Monthly Archives: January 2012

There is so much I could say about the life changing experience of having a child.  But I am going to restrict myself here to an important parenting lesson I learned about dealing with bad behaviour.

It seemed entirely counter intuitive but it made sense and most importantly it worked. I was reminded of it because a friend older than me recently took his first steps into parenthood.  Every time I ask him how his little one is he responds, “so naughty lah, so naughty.”  There are many different books and some very scary techniques out there but this is what worked for me then and still does now.

I have to say my son was the perfect baby. Like me you probably remember heaping praise on your child as he got older especially when we did those things for the first time.  “Wow that’s great you can put your shoes on” But when I was presented with challenging behaviour as he grew, like my friend who just became a father recently,  I got it all wrong.

When my son behaved perfectly,  sitting on the carpet engrossed in a jigsaw puzzle or playing with his little wooden train set for example, I would see this as a perfect opportunity to get busy myself somewhere else.   He’s keeping himself occupied I thought, I don’t have to pay attention to him. Now I can do some work, call some friends, read my book.

Conversely when he got frustrated and behaved badly or yelled I would leap up and pay attention to him.  What I  didn’t realise is that getting the attention is the holy grail for all children. Children want attention, even negative attention. They soon learn that if they can’t get positive attention they can quickly manipulate and monopolise their parents’ time to get attention for bad behaviour instead. We encourage and actually even train our children to act badly by paying attention to the naughty behaviour and ignoring the good. What I had to learn to do was to heap that praise on my son for playing nicely by himself or sharing his toys nicely and not to ignore him when he was doing the behaviour I wanted to see more of.

Just as it’s important to reward the good behaviour of children, it is also important to fail to reward bad behaviour. Child rearing experts tell us that actively ignoring inappropriate behaviour is called “extinction” and it actually weakens that bad behaviour. Bad behaviour includes,

• Whining, fussing, pouting and sulking
• Telling falsehoods
• Loud complaining in public intended to manipulate
• Grabbing another’s toys
• And even tantrums in public

When children live in an extremely restrictive environment where little attention is paid to them normally then this will result in an escalation of bad behaviour. Bad behaviour will become the norm. Everyone will point to their children and say they can only squabble. Often times this bad behaviour will be expressed more and more in public.  For some this is because being ignored is a fate worse than death.

I only have one child but some children live under a regime where their parents have favourites and this creates sibling rivalry. The children see favourite sibling A getting all the limelight. Some parents also build up sibling B in case anything happens to A.  Of course each child is an individual. Even with two children it is often clear that they are like chalk and cheese and parents often express surprise at how different the second sibling is to the first. This is how it should be. How awful it would be if all our children are the same like clones. Parenting requires respecting and nurturing individuality whilst encouraging the children to cooperate. It is not necessary for any child to lose his individuality or subsume his essential nature to learn to play nicely with other kids. The key is cooperation.

But bad behaviour escalates as a result of this sibling rivalry. This is why we talk of middle child syndrome.

We must make sure we don’t inadvertently reward that bad behaviour by focusing on it, writing about it and even pointing a camera or recording device at those children having a temper tantrum in public.

The PM recently said that the odds were against his children going into politics. I believe it is also wise not to let your children go on to the stage. The gossip magazines are full of press about the temper tantrums of Suri Cruise and other famous offspring.  Even adults have been proven to behave differently the moment a camera is pointed at them .

In his Parliamentary speech, the PM highlighted the clean pay of our Ministers.  Gerard Ee also drew a lot of attention to this descriptor and everyone else involved on the PAP side. When the PAP attempt to entrench a phrase or a word into the public lexicon this way then we know we are being subjected to propaganda. Then of course the Main Stream Media exists only to drill these phrases into the national subconscious. However we are getting better as a nation at examining the double speak. I very much doubt that The PM will be able to refer to himself or his cabinet as ‘Servant Leaders’ any more without an accompanying hullabaloo. These days they restrict themselves to mentions of ‘sacrifice’ and ‘considerable sacrifice’. Even that didn’t go so well for Grace Fu.

What is their motive behind the selection of ‘clean’ to describe the rationale for high pay? One reason is that they can no longer say that high pay is to prevent corruption. That has been stopped in its tracks by the voice of the people who point out the absurdity of the argument. They choose to talk about ‘clean’ because apart from being uncomplicated and simple it has connotations of transparency. They know that the demands for transparency from the people and Parties such as The Reform Party are growing in strength and this is an attempt to head it off at the pass. However we must remember that there is a world of opacity between clean and transparent. My coffee table may be clean but you can’t watch TV through it.

