Dealing with Govt is a pain.

Bernie Ecclestone candidly said that he found dealing with the Singapore Govt, a pain. Mahathir had previously said that Singapore Govt is also inflexible.

A glimpse into the back stage negotiations was given when it was revealed that at all stages the govt kept raising operational issues and questions that had to be resolved. I think businessmen like Bernie Ecc and Ong Beng Seng were used to shaking hands on the deal in principle and sorting out the niceties and details as they arise. Their personal relationship and trust would smooth over any bumps.

However with govt personal ties only goes so far. Personality is not a good basis for business with the govt. Mahathir and Abdullah are a contrast in styles and approach and Singapore's relationship with Malaysia, is more dependent on the personality of the Malaysia leader than the shared economic interests and potential for collaboration.

Similarly, on hindisght, the security of Temasek Holdings investment in ShinCorp could also be said to be tied to the personal influence of Thaksin, rather than on indisputable legal foundations.

The fact is that govt leaders changed. Sometimes as a matter of succession, sometimes a little more forcefully, like Thaksin. Furthermore, there is a tendency to treat the govt as the safety net when things go awry. That's when the govt will see its commitment and expenses grow beyond the budget.

So it is good and prudent to spell out the details of any deals clearly. Good fences make good neighbours. Good agreements make good deals.

Blogging for Change

There's quite a bit of navel-gazing and meditation going on as bloggers asks, "What is the point?" This after all the sound and fury did nothing to change the govt's plans to proceed with the Minister's pay hike.

One suggestion is to stake out your battleground and build up your support:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/05/16/the-next-step-proactive-blogging/

But that's just tactics. The lessons just doesn't seem to catch.

Bloggers and political critics don't seem to get it.

For years, the govt did not agree to casinos. It was only when the casino option was seen as being necessary for Singapore's economic success that the govt reversed its position.

The govt had stopped motor racing, and even rejected a bid to host the F1 in Singapore. It reversed that decision when it saw how much Malaysia was benefitting from the F1.

The anti-gay laws on our law books have been there for years and the govt is still defending their anti-gay stance. But there are some evidence linking creativity to the "gay index".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE17Ae01.html

And Singapore sees creativity as a major ingredient for Singapore's future success, so that means we may be reversing those laws soon.

So go ahead and blog about man's inhumanity to man (or PAP's inhumanity to man), and human rights, and freedom, and justice, and human dignity, and ideals, and nobility, integrity, and sentimentality. It will make for great reading.

But if you want to get the attention of the government, you got to show them the money.

The worst investment ever!

Let's say you heard of a job opening up. It's contract work. 4 years. Pays $100,000 per year. Would you spend $10m to try to win that job?

Shift now to the US Presidential election campaign. The job is a four year term. It pays $400,000 a year. The two leading Democratic candidates are expected to raise and spend $500m each to win the presidency (ST 9 May 2007, "Cash fuels the race for the White House").

There are things not upfront in the picture.

Pipeline is a go

M'sia's PM has announced the $11b northern pipeline to shortcut travel through the Straits of Malacca is on. And this guy's not prone to saying one thing and doing another. Competition for Singapore is on!

But I thought I read somewhere that it takes 3 days to offload a supertanker (VLCC) and just 2 days to go down the straits. Well, it's an option.

You don't know what you're talking about!

http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/04/11/singapore-ministerial-civil-service-pay.html

Singaporeans will be Singaporeans. Whether in authority or fighting authority, they have the same response to foreigner's opinion that they don't accept.

When foreigners criticise Singapore's government or our way of doing things, the government responds by blocking the publication and telling them to mind their own business.

When a foreigner praise the PAP, anti-govt citizens tell the alien that he's just a visitor and don't know what he's talking about and to mind his own business.

I guess when you've become the thing you oppose (or use the same tools or weapons) they've already won.

