IT WAS 1970 and the American spaceship Apollo 13 was in desperate trouble 328,000 km out in space. A mysterious explosion had knocked out all the key controls on board, wrecking the lunar landing mission and threatening to maroon the three astronauts.
The world held its breath as the three intrepid spacemen tried one manoeuvre after another to regain control. The do-or-die trick: to set the spaceship on a looping trajectory round the moon and back to Earth. One error, one mistimed firing of a rocket engine, and Apollo 13 would be catapulted into unreachable space forever.
Lee Kuan Yew was fascinated too by the unfolding drama, but one aspect of it was of particular interest to him, and he would return to it several times later: How did Nasa (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) select those three men out of so many aspiring candidates?
How did it know they had the greatest probability of remaining calm and collected throughout the ordeal, and to make the critical manoeuvres that mattered? What in the selection process showed they would not buckle under the severest test? In other words, how do you find such good men?
''If we can test men, weed out the nervous and jittery, you can bank on your future in Singapore long after this government has stood down. We have got to find them. We have some of them.
''For any group of men, the final achievement is to see their creation bloom and flourish. They must be able to select, to judge, to impart what has been learnt from experience and then say: "Now, the rest is up to you.'
''There will be new problems but the basic factors are the same. The world is different, the economy is more complex and sophisticated, but what makes a society tick, what gives a people the flexibility, the cohesiveness, the thrust, the dynamism, always seeking new ways to overcome new problems or old problems - that's as old as the beginning of man and the first tribes. That, I hope, will be the story of Singapore.''
Aug 19, 1979
IF THERE is one starting point in Lee's quest for good government, it is that what is needed first and foremost are good men, with ability, integrity, commitment and that special quality which will make them keep their cool under fire.
Nothing matters more than this seemingly self-evident truth which has received scant attention in the great tracts of political philosophy.
Getting the system or the institutions right, of course, helps. But even a bad system can be made to work by a group of capable leaders. Few countries, however well-endowed with natural resources or with time-tested institutions, will be able to last under a corrupt and inept leadership.
''At the heart of the question is, what makes a good government? That is the core of the question. Can you have a good government without good men in charge of government?
''American liberals believe you can, that you can have a good system of government with proper separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, plus checks and balances between them, regular tussles between Congress and the White House, and between the House of Representatives and the Senate in the US, and there will be good government, even if weak or not-so-good men win elections and take charge. That's their belief.
''My experience in Asia has led me to a different conclusion. To get good government, you must have good men in charge of government. I have observed in the last 40 years that even with a poor system of government, but with good, strong men in charge, people get passable government with decent progress.
''On the other hand, I have seen many ideal systems of government fail. Britain and France between them wrote over 80 constitutions for their different colonies. Nothing wrong with the constitutions, with the institutions and the checks and balances.
''But the societies did not have the leaders who could work those institutions, nor the men who respected those institutions. Furthermore, the esteem, the habits of obedience to a person because of his office, not because of his person, is something that takes generations to build into a people.
''But the leaders who inherited these constitutions were not equal to the job, and their countries failed and their system collapsed in riots, in coups and in revolution...
''Singapore must get some of its best in each year's crop of graduates into government. When I say best, I don't mean just academic results. His O levels, A levels, university degree will only tell you his powers of analysis...
''You've then got to assess him for his sense of reality, his imagination, his quality of leadership, his dynamism. But most of all, his character and his motivation, because the smarter a man is, the more harm he will do society.''
Nov 1, 1994
Stated so baldly, it seems obvious that it should be the first rule of any government. But why is there so little discussion either in the textbooks of political science or in the media about getting good men to serve in government? How does a country get its best and its brightest to govern? How does it ensure that only the most capable, the honest and the uncorrupt do so?
And what sort of men should be attracted to leadership? What qualities are needed to govern effectively? Under what circumstances will the most capable and the most upright be thrown up and offer themselves for government?
What system, if any, needs to be put in place to make sure that they will come forward, and not the dishonest, the corrupt and the self-serving?
The conventional wisdom is that good men will come forward willy-nilly, that it is in the nature of human society that they will inevitably be found. History, after all, is awash with great leaders who rose out of the most desperate of times and the most corrupt of systems.
Liberal thinkers will argue that they will come forward but only in a liberal democratic system which allows them to express their political ideas freely, to actively advocate them to the people who should be free to choose or reject them in a free and fair election.
In a free contest of ideas, and of their advocates, the best will, in time, prevail because the people will be able to distinguish the good from the rotten. All the important institutions, the legal system and the mass media should work to support the system.
It is a powerful set of ideals that has inspired men through the years to live, to fight and certainly to die for them. But in practice, it has not quite worked out.
In fact, according to Lee, in many instances, the outcome has been nothing short of disastrous. What happened in the newly-independent countries of the '40s and '50s as one after another plunged into strife and turmoil has had a tremendous impact on Lee.
''Having watched how things turned out with Lim Yew Hock and Marshall, we knew that they would fail. They had nobody of any competence. Marshall could make a speech, yes. But he had no idea what the government was supposed to do, what he had to achieve. He's by training and by nature not a builder, he's a speech-maker. And even if he wanted to build, who was there that he could rely on?''
As one of the first-generation leaders who fought the colonial powers to gain independence for his country, Lee understood the forces and the motivation that had driven them to action.
He knew only too well the force of circumstances and the uncertain temper of the times that had thrown up these men. What may surprise the modern reader is how early in Lee's political career he came to this conclusion.
The problem did not suddenly dawn on him in the twilight of his political career, when succession became a pressing issue. When he spoke of it in 1966, barely one year into Singapore's independence, almost the entire Old Guard leadership was relatively young and intact.
Perhaps even more surprising is that in an interview 30 years ago, he had already identified one core aspect of the problem which in the '90s received much attention -- improving the incentives for young men and women to join the government.
''I would say the real problem now in Singapore politically -- as different from the economics of it -- is how do we, over the next 10 years, allow a new generation to emerge to take over from us?
''This is important. We are not getting younger. We cannot go on forever. And you must allow sufficient free play on the ground for a new generation to emerge well in time to take over.
''My problem is there are so many career opportunities now that unless we do something to make politics more attractive incentive-wise, your best men are going into executive and managerial careers. This will leave your second-best careerist ...''
July 1966
How does a government get those bright young ones who will make the country tick? And put in place a system to achieve this? These were radical problems for a newly emerging country but it would be typical of the Lee approach to governance.
He believed the problem was especially acute for newly-emerging nations; developed ones already had an established tradition for throwing up leaders. Yet, it was the newly-independent countries that cried out for capable leaders to solve their numerous and pressing problems.
''Being confronted with this problem myself, I have often asked: "How do we ensure succession?' -- not on the basis of "I like A and therefore I groom A for leadership.' Unless you want long periods of anarchy and chaos, you have to create a self-continuing -- not a self-perpetuating -- but a self-continuing power structure.''
Taken from
Lee Kuan Yew: The Man and His Ideas.
Copyright © 1998 Singapore Press Holdings. All Rights Reserved.
