Somebody just sent me this piece of academic work by Michael Barr, noted for his critical pieces on the PAP govt. Anybody has read it yet? here's the rest of it:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/18232/regional-outlook-volume-6.pdf
Executive Summary
The Singapore regime has put a unique spin on the discourse of technocracy. Like the classical
technocratic ideal, the Singaporean form of technocracy regards itself as being above sectional
interests and ideology, but it acknowledges and embraces the pivotal role of political leadership.
It obviates the tension between the political and the technocratic by absorbing the idea of the
technocrat into the broader ideal of “the elite”, and then making membership of the “elite” a
precondition of membership of either. The distinction between the political and administrative
leadership is blurred without being obliterated. Both political leaders and senior bureaucrats
need very high levels of leadership and managerial skills. Neither actor can manage without
both components.
It was former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who set the standards for the Singapore
Mandarinate. His deeply held conviction in the universal applicability of “talent” to any situation
has been transformed into the basis and legitimating rationale of the Singapore political
system. The legitimating myth of the primacy of innovative, problem-solving “talent”, unearthed
through “meritocracy” and the quest for ever-higher levels of industrial efficiency in all aspects
of society, business and government operates in tandem with another legitimating myth: that
the government operates in a purely rational, scientific, problem-solving manner, free of
ideological considerations. The mantra for this plank of legitimation is the purest distillation of
technocratic ideology: “pragmatism”.
Of course, the argument is specious. Far from being the distillation of impartial rationality, the
Singapore system of governance is systemically ideological and social, ethnic and class biases
are pervasive. Yet the denial of the operation of ideology, or even politics, in the practice of
government has a direct and profound effect on politics. It restricts the space for legitimate
social and political discourse, de-legitimising the interrogation of aspects of the Singapore
system that lie beyond the parameters of efficiency and effectiveness.
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/18232/regional-outlook-volume-6.pdf
Executive Summary
The Singapore regime has put a unique spin on the discourse of technocracy. Like the classical
technocratic ideal, the Singaporean form of technocracy regards itself as being above sectional
interests and ideology, but it acknowledges and embraces the pivotal role of political leadership.
It obviates the tension between the political and the technocratic by absorbing the idea of the
technocrat into the broader ideal of “the elite”, and then making membership of the “elite” a
precondition of membership of either. The distinction between the political and administrative
leadership is blurred without being obliterated. Both political leaders and senior bureaucrats
need very high levels of leadership and managerial skills. Neither actor can manage without
both components.
It was former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew who set the standards for the Singapore
Mandarinate. His deeply held conviction in the universal applicability of “talent” to any situation
has been transformed into the basis and legitimating rationale of the Singapore political
system. The legitimating myth of the primacy of innovative, problem-solving “talent”, unearthed
through “meritocracy” and the quest for ever-higher levels of industrial efficiency in all aspects
of society, business and government operates in tandem with another legitimating myth: that
the government operates in a purely rational, scientific, problem-solving manner, free of
ideological considerations. The mantra for this plank of legitimation is the purest distillation of
technocratic ideology: “pragmatism”.
Of course, the argument is specious. Far from being the distillation of impartial rationality, the
Singapore system of governance is systemically ideological and social, ethnic and class biases
are pervasive. Yet the denial of the operation of ideology, or even politics, in the practice of
government has a direct and profound effect on politics. It restricts the space for legitimate
social and political discourse, de-legitimising the interrogation of aspects of the Singapore
system that lie beyond the parameters of efficiency and effectiveness.