And such ridiculous hyperbole: "People living on less than a dollar a day With no food, no home and no education is better than people living in social inequality with no justice, no freedom, no democracy, the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer after
another 40 years of ruling."

It's only because you have food, a home and education that you can complain about social inequality, injustice, lack of freedom and democracy.

Or by social equality do you mean everyone is equally poor?

Youth is wasted on the young, and Singapore is wasted on the Singaporeans.

Calvin & Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Calvin asks, "Dad, how come old photographs are always black & white? Didn't they have color film back then?"

"Sure they did," answered Calvin's dad. "In fact, those old photographs ARE in color. It's just that the WORLD was black and white then."

"Really?"

"Yep. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was a pretty grainy color for a while, too."

"But then why are old PAINTINGS in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn't artists have painted it that way?"

"Not necessarily. A lot of great artists were insane."

"But... But how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn't their paints have been shades of gray then?"

"of course, but they turned colours like everything else did in the '30s"

"So why didn't old black ad white photos turn color too?"

"Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?"

Later, Calvin says to Hobbes, "The world is a complicated place."

Hobbes replies, "Whenever it seems that way I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner."

-----------

I like this story because it illustrates the point that truth is usually simple and lies are complicated. So the whole thing about Minister's salary - simply put, in black and white, is about greed and enriching the rich.

Or is it?

The explanation for why Ministers pay must go up is also simple: it's lagging behind the benchmark and if Singapore is to attract talent in govt, it must pay Ministers better.

Then all the arguments about why Ministers' pay must stay low are complicated explanations about altruism, sense of duty, national service, honour, privilege and all that.

Someone did an interview with David Marshall, former Chief Minister of Singapore and he denounced the high $60,000 and $90,000 monthly salary of the PM and the Ministers then (1994). See this link:
http://thinkhappiness.blogspot.com/2006/08/meeting-david-marshall-in-1994.html

He went on to say that he only made $8,000 a month.

But that was 50 years ago. $8,000 a month in 1957 dollars? Back then you could get a bowl of mee for 5 or 10 cents. Now the cheapest you can get is $2. That's 20 to 40 times more. Extrapolating from that, $8k then is equivalent to at least $160k now. And that's not too far off from the new pay.

So how should ministers be paid? Should they serve for the sheer "joy and excitement of public service" as David Marshall says?

Complicated.

I'll take and nap and wait for dinner.

MM Lee said that he understood the emotions associated with the issues, but that he found the fuss over the Minister's salaries "completely unreal", because there were larger issues at stake.

One might comment that MM Lee is out of touch with what's "real" if he found the "hoo-ha" unreal.

I think he moves and thinks at a level that most of us never reach. I say this with respect. But others would say the same with disgust.

The elephant in the living room

I don't mean this elephant:

Task of jumbo proportions, not for the squeamish
http://sewerserpent7.livejournal.com/#asset-sewerserpent7-528

I mean the Great Debate on Ministers' Salaries Part III.

It was debated to bits while I was overseas. Then when I was back, it was debated again. Like most if not all Singaporeans, I couldn't accept it at first. Then I did. Maybe it's because I know people and I'm not the envious sort. I've accepted it as necessary and I haven't really followed the news. There is no new arguments from either side. The only new twist is the juxtaposition with the debate a few weeks ago on the public assistance handouts. Tens of dollars vs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's been talked and blogged to death, but if I don't say anything about it, I may seem out of touch with reality. Or Singapore. Which some people claim is unreal.

I think most people can't accept paying Ministers higher salaries because there is some kind of envy, some kind of socialistic robin hood need to take from the rich to give to the poor. Some kind of idealistic self-delusion where they tell themselves, if I were in their shoes, I would NEVER do what they did, those selfish bastards.

It makes people feel good about themselves. Feel superior. Or maybe they just don't want the rich to get richer. They just want themselves to get richer.

It is an emotional issue and people confuse the issue, drag in irrelevancies, make non sequitur leaps of logic, confound the situation with unrelated matters, and make unwarranted comparisons.

For example, one argument and it's variant is that Ministers a) do not need that salary, b) do not deserve their salary, c) should not need that salary to serve, d) are not doing work that is worth that kind of money, e) are overpaid compared to other leaders who have much greater responsibility, and f) should not be benchmarked against the private sector because it doesn't matter who's up there, it's always the top people.

This argument misses the point completely. It's not so much about what the job of Minister pays. It's what else the person can make in other jobs. If you are a brilliant professional who can make $4m a year, why should you give up a lucrative career for $1.2m a year? or $1.8m? For the sheer joy of serving? Riiight.

Most Singaporeans will say, tell you what, why don't you play-play run the govt, don't bother me, I have to go make some real money. And if we get some cheap talents who don't make the grade, would the brilliant professional then decide to step up to the plate and serve? Well, he might. Or he might just go someplace else where he can do better business or make more money.

The Ministers' salaries have to be substantial enough so that good minds will weigh the "sacrifice" of foregoing their lucrative careers as not too much of a deterrent.

The problem is not that our current crop of ministers will leave if we don't up their pay. The problem is that the govt will have trouble recruiting potential new leaders if we don't.

So I say, pay them to attract new blood. Don't let Singapore become like NKF. T. T. Durai started with good intentions. Then he "lost the plot."

Pay them well upfront. So they don't have to wheel and deal and try to give their families a better life in unethical ways.

Benchmarking Minister's Salaries to the lower income

Another interesting article on the Online Citizen. This one proposes that Minister's salaries be benchmarked to the lower income.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/09/ministers-salaries-losing-touch/#more-276

Left my comment there too. Hmmm... might be turning into a commentary blog? *sigh*

Mr Leong does make a very good point about benchmarking to the lowest income to motivate political leaders to raise the income of the lowest paid workers in Singapore.

There would seem to be an inherent bias that if I know my pay is benchmarked against the top 50 paying professionals, I would be motivated to see what policies i can make to raise their salaries.

That said, the salaries of the top 50 or 100 people in any field in the private sector are not likely to be affected by govt policies much. I’m pretty sure that Wee Cho Yaw’s salary is not much affected by govt policies directly. Moreover, the richest in the country are also the most mobile. Given enough disincentives or disadvantages, they will leave taking their business and their capital with them. In IR-speak, we must know how to treat the whales well.And while there is a lot of things the govt can do to raise the salaries of the lower income (e.g. minimum wage, protecting industries,preventing layoffs/retrenchment) in the long term, these policies maynot be in the best interests of Singapore. I agree with the principle that the income of poor should be a deliverable that contributes to the decision as to whether Ministers salary goes up or down, but at this point it is at best a concept.

The Ideal Politician

I saw this on The Online Citizen:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/05/be-mindful-of-the-affective-gap/#more-273

And left a comment

Ms Lim’s points were well put and as she built her argument and spelt out the disjunct between leaders and people, she held my attention.

Then she got to this point, “For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite - raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.”

From all the jokes and stereotypes about politicians, I do not know if an “ideal political leader” as she describes exists.

I would like to believe that such idealistic people exists. But the reality is that most people with talent choose to exercise their talent for their own benefit.

There are few Mother Teresas or Dalai Lamas in this world and the fact that these are spiritual and religious leaders says something about their calling. For every Mother Teresa, there are tens if not hundreds of Saddam Husseins, Hitlers, Stalins, Pinochets, Idi Amins, and Ferdinand Marcos who are morally ambiguous if not downright evil, to the sadly incompetent like George Bush, Habibie and Abdurrahman Abdul Wahid.

The reality is that hell is paved with good intentions. The situation in Thailand is an example. The coup was meant to reverse the damage of a corrupt Premier, but well intentioned or not, the effect has been less than laudable.

Indonesia’s Suharto was also corrupt, but he nevertheless kept things stable. After he was overthrown, there was a series of ineffective presidents that did little to bring the country forward effectively. Well-intentioned though they may be.

Ms Lim’s description of the politician reminds me more of a social worker. And while I respect and admire the social worker, I am not sure that a social worker would necessarily make a good political leader. A friend of mine once commented in the aftermath of the overthrow of Suharto: so what if he’s corrupt. At least he’s competent. Instead there’s now a series of honest, incompetent presidents. And we’re not even sure if they are honest.

My point simply is this: the “ideal politician” does not exists. Or he does not exist in sufficient numbers to form the government. Ms Lim practically confers sainthood on the selfless, sacrificing politician. You may find one in every 2 or 3 generations. The rest of the time, you make do with people who would be CEOs.

In the absence of competent selfless people, the reality is that we have to make do with competent selfish people. And to ensure the competent selfish people are not tempted to corruption, we must pay them well.

Perhaps if we had, we would not have had the sad incident of Mr Teh Cheang Wan.

Singapore is not a democracy

Democracy literally means "people rules". Thank god the people don't rule. Not directly anyway.

Not in Singapore, where we elect our government every 4 or 5 years. Not in the United States, the so-called bastion of democracy, where they elect their governors, their senators, and their president.... sort of. Indirectly.

Singapore is not a democracy. Then again, neither is the USA. or any other so-called democracy, because in between elections, the people really don't have much to say about unpopular decisions. Decisons like going to war in Iraq. Or increasing GST. Or giving Ministers a pay raise.

If people really ruled on a day to day basis, then there would be less globalisation. More immigration controls. More protectionism. More traffic jams arising from more cars on the road. No casino (or casino 30 years ago). No national service. Probably more wars.

Because basically, people are selfish, small-minded, and short-sighted.

Fortunately, democracy as practised in Singapore, and most other places, relies on people making a decision once ever 4 or 5 years to elect people who will make long term decisions. In other words, a Republic, or rule by representatives. In this case we are a democratic republic, in that we elect our representatives (MPs) who then form the government.

And "long-term" is relative to the circumstances.

The two-party system in the US also means that everytime there is a change in majority, the country changes its priority. The relatively stable political situation in Singapore means that generally, long term, really means more than just 5 years down the road.

And so that is how we get decisions like the Casinos. Oh wait. I mean the Integrated Resorts or IR. Which, coincidentally are the same 2 letters in front of IRAS.

There are also bad decisions on hindsight. Like Suzhou. And Shincorp. At least we didn't invade Iraq.

The point is that government is about decision making and it is not rocket science. It may be harder. (ST 8 April 2007, "Successful govt not rocket science? It may be tougher", Janandas Devan). People who casually dismiss such policies as no big deal need to see the bigger picture.

When the rains came, our biggest deal was a few flooded plant nurseries. Johor had not one but 2 bouts of flooding with tens of thousands of people displaced. Jakarta apparently floods on a regular basis... when it's not covered in soot from the forest burning.

MM Lee suggested that the best argument is a bout of incompetent government. The problem is that the govt has succeeded so well, that is it inconceivable that Singapore could fail. His comments has been mocked as fear-mongering. Perhaps.

I guess then the opposition's platform for the next election is simple: Vote for the opposition and when we form the govt we will cut our salaries by 50%. $1m should be enough. And we can come up with the same, "no big deal" policies. We may even raise the public assistance to $400 instead of the miserable $290.

Yes. i do believe the PAP has dug their own grave with this pay rise. :-)

Singtel's new CEO will be earning $5m a year. The previous CEO, Lee Hsien Yang was paid $2.2m a year. If that figure looks familiar, is this the proposed new salary for Ministers. Lee Hsien Yang's brother, Prime Minister Lee probably earns only $2m. But if the new salary for Ministers and PM are approved, PM Lee can finally beat his younger brother.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.