Clean is safe. Transparency leads to accountability and that in turn to democracy.

The PM also drew comparisons between our Ministers’ clean pay and the “hidden perks” of politicians in other countries. He cited theUK’s experience as an example.  He points out that it was accepted that MPs in the UK would be able to top up their pay by claiming for expenses, and that over time the system was abused. It is always dangerous to compare one Nation’s system to another in this puerile way without the whole story.

Yes, Britain was involved in a scandal over MP expenses. The PM omits to point out that being an MP in the UK is a full-time job that requires two homes in different parts of the country. The complicated expenses allowance system came about to offset the costs that MPs in Britain have to shoulder due to the requirement to live in their constituency whilst Parliament sits in Westminster. Those living around London can commute but MP’s living in the North for example could be 600-700 miles away from London.

In contrast, being an MP in Singapore is very much a part-time job. Parliament only sits for something like 30 days a year which is the shortest sitting in the developed world.  And most PAP MPs have other jobs, many of which allow them to earn a multiple of their Parliamentary salaries. A not insignificant proportion of these jobs are with government-linked companies or organisations.  The ‘finger in every pie’ is sadly a common theme on this blog

The PM also misleadingly claims that paying enormous salaries prevents Singapore politics from turning into a rich man’s game. He cites the US in particular using the examples of Michael Bloomberg and Mitt Romney. He cannot really mean this when everything the PAP has done has been to try to make a political career an unwise career option unless you are from the ruling party. There have been endless and interminable libel suits designed to bankrupt political opponents as well as attempts to use “grievous miscarriages of justice” to destroy brave individuals’ professional careers.

The PM then cites President Obama as someone who has become wealthy through politics. Again he shouldn’t attempt to make facile comparisons.  Both Obama and former President Bill Clinton came from humble backgrounds. If they have become wealthy it is because the US allows a diversity of views that our government tries to stamp out. If they had been in Singapore they would have been destroyed at the outset as not suitable by virtue of not coming from the elite, top talent.   Furthermore the USA allows greater social mobility than Singapore.  Anyone from a humble background can end up owning a landed property through hard work and talent. Here 87% of the people have the government as a landlord on a leased property with a grievous obstacle to social mobility as a consequence.

The PM’s father, former MM Lee once spoke along the lines of how there would be little social mobility going forward as by 1990 all those with high intelligence would have already risen to the top. In any case I am sure Obama’s wealth is modest by comparison with most of the cabinet. Unfortunately there is no requirement here to publicly list assets and directorships of family members or put them into a blind trust as is the norm in the US. That the salaries are ‘clean’ is debatable but they are not transparent.

The comparison with Obama is unfortunate in every sense. If he had been in Singapore we can imagine the musings on how he made Little India look pitch dark and how as a dud from a humble background he had to be kept out of Parliament. And of course Obama would never have been put to stand in an SMC but kept as an entrenched token of minority representation in a GRC.

Belief that politics should only be for the wealthy is deeply ingrained in the PAP’s thinking and is the only true rationale for any pay decisions.  In fact during the 1980s the former MM Lee went as far as to muse on the possibility of having multiple votes for graduates and property owners. Youngsters may find that incredible but he did.

The bars to political fundraising, the GRC system and the raising of electoral deposits to astronomical heights are all designed to prevent ordinary people from exercising their fundamental and democratic right to choose their representatives. As recently as 2006 this was effective in giving the PAP walkovers in nearly 50% of the constituencies. Fortunately 2011 saw that the tide was turning and people were no longer prepared to put up with a system that could see people going without the chance to vote for most of their adult lives.

As an illustration of how only those with deep pockets can afford to be in politics if they are not members of the ruling party, all the candidates for the recent Presidential election belonged to the top 1% of income earners. This is not surprising given the size of the deposit that one has to put up to run which is forfeited if you fail to gain more than one-eighth of the vote.

In contrast the UK sets deposits at a modest $1,000 equivalent which means that most constituencies see multiple-cornered fights. This is as it should be since there should be a chance for all competing views to be heard. The electorate is educated and sophisticated enough to be able to make up their own minds without the government deciding for them who should be heard in the first place. The need for deep pockets is so deeply ingrained here that it has affected the structure of politics in general in Singapore and given it an elitist bias. We must guard against this. Democracy should not and must not be the preserve of those with deep pockets.

