Gerald Giam

Crisis of leadership in S’pore

Mr Viswa Sadasivan, CEO of communications training and consultancy Strategic Moves and renowned social commentator, recently gave a talk where he shared his views about politics in Singapore.

True to his style, Mr Viswa’s off-the-cuff presentation was peppered with witty anecdotes, incisive observations and a strong sense of conviction about what Singapore needs to change in order to reach the next level of development and progress.

* * * * *

Salient points from speech by Mr Viswa Sadasivan

We Singaporeans are often exhorted by our political leaders to take ownership, be innovative and think out-of-the-box. But the term “think out-of-the-box” is much abused, as oftentimes we step out of the box into a larger box.

One of the key challenges we are facing increasingly is a crisis of leadership. While we have no shortage of good managers — people who are pre-occupied with and are able to get things done right – we don’t have enough leaders, people who want to do the right thing, and who have the conviction and wherewithal to do it.

It is not clear whether this “crisis” is a result of us simply not having people with leadership qualities, or is it because such people are not willing to step forward because of a host of reasons which could include cynicism and apathy. It probably is a combination of both.

Consider how few people have the courage to disagree with strong personalities such as Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew. Is it because there aren’t enough things that matter enough, or because we are afraid of getting a robust response or being rapped in the knuckles? Will there ever come a day when we do not need MM Lee to step in to help carry the ground when Singapore makes fundamental policy shifts?

Accountability and the media

An increasingly sophisticated, exposed populace demands a greater level of accountability – and it has to be seen to be so. The media is opening up, but often it looks like it is taking one step forward and two steps back. Certainly, the pace at which the media is opening up is lagging behind the pace the people expect of it. This consequential erosion of media credibility – especially in reporting on local issues – is unhealthy. If uncorrected, in a crisis the government will not have an effective vehicle through which it can convey critical messages. This is especially so in the increasingly porous new media environment.

For example, in the wake of the Temasek-Shin Corp saga, the local media remained largely silent. The more it was silent, the more credence was given to the many conspiracy theories that were spreading fast and furious. Singaporeans wanted to hear from the establishment about what really happened. But this hardly came. As a result, the only source of information, by default, ended up being the likes of foreign newspapers such as the South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) that provided commentary and analysis on the issue, which, needless to say, were not favourable to Singapore.

Another example is the Mas Selamat Kastari escape incident. From a public relations and communications perspective, it was a disaster and crisis of national proportions. Yet there weren’t enough statements by our political leaders – statements that could actually have helped turned the crisis into an opportunity to bring the people together, as was the case in the way we managed the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) crisis.

Qualities of leadership

Leadership can be defined as having the confidence to stand up and make assertions on issues that matter, which in turn will inspire your audience to buy into your belief. To do this, a leader needs to have clarity of thought and the courage to move out of his or her comfort zone, when necessary.

Leaders need to have an intrinsic sense of right and wrong. These qualities don’t seem to be apparent in our society. This is worrying.

The difference between what is expected of a political leader and a senior civil servant is that the latter helps to formulate policies, while the former assesses the soundness of the proposed policies, their long-term implications, and then goes out to convince people to believe in them. While we have good people with credibility and integrity in cabinet, not enough of them appear to have the acumen to explain them clearly and simply, and persuade the ground. This is a key quality of leadership, which in turn is a tacit balance of IQ, and EQ – an intrinsic capacity to listen.

Pragmatism, a cornerstone of Singapore’s approach to governance, affords us the flexibility to move with the tide and not be constrained by ideologies. This has worked pretty well for Singapore, especially economically. But going forward, especially with so many distractions and conflicting signals and priorities, it is imperative that the government and we as a people be clearer about our anchor values and things we stand for, especially on issues of meritocracy, equality, homosexuality and race and religion. This is what will determine our moral compass as a society. It is something we need to give to our young.

Political participation

Most of our leaders appear to be of the same ilk — possessing strong academic and work credentials, with a very cautious approach to almost anything. You wish there would be more occasions for spontaneous remarks. Some of those who were considered non-conformists in their pre-government days appear to become thoroughly assimilated within a matter of months of assuming office. Yes, this might be perception and not truth– but perceptions do matter, as that is what determines the votes at the polls.

Singapore needs alternatives – in thought and action – to better cater to the proliferation of niche perspectives and interests, and these alternatives must be authentic.

Some years back, then-Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong remarked that Singapore does not need political opposition. A pertinent analogy in response would be that of an athlete who has won the gold medal in the Olympics. His next goal would be not just to retain his gold, but to beat his own record. However, is it possible for him to better his performance without having worthy competitors to pace him?

