operations. We have got a long way to go before arriving at such sophisticated multi-country business process planning, but there’s never been a better or more compelling time to start than now.

Conclusion

It is being remarked all across Singapore and beyond that we have not been able to articulate a tangible strategy to generate our future revenues for our economy. The gloom and pessimism is truly quite unnecessary. All that is required is for us to have the right mental framework erected, and to have a clear focus on the Value Pyramid at the centre of our economic planning table, and where we wish to plant our flags thereon. Once that framework is in place, the tenacity, dedication, focus and professionalism of the Singaporean will see to the swift and sure implementation of the ensuing strategies for the realisation of our future value based returns.

Where exactly we should plant our target flags on the global value pyramid is ultimately a question of choice, and how well we fare, directly linked to our will to succeed.