Who can you trust: Beyond meritocracy

LKY was not shy to publicly express his preference for McCain over Obama. Who was Obama? McCain is tested but Obama had come from nowhere. Almost eight years later, we know Obama is no lightweight. America can afford to take that chance because if they had made a wrong choice, they are quite capable of bouncing back.

The winners of a meritocracy are not those who have passed the test of performance but trust. It is easy to judge a person's performance but very difficult to know if he or she can be trusted. The PAP is in the position and have the resources to play this safer than any other political party could. Their competitors can never hope to equal this for as good as practical, eternity. Therefore the voters will eventually tire of more of less of the same predictable look and feel for the men and women in white and try someone else. This is just human nature. In other words we will take a risk against the boring and predictable PAP sometime. The only way for the PAP to continue to govern is that it must change fundamentally. Ng Chee Meng and his senior colleagues defense that they do not suffer from groupthink is a weak one. Just like a Merc however you redesign the car is still recognizable as a Merc. How do you sell that the Merc is the car for all time is a huge challenge. To me that is impossible unless you can explain to the people better than they can think and see what is coming and how you are best prepared to meet the challenges of tomorrow.

Now if ever from the opposition, and it is a matter of time we do, outstanding characters of foresight but untested with a gift of the gab makes its entrance, the PAP becomes totally vulnerable. Just as a thought experiment, imagine a LKY emerges from the opposition side. That is a pair of shoes all of Singapore is waiting for someone suitable to fill.

Over time the PAP erstwhile strengths will eventually be perceived as weaknesses. They can either be proactive by acting with imagination stay ahead of the curve or play catch up and gradually see their support eroding. But how could they lead us into the future unless they also have a good idea what is beyond the horizon?

Over time this dichotomy of choice will become increasingly obvious. The choice between the boring, predictable good enough but not great and the exciting, full of possibilities alternative but also untested and extremely risky. As the population become more educated and self confident, it is a matter of time they reach the tipping point and take that risk of living dangerously. So the PAP must be the change or be changed. To me they have only made some adjustments when they ought to be thinking of transformation. You don't try to fix the opposition but win the hearts of the people. Don't be chosen because people have no choice because quietly and patiently society will create its choice outside the PAP. Whether voters will make the right choice or not, who knows?

Above quote from Yahoo article.