So why have so few good people stepped forward to join the Opposition?

Firstly, our citizenry today are products of decades of depoliticisation, with little propensity to enter politics, much less opposition politics.

Secondly, the “fear factor” and a keen awareness of the fate that has befallen quite a few who have campaigned under the opposition banner over the years has had a chilling effect on the people. Those who still choose to enter opposition politics despite these considerations either have nothing much to lose, or are persons of great moral courage and deep conviction who deserve our respect.

Even the PAP faces similar challenges in recruiting good people. It would appear that a number of people who were approached to join the party declined because they felt they would not fit in. Some I spoke to even expressed concern of losing the respect of their peers if they stood for elections under the PAP banner. This is not a healthy sign and the ruling party needs to ask themselves why is such a feeling amongst some of the more credible, accomplished potential political leaders.

It would be not just in the PAP’s interest but in the best interest of Singapore to repoliticise the ground, and find an effective, sustainable antidote to the antipathy towards political participation.

* * * * *

This was first published on The Online Citizen, with Mr Viswa’s permission.

Appeal for help for Myanmar

The reclusive Myanmar authorities are slowly revealing the horrifying extent of the destruction caused by the Tropical Cyclone Nargis, which hit the country over the weekend.

The latest reports were that 22,500 Myanmarese people have perished, with 10,000 dead in one city alone. 41,000 others are still missing and at least 25,000 homes have been lost.

Relief organisation World Vision estimates that over 2 million people have been hit by the effects of the cyclone. James Tumbuan, World Vision’s National Director in Yangon said, “Yangon totally collapsed. Getting drinking water is a real problem.”

Tumbuan said thousands of people are now camped in government schools in and around Yangon.

The Singapore Government has pledged US$200,000 for relief efforts in Myanmar.

I’m sure much more will be needed. I’d encourage those of us with the means to help out too. In these situations, the best way to help is to donate money to reputable aid organisations who are able to reach the victims, both during the immediate aftermath as well as during the reconstruction phases.

World Vision is one such charity which I regularly donate to. Donations can be made via credit card, Internet banking or cheque. Please click here for more details.

How good leaders manage failure

This was an article snippet posted as an anonymous comment on Tan Kin Lian’s blog. I thought it is so appropriate in light of our recent “Toilet Break” affair.

(Former President of India APJ Abdul Kalam at Wharton India Economic forum, Philadelphia , March 22,2008)

Question: Could you give an example, from your own experience, of how leaders should manage failure?

Kalam: Let me tell you about my experience. In 1973 I became the project director of India ‘s satellite launch vehicle program, commonly called the SLV-3. Our goal was to put India ‘s ‘Rohini’ satellite into orbit by 1980. I was given funds and human resources — but was told clearly that by 1980 we had to launch the satellite into space. Thousands of people worked together in scientific and technical teams towards that goal.

By 1979 — I think the month was August — we thought we were ready. As the project director, I went to the control center for the launch. At four minutes before the satellite launch, the computer began to go through the checklist of items that needed to be checked. One minute later, the computer program put the launch on hold; the display showed that some control components were not in order. My experts — I had four or five of them with me — told me not to worry; they had done their calculations and there was enough reserve fuel. So I bypassed the computer, switched to manual mode, and launched the rocket. In the first stage, everything worked fine. In the second stage, a problem developed. Instead of the satellite going into orbit, the whole rocket system plunged into the Bay of Bengal. It was a big failure.

That day, the chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, Prof. Satish Dhawan, had called a press conference. The launch was at 7:00 am, and the press conference — where journalists from around the world were present — was at 7:45 am at ISRO’s satellite launch range in Sriharikota [in Andhra Pradesh in southern India ]. Prof. Dhawan, the leader of the organization, conducted the press conference himself. He took responsibility for the failure — he said that the team had worked very hard, but that it needed more technological support. He assured the media that in another year, the team would definitely succeed. Now, I was the project director, and it was my failure, but instead, he took responsibility for the failure as chairman of the organization.

The next year, in July 1980, we tried again to launch the satellite — and this time we succeeded. The whole nation was jubilant. Again, there was a press conference. Prof. Dhawan called me aside and told me, ‘You conduct the press conference today.’

I learned a very important lesson that day. When failure occurred, the leader of the organization owned that failure. When success came, he gave it to his team. The best management lesson I have learned did not come to me from reading a book; it came from that experience.

It’s interesting that in Singapore (at least in the Government), it seems the opposite is practised. When some amoeba civil servant comes up with a great idea, the government mouthpieces boast that “Minister Chin Tua Liap mooted the idea”.

