In 2005, two other countries had women heads of government for the first time. The better known was Angela Merkel, the new Chancellor of Germany. The more unexpected was Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who won a reasonably credible election to be President of war-ravaged Liberia, against George Weah, an internationally famous footballer. Although Weah had name-recognition, Johnson-Sirleaf had the better credentials, having been an economist with the World Bank.

Ellen John-Sirleaf of Liberia and some of her supporters

 
This year too, Helen Clark won re-election (barely) as Prime Minister of New Zealand, and Gloria Arroyo (perhaps disputably) as President of the Philippines. Meanwhile, President Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh continues in office.

On the other hand, Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka completed her term in office and stepped down after a fair, if hotly contested presidential election to choose her successor.

These women together represent all continents except North America, but even there, Hilary Clinton is revving up her run. (Canada had a female Prime Minister in Kim Campbell in 1993)

Some women came to power because they had name recognition, being widows or daughters of earlier politicians. All those in Asia came to office this way, from Sirimavo Bandaranaike to Benazir Bhutto, Corazon Aquino and Megawati Sukarnoputri. Having said that, that's not an advantage that men don't use themselves.

But 2005's Merkel and Johnson-Sirleaf are two who won office on their own merits. Representing one of the richest and one of the poorest countries, they testify to how a voting public regardless of education or economic well-being, can defy custom and stereotype.

Nearer home, in Southeast Asia, the Philippines has had 2 women as Presidents; Indonesia one. All were democratically elected (though there was some controversy with Arroyo's). Burma would have had Aung San Suu Kyi way back in 1988 if not for the military generals (all men) who are an absolute embarrassment to their sex. They flatly refused to hand over power after losing the election to her.

Malaysia has long had feisty Rafidah Aziz as one of the better-known cabinet ministers. Thailand currently has at least two female cabinet ministers -- Uraiwan Thienthong, Minister for Culture (previously Minister for Labour) and Sudarat Kaeyuraphan, Minister for Agriculture and Co-operatives. Another well-known woman, Paveena Hongsakul, was a minister in the Prime Minister's department, but I don't know whether she's still there.

Singapore is one country that has never had a woman as a cabinet minister since independence 40 years ago. Yet, we're the place with the best-educated women, very few of whom eschew a career for homemaking -- in fact, with many of the better educated ones not married at all. We're the one place in Southeast Asia that speaks the most English and related to that, the most plugged-in to Western ideas of gender equality.

Given other countries' track records, it's time we stop pretending that having all-male governments here is just the luck of the draw, or the nature of our society. More likely, it's because we have a ruling party run by male chauvinists.

The first big difference between Singapore and our neighbours is that we don't have truly competitive elections. In this sense, Singapore doesn't belong with Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines or Thailand, not even Cambodia, but rather with Burma, Vietnam, Brunei and Laos -- a disgraceful lot if you asked me. And like the latter group, there are no elected female politicians within sight of high political office.

The People's Action Party (PAP) chooses candidates by induction, not by election from the party base. The leaders go out to persuade a few carefully vetted persons to join the party, and within a few months, they stand as election candidates in virtually shoo-in elections. Most will enjoy a walk-over when no opposition party contest their districts. Even if contested, the newbies usually ride the coat-tails of better known politicians in their multi-member constituencies. 

Some of these new candidates are made junior ministers even before the hang-over from the victory celebration has worn off.

The PAP likes to boast that this is a tried and tested method of getting the best people to run Singapore. They head-hunt like big corporations, because Singapore is not a republic but Singapore, Inc.

Most people who have worked with our ministers do not give as glowing a report as we are led to expect. I won't name names, but I have heard descriptions such as "intellectually plodding", "utterly devoid of EQ" (emotional quotient), "defensive and overly cautious", and "more interested in keeping time at meetings than getting into the substance".

Let me refer readers to one example from May 2000. Asked by a school student – yes, a teenager -- why the government refused to issue a permit for a public forum to discuss gay issues, Lim Swee Say (then a junior minister, now a full cabinet minister) said:

"….. As for the gay forum, I do not believe that a single group of people in Singapore has the right to publicise its lifestyle and impose it on others. I am an avid golfer, but I do not hold a forum on golfing to say how much I love golf and convince others it is good."

It's a "strawman" argument. He puffs up a talk-fest into "imposition" and then launches at it. Furthermore, he confuses his private reluctance with a general right. That he does not plan to hold a forum on what interests him (golfing) is used to mean that no one else is permitted to hold a forum on what interests them.

Almost as if to prove how untenable that reasoning is, in August 2004, the Prime Minister said no permits would henceforth be required for public forums held indoors, subject to a few conditions. With that, Lim's totally convincing argument (sarcasm intended) was cast onto the trash heap by his own Prime Minister.

Lim got promoted from Minister of State to cabinet level.

The first problem with getting new leaders by induction is that much depends on the parameters set out for the exercise. What may sound completely reasonable is often in itself subconsciously biased.

Perhaps it isn't as blatant as a spec sheet that says, "heterosexually married man, only once-married, with wife still by his side and at least one child", but even if you convert it to a gender-neutral statement, it is still biased. Some of the most talented women are not married at all, or divorced.

Michelle Bachelet, who won 46% of the vote in Chile, would not even have been allowed to be a PAP candidate on "moral" grounds, what with being a single mother and all.

The other problem with the process of induction is that it tends to use the old-boy network to identify potential candidates, and as we all know, old-boy networks tend to be gender-exclusive.

It's not that men don't socialise with women, but that aspersions are often cast on the moral character of those who do at the expense of the old-boy network. Why is that bloke always chatting and going out with women? Why isn't he spending time with his own wife?

So you can imagine, it is quite unlikely for the old-boy network to recommend someone like that.

As the above shows, the reliance on network contacts ensures not only a predominantly male shortlist, but also one that comprises like-minded ones from the same elite circles. There's a real risk of groupthink.

What all this points to is inefficiency. Singapore does not get the best possible leaders. For every good one we have, there may be 10 more mediocre ones hanging on to his -- and only "his" -- coat-tails. The PAP system almost ensures we do not get the really imaginative leaders nor the one with guts, since all of them had to be invited to serve, rather than fight their way up on their own.

They may be better than average as administrators, but because most of them are drawn from elite circles and virtually none of them come up the normal route of political canvassing, their political skills are often pathetic. The fact that Singapore is constantly bashed by others for being soul-less, machine-like, inhuman, inflexible – mirroring a similar crescendo of domestic criticism – is enough to tell you they're a very weak team in this respect.

The sad thing is that there is so much pro-PAP propaganda, many Singaporeans have bought into the notion of excellence through induction. Like the ruling party, we have learnt to distrust free elections, thinking they only throw up riff-raff.