Transport Minister Khaw Boon Wan is perceived by many as a folksy-type of politician -- he could explain complex health, housing and transport policies in layman terms to his fellow Singaporeans.

Hence, Khaw - the People's Action Party (PAP) chairman - must have meant business when he channelled his inner wordsmith and used words like "prodigiously expensive" and "internecine" (we hyperlink the meanings for you -- you are welcome) in his Straits Times letter to throw shade at the leadership renewal commentary by Straits Times Editor-At-Large Han Fook Kwang.

In case you do not read The Straits Times regularly, this is what happened:

Last Sunday, Han ("Relooking leadership renewal in Singapore", Aug 28) wrote about Singapore's political leadership renewal and highlighted areas where there can be room for improvement.

He focused on two things: 1) the apparent lean towards selecting those in public service, including the military among the fourth generation leaders; and 2) the "opaqueness" in the process by which the Prime Minister is chosen.

Anyway, here is the main gist of Khaw's rebuttal ("Next PM will be picked by the young ministers", Sep 4):

1. Criticise Han personally:

Khaw mentioned that Han "of all people, should know that the process by which we choose prime ministers is anything but 'opaque'."

Food for thought: Even if Han is viewed by the establishment as a trusted editor/author of several books on Lee Kuan Yew, it does not mean that he should not provide constructive criticisms in public. Khaw should have addressed the inadequacies and flaws of Han's ideas instead.

2. Ignoring largely Han's point about the bias towards those in the public service:

Khaw chose to tackle Han's observations about the opaqueness in the process in which the PM is chosen, while ignoring Han's first point about the bias towards those in the public service for the position of PM.

If Khaw were to scan online (Reddit for instance), he would notice that the bias towards those in the public service for the position of PM was what the netizens were mainly talking about.

But Khaw's only response to the lack of diversity of the fourth generation leadership talent is this:

"We scour the country to find able, honest and committed people to field in elections. Possible candidates go through a rigorous vetting process. This begins the day after every general election." The Straits Times

But what about the following points on the diversity of leadership talent that was brought up by Han?

"One obvious weakness is the bias towards those in the public service, including the military...The dangers of groupthink are well known, but there is also the other problem of deterring those from a different background from joining the select group. A system that is perceived to favour those from the public service will naturally deter outsiders. It is a problem in a small country like Singapore in other areas beyond politics whenever there is ingrained thinking that there is only one way to achieve success." The Straits Times

Food for thought: Khaw did not adequately address Han's observation about the lack of diversity among the six fourth generation leaders. As a group, they are less diverse in career experiences and academic knowledge (five out of 6 read economics as an undergraduate) than the top six leaders of the past three generations.

1st Generation: Lee Kuan Yew (lawyer), Goh Keng Swee (civil servant), Toh Chin Chye (academic), S Rajaratnam (journalist), Ong Pang Boon (almost a career politician), and Lim Kim San (businessman).

2nd Generation: Goh Chok Tong (private sector), Lee Hsien Loong (military), Tony Tan (banker), Ong Teng Cheong (architect), Wong Kan Seng (private sector), S Jayakumar (academic)

3rd Generation: Lee Hsien Loong (military), Teo Chee Hean (military), Tharman Shanmugaratnam (civil servant), Ng Eng Hen (doctor), Khaw Boon Wan (civil servant), K Shanmugam (lawyer)

4th Generation: Heng Swee Keat, Ong Ye Kung, Lawrence Wong (civil servants), Chan Chun Sing, Tan Chuan-Jin, Ng Chee Meng (military).

3. The end seems to justify the means

Khaw pointed out that Singapore was "lucky" to have "leadership cohesion over five decades, across three generations" that is not riven by factions.

He concluded with a rhetorical question: "Why would we want to exchange this calm and rational process for periodic political bloodlettings that leave deep and lasting wounds, both within the party and the body politic?"

Food for thought: Let's examine the process on how the 2nd and 3rd PM were chosen.

The Straits Times has helpfully provided a write-up on the issue yesterday. The article broadly implied that the two PMs were chosen by their younger generation peers.

But if one were to read the article closely, there are differences in terms of how the 2nd and 3rd PM were chosen.

How Goh Chok Tong was chosen: Then-PM LKY picked two front-runners as his deputy PMs in 1985 -- Goh Chok Tong and Ong Teng Cheong. Subsequently, the key second generation leaders chose Goh as their leader even though LKY preferred Tony Tan.

How Lee Hsien Loong was chosen: Then PM Goh chose PM Lee as his second-in-charge, ahead of the older Ong in 1990. There was no clear indication on how the key third generation leaders voted, although Goh announced subsequently in 2003 that "the clear consensus is Hsien Loong. He is also my choice".

Comparing the two examples, one would observe that the PM of the day actually has a strong hand in setting the agenda -- choosing the front-runner or front-runners first. The choices were then given to the next generation of leaders to deliberate, although this deliberation was only revealed once, when the 2nd PM was chosen.

Khaw's rhetorical question seems to force us to choose between 1) a smooth closed-door decision-making process by an elite minority or 2) a more transparent, more democratic but messy and perhaps more emotional internal election.

But this is not the only choice Singaporeans and PAP cadres can have.

Therefore, they should think twice whether they should prioritise the process of appointing a leader by a slightly politically inexperienced elite minority over the inclusive involvement of its former Secretary General, its PAP MPs and its cadres.

Top photo from Lee Hsien Loong Facebook.

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.