Jakarta Post editorial pokes S’pore leaders, S'pore govt calls it 'baseless'

It’s disappointing that our neighbouring Jakarta Post lacks understanding of Singapore politics.

Martino Tan | February 16, 2018, 08:19 PM

The Jakarta Post, Indonesia’s leading English newspaper and one of the oldest (founded in 1983), published a rather odd editorial about Singapore leadership succession on Feb. 9.

Jakarta Post’s editorial

Titled “Singapore's secrecy”, the 400-word editorial asserted the following:

1) The sensitive issue of succession is unlikely to surface, because Singaporeans know the legal consequences for expressing their thoughts about it in public.

2) Public participation in leadership change is lacking in Singapore, compared to democratic countries.

3) Every Singapore citizen should have the right to participate in the selection of their future leader from the very beginning.

It concluded by almost daring the Singapore government to rebut them, saying that “Lee certainly would rebut any accusations that secrecy dominates the succession issue.”

Which was, of course, what the Singapore government did.

A love letter from the Ambassador of Singapore to Indonesia

On Feb. 14, Anil Kumar Nayar, the Ambassador of Singapore to Indonesia, wrote a letter to Jakarta Post and accused the editorial of making “baseless” allegations of Singaporeans’ fear of talking about leadership succession because of legal consequences.

Anil said that there were “numerous articles online and in print covering the issue”.

He added that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke about it on multiple occasions, including in open dialogue sessions and interviews with the Singapore and international media.

Anil concluded by nicely explaining how Westminster-style parliamentary democracy works.

In short, he explained that the PM is chosen by the Members of Parliament of the ruling political party.

MPs are in turn elected by voters through elections.

Such a system may be foreign to Indonesians, but certainly not the well-learned editors of Jakarta Post.

Moreover, this political system is adopted in many countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Malaysia.

Jakarta Post editorial shows that it lacks basic understanding of Singapore politics and parliamentary democracy

It is a red herring to protest about the secrecy regarding who the potential political leader of a country would be.

[related_story]

Timing creates uncertainty

There is indeed uncertainty regarding Singapore’s political leadership because the fourth PM of Singapore would only become PM in four years’ time.

But does an American know if Donald J Trump will continue to be the President of the United States or who the Democratic Party Presidential nominee is?

Do the Chinese know who the next President of China after Xi Jinping would be?

Moreover, decisions about the potential political leaders of any country are seldom fully transparent.

In the United Kingdom, we are none the wiser whether there is a clear indication of who the next leader of the Conservative Party would be after PM Theresa May.

And as the Jakarta Post already noticed about the PM leadership race, there is already some clarity with three front-runners in National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) secretary-general Chan Chun Sing, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat, and Education Minister Ong Ye Kung.

Jakarta Post poses the wrong question

Ultimately, the problem with the current talk about leadership succession in Singapore is not the lack of transparency, but the lack of “predictability” in terms of how the leader of the ruling party is selected.

Granted, both the second and third PMs were chosen by the second and third generation leaders respectively. But there are some differences in how the two PMs were chosen.

For instance, there were three front-runners -- Goh Chok Tong, Ong Teng Cheong and Tony Tan -- who could take over PM Lee Kuan Yew. LKY also spoke about his choices publicly.

The second PM was subsequently chosen among the People Action Party’s second-generation leaders at minister Tony Tan’s house.

The third generation leaders gave their unanimous support to Lee Hsien Loong as the third PM.

But there was a second vote among the PAP MPs, with a final decision subsequently taken by the party’s 18-member central executive committee (CEC) in the same year.

One example of this lack of predictability is the surprise announcement by 16 4G leaders that one of them will emerge as the next PM.

It is a surprise because such a selection did not emerge from the decisions by PAP CEC or a vote by the PAP MPs and the cadres.

By identifying the wrong problem, The Jakarta Post provides the wrong solution in asking every Singapore citizen to participate in the selection of their future leader.

In our electoral system, a Singapore citizen chooses the government and the ruling party, not the next PM.

The question one should ask is whether the PAP will become more democratic internally in choosing its leader.

Will the PAP allow all PAP MPs in future to have a say in who the next PM would be, and not restrict the decision to a vague understanding of who the political leaders of each generation are?

This should be the question that an Indonesian newspaper and Singaporeans should be asking.