So, Mr. Prime Minister, I do not find convincing your assertion that paying high salaries to ministers in Singapore is needed to prevent politics becoming a rich man’s game. I would turn this on its head. The only way someone from a humble background can have a political career in Singapore is if they are prepared to become a “yes-man” and toe the line.

The PM recently brought out a violin in Parliament and plucked the heart-strings with his sad song about the lack of revolving doors in Singapore leading to loss on income.  Apparently our Ministers are unable to take advantage of the revolving door system common in other countries. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house.   Before you reach for your hankies, I should point out that it is not true! The “revolving door” phenomenon whereby ex-Ministers and MPs move into the private sector is just as active in Singapore as it is elsewhere. (and also the PM didn’t actually have a violin)

If, as the PM says, the post-political earnings potential of our ex-Ministers is much lower than that in other countries, then that is a clear indicator of the quality of our Ministers. Whatever one thinks of the man or his politics, Tony Blair is a good speaker. No wonder Blair is paid so much on the lecture circuit. Bill Clinton also earns his keep. Who would pay to hear our Ministers?

The PM has also cited so-called “clean” pay without any hidden perks as being the advantage of the Singapore system. He has omitted to mention the much more progressive tax systems in most of these countries which mean that when after-tax pay is compared, the divide between what our Ministers are paid and what leaders in other countries get would be even starker.

While some leaders may get free accommodation while in office, surely our PM also does not have to pay for his living costs when on overseas trips and for meals taken as part of his official duties.  A few days ago I wrote a blog post to refute the notion that high ministerial pay is there to recruit talent suggesting instead that it is there to buy loyalty and a culture of yes-men. I’ll now rebut some of the other frankly specious arguments the PM used to justify high ministerial pay.

Revolving Doors or Open Doors?

The PM cited the US as an example of a country where there is a ‘revolving door’ between the public and private sectors for politicians and government officials and where post-politics earning potential is high. However only recently we learnt that ex-Foreign Minister GeorgeYeo had joined the Kuok Group as vice-Chairman of its Hong Kong holding company, Kerry Group.   Property Edge in the ST cited this comment from one of its sources:

‘My guess is that he is there to open doors with his network of contacts from when he was foreign minister,’ said real estate veteran Peter Ow, who is managing director of SLP International Property Consultants.   ‘He can guide and advise them on expanding into new overseas markets,’ Mr Ow said. ‘When you do business in Third World countries, you need government contacts.’  

Similarly Ms Lim Hwee Hua was also appointed a non-executive director of Jardine Cycle and Carriage within two months of losing at Aljunied and in October she was appointed a Senior Adviser at the private equity behemoth KKR followed by being appointed to Ernst and Young’s Global Advisory Council. Likewise, Ong Ye Kung continues to be Deputy Secretary General of NTUC as well as sitting on the board of SMRT.   So contrary to what the PM claimed our Ministers and ex-PAP MPs, at least those of ability and with a high international profile, do not find it difficult to move into high-paying jobs in the private sector once they leave. I have no idea what KerryGroup are paying Mr.Yeo but I suspect that it cannot be too far from his previous Ministerial salary.

And Ms.Lim’s employers, KKR, one of the biggest private equity firms in the world, are not exactly renowned for paying badly. The PM’s claim that becoming a Minister is at great cost to one’s career is not borne out by the evidence.   In an article (http://sonofadud.com/market/comfort-and-city-cab-two-more-pies-with-fingers-in-them/) on the taxi monopoly, I wrote about how,

 “Its [Comfort Delgro] board and management are a splendid example of the Japanese practice of “amakudai” or “descent from heaven”.  Most of the board are ex-civil servants, former government scholars, or present or ex-MPs who have graduated here after careers with Temasek or one of its stable of companies.” This practice has been condemned in Japan where “The practice is increasingly viewed as corrupt and a drag on unfastening the ties between private sector and state which prevent economic and political reforms.”(Wikipedia).  

This practice of moving between the public and private sectors seems to be the norm in Singapore.  Blue chip companies obviously find it of benefit to appoint people with previous experience or connections with Temasek and other GLC-linked companies. With such an enormous public sector responsible directly and indirectly for up to 50% of GDP it may be difficult to avoid. However it would be worth examining the question of whether this results in conflicts of interest which get in the way of what should be a meritocracy and a competitive market. It may have real economic costs in terms of misallocation of resources. In Japan in 2007 the Asahi Shimbun published research which showed that 70% of companies that hired retired bureaucrats won contracts without going through a bidding process while this was true of only 18% of companies that did not.

