A tall order for 4G leaders?

WHEN Goh Chok Tong was deciding who should be deputy prime minister when he succeeded Lee Kuan Yew in 1990, Ong Teng Cheong was his first choice.

But his boss Lee wasn’t impressed.

“His reaction was not very good. He asked why Ong Teng Cheong. He did not say, why not Lee Hsien Loong. But from the way he asked, I could sense it, that he was thinking of the future and the future lay with Lee Hsien Loong, not Ong...”

Goh was prime minister for 14 years, overseeing a period which saw Singapore continue its dramatic transformation into a global city of international repute.

Goh’s recent biography Tall Order tells of how an unlikely civil servant rose to become prime minister under Lee’s watchful eye, with the son waiting in the wings.

His accounts raise several impor- tant issues about how political renewal in Singapore works and the implications for the future.

The first concerns the nature of the cohort which Goh belonged to – technocrats with no prior experience or interest in politics but persuaded to join the party because there was a job to be done.

As one member of that team, S. Dhanabalan, put it, while most people elsewhere entered politics for personal ambition or a strong conviction that the government of the day was on the wrong track, it was not the case for him and his peers.

“We never said we wanted to be leaders because of the high standing in society or we wanted to change the system, that this or that policy was wrong and we had to change it,” he said.

“We all came in because we agreed ... that successful people, in business or civil service, if they did not come forward to enter politics, then the wrong people would come in ... and that would be disastrous for Singapore.”

There was no jostling for the top job. If anything, no one wanted it, and, as a result, they supported whoever was chosen.

They were pioneers, prepared to face an uncertain future with no promise of monetary rewards. (It was only later that ministerial salaries were pegged to private-sector rates.)

The second issue is how they were not motivated to make any changes to the system.

Singapore was fortunate that the country did not require them to do so, a testimony, perhaps, to Lee’s policies that made Singapore successful then.

They didn’t need changing and Goh and his team built on them to drive the country forward.

But what if circumstances demand change and the old formulas no longer work?

It is a pertinent question to ask of the current 4G leadership, drawn mainly from the same small civil service pool but facing a radically different world facing disruptive change.

Will Singapore be as fortunate as in Goh’s time when change was not required?

And if it isn’t, who or what will provide the impetus to transform?

Goh’s brand was not just different from Lee’s but he had to exercise it when the latter’s influence still loomed large.

He was obviously a man of considerable ability.

Otherwise, he would not have lasted under Lee’s watch and earned the respect of his equally talented colleagues.

But leaders need to have a vision for their team and the country.

When asked, Goh said his was a very simple one: “Keep Singapore going”.

It is not difficult to understand his thinking because the pressing question at the time was whether Singapore could survive LKY.

Making sure it would was worth devoting a lifetime to.

Goh and his colleagues delivered on the promise.

But is that vision enough for today’s generation, which has enjoyed peace and plenty all their life and for which survival is no longer an issue?

If it isn’t, what possibilities can future leaders offer that can inspire and excite the people?

It’s a question the 4G leaders need to answer. — The Straits Times /Asia News Network