Dexter Lee
Let’s face it: Singapore politics is full of personalities, from Lee Kuan Yew, J.B. Jeyaretnam, Chiam See Tong, Chee Soon Juan to Kenneth Jeyaretnam. Once again, personalities have come in the way once again. And as much as we are obsessed with them and look up to them for leadership, and as much as they love to market themselves as messiahs on horseback, they often forget that they are not the only ones working for change in Singapore.
I’m pretty clear that they are unable to work with others who have similar goals as them. The problem with personalities here is that you tend to get people who are thrust into the limelight thanks to their various positions, and subsequently they are too exposed to this limelight that they forget to follow up in their role as team players. It is therefore not surprising to see that the prominent personality in the SPP came back to haunt the party before its party conference.
Now don’t say that I didn’t tell you so, but didn’t the fallouts of 1993 and 2010 reveal to us the flaws that continue to dog Singapore’s longest serving opposition MP up till today? Singaporeans may be proud of his work in Potong Pasir (i certainly am), but i’d not consider joining up the fight with Mr Chiam because his track record with team-building just shows. Leadership is not built around hero worship. You certainly can’t achieve anything in the long run by shuffling people into your party just a month prior to the election, but fail to keep them for long because of your archaic working style.
Secondly, I find Kenneth Jeyaretnam’s Facebook postings to make an exclusive claim on Ang Mo Kio GRC pretty strange because there was no need to descend to that level to chide your (potential) opponents. So what does it matter if Ang Mo Kio has been contested by RP in 2011? Not much really. It isn’t RP’s private property. What i noted here is that any attempt for Kenneth Jeyaretnam to grow out of his father’s shadow seems to be restricted by the fact that he is very much trying to be an individual personality like J.B.J and that he is trying to prove something, even if it means being nasty and brutish about it.
Building a team involves tact, give-and-take and a cool head. The group of 11 that left RP some time back may have more to say about this but they have been fairly courteous to Kenneth for now. This is not to say that everything’s all well in the other parties or organisations. Watch this space.
Lastly, a larger problem here is that the most other parties are still stuck with a very elitist leadership system modelled after the PAP. Whatever initial reasons they may have instituted such constitutions, a change may be neccesary to allow parties to belong to all its members and not just an exclusive few.
As long as the structure remains the same, the temptation for a successful politician to stay on longer than his welcome is strong, and all he has to do is manipulate his support within the inner court. This is, of course, detrimental to the party’s leaders and supporters in the long run, and will probably have a negative effect on skilled professionals who wish to contribute their skills in politics.
If Singapore’s politics were to progress, it will have to forgo the personalistic legacies of the Chiams, the Jeyaretnams and the Chees; it will have to do without the Leninist inspired party structures of the past and the dodged insistence on personality politics. It will have to draw in younger Singaporeans to work as a team and not for individual interest if we are to make some headway in future. Without these changes first, very little else will follow.
While I do agree with the observation on the shortfalls of having an organizational structure that revolves around one single individual, empirical evidence favors the middle ground approach of having a collective, but authoritative, senior leadership team that provides and enforce key strategies of the party instead of the laissez-faire “allow parties to belong to all its members” that you advocate.
PAP and WP operate largely on such a model and so far they seem to be the only parties capable of producing electoral success. One or two man shows like that of SPP, RP and SDP are occasionally able to get their leader elected, but are subsequently rendered incapable of advancing beyond initial success due to the constraints of hero worship on overall organizational and talent development.
On the other end, we have a highly decentralized agency form of management style like that of the NSP where there is no clear leadership team and members seem to come and go as they please and operate on whatever messages and activities they and their sub cliques are inclined to. The result is a lack of co-ordination and party discipline when competition and stress levels run high and circumstances demand the utmost concentration of the entire party’s resource toward defeating a stronger opponent.
This was clearly seen when ex-Secretary General for NSP Goh Meng Seng admitted that he had originally “requested” for the scholar couple to contest in Tampines for a showdown with Mah Bow Tan as part of the party’s “minister specific strategy”, but was unable to enforce execution when the Tony & Hazel flat out refused to contest in Tampines citing previous ground work done in Chua Chu Kang.
I didn’t tell you so, but didn’t the fallouts of 1993 and 2010 reveal to us the flaws that continue to dog Singapore’s longest serving opposition MP up till today?