The Venerable but Fake Argument for the Benefits of Stability

The PM also points to the benefits of stability in Singapore in that government ministers do not change very often. He again betrays his fundamental misunderstanding of the benefits of democracy and competition. Stability is not a normative goal unless it brings other benefits. The Soviet Union was very stable until it collapsed while North Korea today can be said to be a paragon of stability with the last name of the leader never-changing.  Competition in business results in innovation because of the pressure to perform and gain an edge. Monopolies or quasi-monopolies fail to change until it is too late. The same is true of politics. Where he sees stability, I see the danger of ‘yes men’.

The government’s long stewardship of the Singapore economy has resulted in a huge expansion of jobs for foreigners but has not done much to raise real incomes of Singaporeans over the last ten to fifteen years. A large part of foreigners’ high regard for Singapore is bound up with the fact that it is perceived as so easy for them to come here and work. We should welcome foreign talent but not to the detriment of our own people. While we may not have performed markedly worse than other advanced countries in raising living standards over the last decade it does not provide a convincing argument for high ministerial pay.  

What is the Bonus for?

I can’t see the point of having a bonus.  Why pay someone for doing a job well when it is their obligation to do that job well? It is public service after all. And they were chosen for their ‘ top talent’  ability to do it in the first place.  Bonuses in the city work in a different way. The basic pay can be very low almost negligible.  The bonus is a fixed percentage of clear profit earned for the firm. If you mess up and make a loss or only a small profit then you barely get paid that year.  This also has the benefit of weeding out those lacking talent for the work who can’t affords to keep at it without a bonus.  Also, while the new KPIs that the bonus is based on are a little more appropriate,  they have still retained GDP which can be manipulated by increasing immigration. Why would we give our Ministers a bonus for creating the problem not the solution? Even the new KPIs are potentially easy to manipulate as the Statistics Department is not independent.

A Better Way

If the PM really wants to justify such high Ministerial salaries then I suggest that part of the Ministerial bonus be deferred till after they leave office, rather like gardening leave with private sector employers. Then if they get alternative employment within say three years of leaving office this portion would be forfeited. This would act as a tax on the valuable experience and contacts built up in office. It would ensure that part of this externality was captured by the nation rather than going solely to the individual concerned. A future employer would then have to evaluate whether it was worth it to buy the Minister out of his deferred bonus, rather like the scholarship bond functions today.

See continuation here…http://sonofadud.com/2012/01/26/clean-is-not-the-new-transparent/

Both the committee on ministerial salaries and other opposition parties who are focusing on salaries of political leaders in other countries are missing the point. The committee can be forgiven, to an extent, because their terms of reference required a correlation with private-sector salaries (an example of starting a race with a handicap). Those calling for a relationship with salaries of politicians in other countries are also missing the forest for the trees both because the situation in each country is unique to its own circumstances and also because knowing the correct salaries can be problematic, given the many hidden perks that go with the jobs.

Singapore’s situation is unique to itself. Arguably the correct way to concentrate (political) minds is to prescribe salaries as multiples of the median wage. The existing (pre-adjustment) top political salaries at $4 million plus (the actual figures will never be known, given that we are not privy to the bonuses paid out) are at least 110 times the median figure, assuming the latter at $36,000 a year (a generous estimate, on average).

Again, arguably, the goal of development should be to move towards a more egalitarian society. In this respect, it may be noted that in the Nordic countries, generally regarded as the most egalitarian societies on the planet, top-earners among the salaried class earn a multiple of three times that of the bottom. In other words, a CEO of a typical company earns three times what a fresh graduate, joining the company, would earn. This sounds extraordinary in the Singapore context but is true (of course, general education levels are also much higher in these societies).

As a starting point, top political salaries (those of the President and Prime Minister) could be pegged at, say, 50 times the median wage, with a commitment to bring the multiple down in stages over a 10-20 year period. This would give a new top salary of $1.8 million with corresponding adjustments all the way down the civil service. This, to use your phrase, would provide the most powerful incentive available, a direct correlation with ordinary citizens wages, to raise the median income of Singaporeans.

Of course, there are not many examples in history of dominant groups voluntarily reducing their wages. The solution, as with many other things in Singapore, will no doubt come through the ballot box.