Singapore is becoming a more open and civic society. It must be so, because editorials in The Straits Times - a paper which unlike its decadent western counterparts, only deals in fact - constantly referred to it throughout June, two months before the transfer of leadership.

Indeed, the city state ruled uninterruptedly since independence from the British - and later separating from Malaysia in 1965 - by the People’s Action Party (PAP) now encourages homosexuals to enter the civil service and tolerates a sanitised form of table-top dancing in bars around Clarke Quay.

More particularly, prime-minster-in-waiting Lee Hsien Loong made it clear that his mission, when he assumes office on Thursday, is to promote openness and transparency.

However, this can only be effective if Singaporeans care deeply about what goes on around them. Indeed, if they see a problem they need to speak up, or better still do something, Lee told the alumni of Singapore’s elite Harvard club on Jan 6, 2004.

Only then, he added, would a vibrant civic society emerge. He foresees such a society emerging through debating policies and national issues rigorously and robustly. But for debates to be fruitful it has to be issue-focused, based on facts and logic, and not just on assertion and emotions.

For Hsien Loong’s and the nation’s father, Lee Kuan Yew, destiny, rather than crassly nepotistic motives, required that the son also rises because in his generation he was more passionate about the future of the country than other people.

Leadership, Lee senior maintained, demanded an ability to persuade and mobilise. This task had become increasingly onerous as popular expectations had risen. Today, Lee Kuan Yew observed, Singaporeans were well-educated, comfortable and demanded more.

Yet the media attention devoted to the transfer of leadership and the new path Hsien Loong seeks to chart seems long on rhetoric but short on content. His desire to forge a vibrant civic society seems somewhat cliched.