But if a disgraceful prison break occurs, the blame is contained within the detention centre and no higher. And the Government’s logic is that blaming the Minister will lower morale of the staff. So better to blame the underlings and “move on”.

Freedom House Press Freedom Report on Singapore

Singapore

Status: Not Free
Legal Environment: 24
Political Environment: 24
Economic Environment: 21
Total Score: 69

Media freedom in Singapore continued to be constrained in 2007, with the vast majority of print and broadcast journalists practicing self-censorship for fear of harsh defamation charges, while a government review raised concerns of increased restrictions for online content in the future. The Singapore Constitution provides the right to freedom of speech and expression in Article 14, but also permits restrictions on these rights. In addition, the Newspapers and Printing Presses Act, the Defamation Act, and the Internal Security Act (ISA) constrain press freedom, allowing the authorities to restrict the circulation of news deemed to incite violence, arouse racial or religious tensions, interfere in domestic politics, or threaten public order, national interest or national security. The judiciary lacks independence and systematically returns verdicts in the government’s favor, further undermining press freedom in the city-state. Singapore law does not recognized journalists’ rights to protect the identity of their sources and in May 2007, Reuters correspondent Mia Shanley was forced to reveal an anonymous source in a commercial case under an order from the Court of Appeals.

Films, television programs, music, books and magazines are sometimes censored; all films with a political purpose are banned unless government-sponsored. In April 2007, the government banned a film by filmmaker and blogger Martyn See about Said Zahari, a journalist and political activist who was held without trial for 17 years under the ISA. Although Zahari’s 17 Years, was banned under the Film Act from being screened in Singapore, it could still be viewed on the Internet. The Singapore government and ruling party members are quick to sue critics under harsh civil and criminal defamation laws in order to silence and bankrupt political opponents and critical media outlets. Foreign media in Singapore are also subject to such pressures and restrictive laws. In October 2007, the Financial Times published an apology and agreed to pay damages to the ruling Lee family for a September article that suggested nepotism factored into various appointments allocated to several of its members. Foreign publications are required by the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts to post a bond of S$200,000 (approximately $127,200) and appoint a local legal representative if they wish to publish in Singapore. In August 2006, after the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) published an interview with opposition party leader Chee Soon Juan, it and four other foreign publications were informed they would no longer be exempt from the regulations as they had been previously and needed to post a deposit. When the FEER did not comply, its circulation permit was revoked, effectively banning the publication, a ban which remained in effect throughout 2007, though the publication was accessible online. In a corresponding defamation suit filed by the prime minister and his father over the article, a June 2007 ruling by the Singapore High Court rejected the magazine’s application for a Queen’s Counsel from the United Kingdom to represent it.

Nearly all print and broadcast media outlets, Internet service providers, and cable television services are either owned or controlled by the state, or by companies with close ties to the ruling People’s Action Party. Annual licensing requirements for all media outlets, including political and religious web sites, have been used to inhibit criticism of the government. Internet use is widespread in Singapore, but the government attempts to restrict and control it by licensing Internet service providers. Websites offering political or religious content are also required to register with the government’s Media Development Authority (MDA), thus making a website’s owners and editors criminally liable for any content that the government finds objectionable. Although the ruling party has been successful in curbing dissenting opinion among traditional print and broadcast media, the Internet has proven more difficult to control. Bloggers and discussion groups still offer alternative views and a virtual channel for expressing dissent. During the year, an online petition against a proposed salary hike for government ministers collected thousands of signatures as well as comments criticizing the hike and the authorities’ lack of accountability. In March 2007, the MDA announced that it was seeking to expand the jurisdiction of its Media Market Conduct Code from the traditional print and broadcast sectors to new media markets. Although the MDA said its review was intended “to better address competition issues that may arise under the new landscape”, international watchdog groups expressed concerns that the revisions would be used to limit ownership and stifle online dissent. The internet was accessed by over 66 percent of the population in 2007.

Download the full report here.

—————

Singapore was ranked 153rd out of 170 countries.

Have Singaporeans really moved on?

Scanning the forum pages of our English dailies, I notice a glaring absence of any letters about Mas Selamat-gate.

This could be due to one of two things:
1. Singaporeans have really moved on, as SM Goh Chok Tong and Straits Times’ political editor Chua Lee Hong exhorted us to; or

2. The media is rejecting all letters about the issue, and is failing its national duty of reflecting the views of Singaporeans.

Which one is it?

p.s. those who read the Chinese, Malay and Tamil press, do share the situation on that front.

