My theory is simple.
The root problem is that because of its sheer size, the ruling party has problems finding enough good candidates, while managing the expectations of all its MPs.
What are 'good candidates'? Are all good candidates destined to become Prime Minister? What are the expectations of people who become MPs?
If you are familiar with the civil/public service talent management system, this PAP MP motivation problem is somewhat analogous.
At the top of a very narrow pyramid sits the people with the real core powers. About 6 people. These people control the party. Because these people are not immortal, this leads to a need and call for 'leadership renewal'*.
However, it is misleading to believe that every candidate who wears white will eventually get to the top of the pyramid. Ideally, of course, a candidate would get into the party pyramid at the bottom, and prove himself by working his way upwards. But in life, such ideals are usually a farce. 1 or 2 examples may be cited to reinforce this myth, but most people don't get to their destinations this way.
What's highly likely to happen is that the candidates are already separated into 2 distinct baskets right from the start, (A) the Chosen Ones, and (B) the Props. Many hopefuls would have to be disappointed over the years. And when your party is filling almost 100% of all seats over 45 years, you tend to disappoint a lot more people every 5 years.
The Chosen Ones are those MPs who have been identified to take over the ministerial portfolios right from the start. If you discount the top 6 appointments, there are about 15 ministers now, some double-hatting. These people are those with immaculate educational qualifications, right family backgrounds, right connections, from the right professions etc.
Out of 15 ministers (these exclude Deputy Prime Minister and above), they were plucked from the following sources:
- Civil Servants (including Military) = 9
- Medical Specialists = 2 (Vivian Balakrishnan, Ng Eng Hen)
- Lawyer = 1 (K Shanmugam)
- Engineer/Academic = 1 (Yaacob Ibrahim)
- Mixed private sector/Academic = 1 (Raymond Lim)
- Neptune Orient Line = 1 (Lim Boon Heng)
* Out of 21, we have 1 female minister.
Points of interest:
- 50% of the Core Powers were educated at Raffles Institution, while there is none from ACS in this group. *gasp*
- Of the Chosen Ones, Raffles Institution and ACS are on par at 27% each. (Yes, even the only female minister, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, was from Raffles Institution.)
- There are non-elite alums in the Core Powers, i.e. DPM Wong was from Outram Secondary School, Minister Lim Boon Heng was from Monfort.
- Minister Khaw (born in Malaysia) and Minister Yaacob's secondary schools are unknown.
- No one amongst the top 21 is from the Chinese High School.
Of course, it is very attractive to get into the ranks of the Chosen Ones. You gain access to power, money and a well-oiled world class Singapore Inc machinery. As such, there are those who hang around, some for decades, in hope of getting there someday. This inevitably poses a morale issue for the others, such as the Props (see below). "When is it gonna be my turn??!!"
To ameliorate this situation, SM Goh has recently announced the possible limits of 2 terms per minister. This is similar to the 2 x 5-year terms per Permanent/Deputy Secretary rule in the Civil Service. It is to give those below hope, and so, to motivate them to hang around and try some more.
The Props are those who have been selected to run for MP elections, and are not promised any ministerial portfolios. Whether this is made clear and known to the Props upfront, remains unknown. It's always difficult to tell someone upfront that there is a limit to his potential. It's always easier to say 'maybe'.
Just remember that there are now 87 MP seats to filled, while there currently are about 30 ministerial appointments (filled by the Chosen Ones), 10 junior minister appointments, and another 10 parliamentary secretary appointments.
(Note:
- Some appointment holders double-hat, i.e. take on more than 1 portfolio.
- Don't ask me what a Parl Sec does, I tried asking Teo Ser Luck (who is a Parl Sec) this same question a few years ago. He couldn't give a clear answer either.)
The not-so-favoured Props will remain as Beta Props, retaining their day jobs, and hanging onto their MP allowances of $15k per month. Not too shabby, if you ask the average Singaporean HOUSEHOLD, which only makes a fraction of the MP allowance. But will this satisfy all in the bottom 50%?
Some are ok with being a Beta Prop only, because after 2 consecutive terms, these people will get a pension.
For others, $15k just isn't enough anymore in today's context. Who wants to be Beta Prop only, when you see your comrades getting promoted to the ranks of Alpha Props, or perhaps even to the Chosen Ones, and making a few times more than you are?
This conundrum is precisely why willing Beta Props are difficult to find. Hence, oddly, the bottom 50% of the pyramid is more difficult to fill than the top half.
Rather counter-intuitively, MPs such as like Dr Lily Neo who has been serving for 3 terms, and Mr Low Thia Khiang who has been serving for 4 terms, are Beta Props. Also, if you notice, the PAP MPs who quit just after a couple of terms are usually Beta Props.
.............................................................................
Qn#1: So, it must be good news that SM Goh has announced that in future, it is possible for no minister to serve more than 2 terms, right? This is 'leadership renewal'.
Theoretically, this policy is a good news. It ensures leadership renewal.
And 2 terms of 5 years per candidate is a long enough time for the candidate to make real changes, and yet the break between the 5 + 5 years is flexible enough for a lousy candidate to be removed... in theory.
However, we should not forget that there must be a reason why SM Goh is announcing this policy suggestion now. There must be dissent about how some ministers have hanging been around for eons. This possibly suggests that there is dissent within the ruling party, as it would be found in any large organisations, such as the Civil/Public Service, MNCs, NGOs etc.
Personally, 'on balance', I think this 5yr + 5yr term is an optimal solution. This is based on the usual assumptions that those who select these talents know what they are doing.
But PM Lee disagrees with SM Goh and me. PM Lee says there is a lack of talent for such frequent rounds of renewal. He means renewal of those at the top, not the Beta Props.
Qn#2: If an MP has been serving for 2 to 3 terms and is still a Beta Prop, does this mean he is a lousy MP?
There are many reasons why the Prime Minister would appoint a MP to take up a ministerial, junior ministerial, or parl sec position. This may not be directly related due to intellectual competence or ability to connect with constituents.
Btw, the Prime Minister can appoint any MP as an appointment holder, i.e. he can choose to appoint an opposition MP as a minister, junior minister or parl sec.
Also, it is possible for an MP to reject such an offer, i.e. to maintain his day job, instead of taking up a political appointment in the government. This could be due to a desire to maintain some form of autonomy.
Qn#3: Exactly, how does PAP select its candidates?
No one, except for the Core Powers in PAP, can give you the answer to this question.
We've heard from Minister Ng Eng Hen that the PAP has conducted 200+ tea sessions to shortlist its current round of candidates. Some candidates, I presume mostly those who made it through, have gone for 2 rounds.
By working backwards, there are some obvious criteria for each category of MPs. E.g.
- The Chosen Ones have similar backgrounds and qualifications to the Core Powers.
- The criteria for the Alpha Props is more relaxed than that of the Chosen Ones, and the outcome is somewhat uneven across the board.
- The Beta Props are minimally graduates, with the exception of Charles Chong (an Australian technical college diploma holder), and are from different walks of life.
Does one need to be a university graduate to serve the public as a MP?
Qn#4: It seems having done time in grassroots is very important. Shouldn't MPs be selected from the pool of grassroots leaders?
I'm sure there are many people who have served for years and even decades in grassroots who will never 'qualify' as MP candidates due to lack of paper qualifications. Hence, Ms Tin Pei Ling's 7 years of grassroots service is hardly the key factor of why she has been selected.
Similarly, watch out for candidates who have zero grassroots experience, but have been parachuted into the party to take up major appointments.
This shows that having grassroots experience is NOT a pre-requisite.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar