Sunday, April 8th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
SingaporeÂ’s bleak future
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Elia Diodati
[This Dear Diodati column comes from lightbulb, a Singaporean currently working in a prominent Silicon Valley hi-tech company. IÂ’ve edited the draft emailed to me, as requested, but IÂ’ve tried to remain faithful to the original content. The author has requested to remain anonymous. The opinions expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my opinions. As always, feel free to write in your contributions!]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trends of the past five years or so in Singapore indicate a dismal future for our country. HereÂ’s why:
Higher ministerial salaries have negative implications for our country
The justification for raising ministerial salaries1 is that public servants have to be paid what they are worth; otherwise, they will all go to the private sector. This is wrong for several reasons. Firstly, ministers are not paid paltry sums of money. S$1.2m per annum is already an obscenely large sum for any profession, even high finance: any increase is morally unjustifiable. The money culture that now pervades the civil service is the first sign of decline.
Secondly, let’s compare our country’s leaders with the leaders of great corporations. Exceptional companies are formed by people with vision, drive and enthusiasm. Companies that overpay their CEOs (like Enron)2 normally don’t have a large chance of long term survival. Here in the Bay area, you have places like Google where CEOs are paid a mere $1 per year with almost all of their assets tied to stock options. Yes, they can make tons of money but they also risk losing all of it.3 Great people like these live and die by the company and that is something that deserves respect. But do the ministers “live and die” by the country? Their salaries are guaranteed, regardless of how the economy or society is doing.4
Thirdly, reports on ministers’ performance are hopelessly one-sided. When the economy seems to be doing well, the national press immediately reports the good news, attributing the success to our ministers. The converse, however, is always blamed on “globalization, outsource, growing superpowers of China and India” and other such stock excuses. It’s never the ministers’ fault when things go wrong.
You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you canÂ’t fool all the people all the time.
Fourthly, raising ministersÂ’ salaries undermines the governmentÂ’s moral authority to lead. By focusing on the money one can make in the public service rather than the actual service to the country, the public service will have a harder time recruiting people who truly want to serve instead of just greedy people looking for a high salary. The PAP has has been in power for such a long time partly because of its perceived moral authority. There was a time long ago where that was probably the case. Projecting this image of highly paid public service elites merely reinforces the image an insensitive, aloof, and mercenary government. This is dangerous because public service is a glue that holds society together. Right now, that glue is losing its grip and things are falling apart.
Fifthly, raising ministersÂ’ salaries widens the income gap between rich and poor, which has already widened rapidly in the past five years. An increment in ministerial salaries might be minuscule relative to our GDP, but that hardly compensates for the destabilizing effect this will have on a society already plagued with various inequalities. Modern Singapore arose out of the swamps and kampungs of the 1960s not just because of the Old Guard of the PAP, but also because people then lived lives full of hope, even while they lacked material wealth. Successful companies today value their employees who do well; top executives understand that no matter how much vision and talent they possess, it is their people who actually get things done.
TodayÂ’s leaders of Singapore need to learn to appreciate what the common man does for his country. Without this basic courtesy, there is no reason for Singaporeans to remain hopeful.5
The wrong people are ending up in all the wrong jobs
Singapore Inc., the conglomerate of the Government and government linked corporations (GLCs), controls a large fraction of the economy, yet is hiring the wrong people and putting them in all the wrong positions. The public sector is fond of playing musical chairs with senior civil servants, transferring them between directorships of organizations with little or no relevance to their previous portfolios. Job performance appears to be immaterial in such job shuffling. Many people know of ex-generals and high-ranking officers who retire from active service in Mindef and end up in diverse fields from finance to R&D. But do all these civil servants really have any experience or working knowledge of the fields they end up commanding? If not, how can we expect them to do a good job?6
Yet if the truth be told, if any of these mid-career governmental “elites” tried applying for a job in the Bay Area, their résumés would most probably end up in the trash. What have any of them really accomplished? The chaotic, free-market of the private sector is a stark contrast to the well-rehearsed choreography of the public sector. In the real world, one applies for jobs and for them. One’s worth is proven by one’s results. Yes, people can and do switch careers midfield in the real world, but that also normally means starting at the bottom and working yourself up again. Nobody is entitled to a high-ranking or high-paying position in a career switch, so why do some civil servants think they deserve noblesse oblige?
It is therefore heavily ironic that the government keeps telling the people not to adopt a “crutch mentality”. It’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. How many high-flying civil servants and ministers have actually succeeded in the real world when they left the public service? I can’t think of one. GLCs don’t count. The government claims that many of the talents they hire could easily defect to companies like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. It’s self-delusion. I have many friends working at such places and I really doubt if any such companies have use for a civil servant whose skills are mostly not transferable to the private sector. And how many civil servants, acclimatized to the easy life and iron rice bowls, can really handle the stress of an 80-100 hour work week in any reputable finance institution?7
Herein lies the problem. When people who donÂ’t know what they are doing get put in charge of organizations that direct our countryÂ’s development of the country, we are in for a very rough ride, one that will get bumpier, even derailed, with increasing competition in the near future.
.............to continue from this link
http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2007/04/08/singapores-bleak-future