In response to AhPek’s post Today at 14: 21.08 (1 hour ago) –
it is not a simple measurement of which is more important for the Cause of Good Governance/Democracy – role of education in shaping leadership and type of government or the prevailing political system!

Although the prevailing political system moulds people’s behaviors, practices, and norms, it is also true – more so – that the people’s behaviors, practices, and norms also mould their voting of political candidates, their demand of what is expected of political standards of public officers, in short the political system itself and changes thereof.

Ultimately, the people’s behaviors, practices, and norms are the final arbiter of the political system you get, and by reason that the more important of the two in terms of sustainability of good political practices. There must be check & balance. The most effective check is Rakyat themselves.

And that’s where education of rights and what constitutes political civic and fair practices become important.

///Singapore’s achievement is something we should emulate, but surely its one party system is a no no to us/// – dawsheng.

The achievement is because of Human Capital. Singapore scours for political talent to fill the posts of ministers, civil servants and even PAP cadres…Basic degree is also not enough; must have first class honours, double degrees etc and if that’s not enough long for those who besides having these qualifications also have experience in running successfully conglomerates and corporations…

What we have is an elitist system, Singapore being small place easy to micro-manage, big brain-power on a small place will bring forward disproportionate achievement. This form of recruitment of political talent is unique – I doubt it is replicated elsewhere….

Whilst it works for Singapore up to an extent, the question however is, for how long, and at what price long term in this Globalised era???

The question is what is “talent” and in particular political talent….A person replete with academic qualifications has a disciplined mind to analyze, dissect, synthesize and draw logical conclusions but are logical conclusions the right conclusions? Will a good technocrat or administrator of a conglomerate necessarily translate to good CEO for the country? Sometimes so and sometimes not.

The danger is when recruiting talent they also look for those whose behaviors, practices, values and norms are similar to those held by the ruling class. There is little room for diversity and contrariety. Will guys who show promise of an independent mind – to question the prevailing thinking and criticize policies of the ruling class be recruited? I doubt so.

Lee Kuan Yew himself said that “if we continue to reproduce ourselves in lop-sided way, we will be unable to maintain our present standards…” Aren’t they reproducing themselves by this recruitment method?

How can there be not one party system when their system work that way? In many ways the achievement is also because of the one party system where the put all the brain power into something and there is no effective opposition or impediment.

That is fine in Singapore but how do this elitist system and elite work with others outside? Are they streetwise enough?

Take two or three examples.

S’pore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world’s most populous nation. Five years later, the venture was heavily in debt — undermined and outwitted by local mayor & officials who set up a rival park close by, forcing Singapore to cut its interests in the original project. Many said it was greed. Singaporeans priced products high, locals who supplied land envied, and did their own show!

The other Thai Danu Bank, Singapore expertise did all due diligence, bought the bank, forgot about asset quality and the potential Non Performing loans that suddenly mushgroomed a year or two down the road causing them to throw in some more money until it is not worth to “tahan” further and they sold it to military bank. Temaek’s acquisition of Thaksin’s Shin Corp. also ran into problems on the PR side as locals allege ”Our country has become a colony of Singapore.”

The “I know better” & “go by law” attitude without regard to local nuances and sensitivities run into problems in Indonesia where SingTel (having lots of money) purchased majority control in the two biggest cellular companies in Indonesia. It is now in legal battle against Indonesia Competition (Anti-Trust) regulator that ruled against it owning directly or indirectly.

I agree that these examples may be selective – I have not, for example, heard anything adverse of their acquisition of Dao Heng bank in order to gain access to the Hong Kong banking market – but they are points to ponder.

One thing I must give to these technocrats. They make mistakes by being not that streetwise but they learn fast not to repeat them. :)