Time to move on?

While some people continue to debate who is to be held accountable for Mas Selamat Kastari’s escape, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong believes the more urgent task is to stay on top of problems like soaring food prices.

Straits Times, 27 April

A familiar pattern whenever scandals involving government wrongdoing/negligence/incompetence break out is:

Damage control
Press reports and comments on only the safe topics
Blogs come up with conspiracy theories
Grand exhortation by MM, PM and/or SM, in that order
Opposition makes a small whimper.
Press all falls in line, reporting only what the big men have said.
Forum page articles all show Singaporeans reacting in support of the govt.
Blogs go ballistic attacking the govt.
One of the big men says: “Let’s move on”. Agenda is abruptly changed to something relatively unimportant.
Press obediently complies. Blogs go even more ballistic.
A few weeks later, everything is forgotten.
People still vote for the PAP at next election.

The East Asian twist in the Middle East nuclear crisis

There’s never a dull moment in Middle East politics. But Israel’s relationship with its Arab neighbours has taken a much more intriguing twist in recent months.

On Sept 6 last year, Israeli F-15 and F-16 warplanes secretly bombed a mysterious target in northeastern Syria. It was not until weeks later that the world got to know about this bombing, and Israel remained mum about it more than 10 days after the news broke.

Initial speculation was that the target was either (1) a cache of arms bound for Hezbollah, a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel; (2) a practice run for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities; or (3) a joint North Korean-Syrian nuclear reactor project.

Syria’s feeble response after its Jewish neighbour’s audacious invasion of its airspace and attack within its borders only increased suspicion that the third scenario — a nuclear facility — was actually in the works. Even Syria’s Arab neighbours were deafeningly silent on the bombing, when one would expect them to be outraged over this attack on their Arab brethren. Judging from the nature of inter-Arab politics, they — Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular — must have been secretly pleased that Israel removed this threat from their backyard.

The issue was revived again in last Thursday when the US openly accused Syria of building a secret nuclear reactor with North Korea’s help. Some have accused the US of using this as a negotiating ploy with North Korea. Predictably, Syrian diplomats angrily refuted the American claims. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also expressed much unhappiness that the US and Israel did not share their intelligence with it, in order for them to send weapons inspectors to Syria to check out the facility themselves.

I feel the IAEA has the right to feel upset that it was totally sidelined and made irrelevant in this issue. But what else did they expect from Israel?

I am not a diehard supporter of the State of Israel, but I think that the action that Israel took was appropriate and necessary in this case. It already has a disaster waiting to happen with its other neighbour, Iran, and their alleged nuclear programme. It was a good move for them to have nipped Syria’s nuclear programme in the bud, before it opened up another nuclear front for them on their northeast border.

It will certainly be interesting to see how this situation pans out in the coming weeks.

See also:
– Shock waves from Syria (Washington Post editorial)
– IAEA chief hits out at US, Israel over Syrian reactor claims (CNA)
.

Olympic protests not an attempt to embarrass Chinese people

A PRC Chinese friend of mine recently asked me over dinner what I thought about the Tibet situation — the Tibet independence movement, Western protests, Chinese reaction, and so on.

He pointed out to me and our other Singaporean friends present how the Western press had been lying about the situation in Tibet. For example, German newspapers featured scenes of police suppressing protestors. But those policemen were revealed to be Nepalese police, not Chinese. (I presume websites like anti-cnn.com which point out these untruths have been circulating endlessly among Chinese both in China and overseas.)

I have noticed that Chinese nationals all seem to have a strikingly similar perspective on the issue: That Westerners are jealous of a rising China and are trying to prevent the 1.4 billion people of China from taking their rightful place in this world.

Perhaps this is because most of them get their news from Chinese government mouthpieces like Xinhua, or from friends who read Xinhua or anti-cnn.com.

Knowing how sensitive this issue is with Chinese nationals, and not wanting to offend, I told him that I felt this whole situation was a misunderstanding between the Chinese and the West.

I told my friend that I feel that the majority of the Western “free Tibet” protesters are not out to embarrass the people of China or insult China (as in the country). Their protests are an attempt to embarrass the totalitarian Communist government of the People’s Republic of China, whom they believe need to open up and move towards a more representative government, rule of law and justice for all its people. Sure, there might be a few bigots among them, but we in China and Singapore do not realise that there are many European and American civil society activists who are genuinely seeking a more just world, even outside their own borders.

As for the misrepresentation of China in the Western press, I explained that in the West, unlike China and Singapore, there are no political controls on the press. Countries like Germany have countless newspapers which are all competing for readership.

One of the easiest (albeit least ethical) ways to increase readership is to sensationalise issues. Scenes of peaceful streets in Lhasa will not sell. So sometimes journalists in these papers will scrounge for random pictures to back their story of a harsh crackdown by the Chinese authorities. And since to many cloistered Westerners, all Asian people look the same, scenes of Kathmandu and Lhasa are indistinguishable.

However unethical (or ignorant) this might be, Chinese people should not see this as an attempt by Western governments to put down China. Since none of these papers take orders from their governments (unlike in China and Singapore), it is a mistake to attribute the newspapers’ stand on issues to that of their government.

I personally find this raucous Chinese nationalism very distasteful. The majority of Han Chinese have no idea what goes on in Tibet or Xinjiang. Whatever they hear from their national media is — like the Gold 90.5 FM advertisement — only the good stuff. How can they be in a position to judge that the Tibetan protesters (in Tibet) have no justification for wanting autonomy or independence?

I find it even more irritating when some chauvinist Chinese Singaporeans, who themselves have no link to China, automatically take sides with China without an understanding of the kind of government that rules that country. They too see the Chinese government through the lens of what our national media paints it to be.

I think it is important that all of us, whether Singaporean, Chinese or European, is that we all need to be more discerning when reading the news. Not everything the media churns out is the truth. Every story has two sides to it. We will do well to study both sides before forming our opinions.

Fortunately the Internet has opened up the media scene tremendously and enabled many of us to seek out these different perspectives easily with a click of a button. But how many of us make the effort to do this?

My Response to MP Lam Pin Min’s blog

Well at least some of our P65 MPs are writing about the Mas Selamat issue and its aftermath.

Dr Lam Pin Min wrote a piece defending the PM and DPM’s arguments about how they see government responsibility. Here’s an excerpt:

Yes, the Minister is ultimately responsible for his ministry’s policies and operations, which was why a COI was necessary to account for the lapses and to be answerable to the public. Just like the PM is accountable for his cabinet ministers. But, does that mean that the minister is culpable for all the mistakes that his subordinate (sic) commits? This cannot be.

Here is a comment I left in response:

Dear Mr Lam,

I have already read PM’s speech. Why bother copying and pasting it here?

The more you defend your bosses, the deeper a hole you are burying yourself and others in your party in, simply because the Executive’s self-righteous arguments lack merit on their own.

I urge you and your PAP colleagues to put down your cheerleading pom poms for a moment and do a better job reflecting the feelings of the people on the ground.

Most of us are not asking for Mr Wong’s resignation. We just want some admission of personal accountability.

And for goodness sakes, don’t tell us that by punishing the Minister, it will demoralize the whole Ministry. On the contrary, but putting all the blame on the small guys at WRDC, the officers at MHA and ISD will get the message that when push comes to shove, they will be the fall guys when something goes wrong.

I’d like to end with a quote from Newcastle, one of the readers of my blog, who left this comment:

“Is this then the precedent being set among the ministers where things go right, I get my million dollar pay package and take the credit. When things go wrong, I get my million dollar pay package and blame my minions.”

Regards,
Gerald Giam

Afternote: It should be “Dr Lam” not “Mr Lam”. My apologies to the good doctor.

Don’t demoralise MHA by punishing the Minister

Yesterday PM Lee told Parliament:

The Minister is ultimately accountable for the policies and operations of his Ministry. But this does not mean that if a lapse occurs down the line, every level in the chain of command, up to and including the Minister should automatically be punished or removed. Based on the facts, we have to decide who fell short in performing his duties, and what is the appropriate disciplinary action for each officer involved. We also have to follow due process, giving officers the chance to defend themselves. Otherwise we will demoralise the organisation and discourage officers from taking initiatives (sic) or responsibility, for fear of being punished for making mistakes.

I said yesterday that if the logic goes that a Minister shold not be punished for a lapse that occurs down the line, then he will never get punished for anything, because everything the Minister “does” is actually done by his civil servants.

PM said that to punish the Minister would demoralise the organisation and discourage lower level staff from taking initiative or responsibility.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

Instead, if everytime something goes wrong, and only the lower level staff get punished, that would do much greater damage to morale. Not only would staff not take initiative and responsibility, but they would ask themselves: “Why bother when I’m going to be made to take the whole rap if something goes wrong?”

This is very bad management style. The boss should always take responsibility, and the rap if necessary.

Then again, perhaps PM was referring to morale among the top level elite Administrative Officers and Ministers. That is probably his greatest concern. To heck with those losers with fewer than 4 As in their A levels.