Just imagine the scenario. For the better part of your live, you join the legions of people having to get up early in the morning, tolerate the massive jams to clock in to work, take the rubbish from a boss who is not better than you but who evaluates whether you deserve that promotion that eludes you because some other colleagues who politik or apple polish better stole your credit… At home your wife incessantly complain that basic food prices are getting higher, the family car need to be changed, the annual vacation, the mechanic is ripping you off with hefty bill, and your children, there are four of them, they all need tuition fees, donations to school, they want to study overseas etc You live a life of quiet desperation. Of course you blame your boss, politicians, the system, sometimes your deceased parents for not giving your munificent bequests. Then one day you got to know some bigwigs who offered you a seat to contest, and on March 8th you won even though you were a novice. Then someone in BN offers you RM4 million to cross over with a promise of positions that in turn would rake in more money. Wa this seems a panacea of all ills. Life is no more quiet desperation. Your hated boss and colleagues have to address you as YB! Would you not cross over just because of some abstract principles of fighting for the rakyat’s interest? I want to ask what have the rakyat done for you to justify your foregoing of an opportunity of elevating the financial interest and standard of living of your immediate loved ones, whether spouse, children or aged parents who have been standing by you in taking the hard knocks of life?? Would the rakyat save you if you fight for them like what Hindraf leaders did and why are they still languishing in Kamunting??? Can you change things for the better just because you have principles, especially in pond of politics, as you climb higher, only the scum float to the top and they will eat you if you don’t horse trade and if you whisper as much as the word “principle”? Being opportunistic, you can make an immediate difference to lives of your loved ones. Which would you choose? You want to save your soul – but you also wonder where it would go.

It is true that rich people are not necessarily above greed – for some the richer, the greedier – and therefore the possession of personal wealth is not an absolutely verifiable benchmark to weed out greedy politicians.

However, there is an element there that when you are already rich legitimately either from inheritance, work or business, why would you seek public office and power to get richer bearing in mind that holding such office subject your acts and behaviour to public scrutiny and criticism?

Here we assume a degree of truth to Abraham Maslow’s theory of hierarchy of needs when lower basic physiological needs that money provide are satisfied one ascends to the apex needs for esteem and actualisation including something one can be remembered and honoured by people…..

This is one of the basis of Lee Kuan Yew’s position to attract able men to government, pay ministers handsomely so that they have no excuse to abuse their position and come down hard on them if they do so. “ Low salaries will draw in the hypocrites who sweet talk their way into power in the name of public services, but once in charge will show their true colour, and ruin the country. …” so the Senior Minister opined….

Notwithstanding it is not easy to generalise : take for example JF Kennedy or Winston Churchill. They came from well to to do families and they sought public office for glory or to make the difference. You reflect on our leaders, present and past, find out their financial background and see whether there is an element of truth here…

Hoever as I said, there may well be poor politicians who were/are exemplary – Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mendela, Abraham Lincoln but here again we do not know whether they were great because of honest principles or events during that time gave them an opportunity to make a mark!

Fact is many factors play on the equation. Leadership is a combination of strategy and character (yes these play in part) but there must also exist events ie upheaval, change, opportunity and tumultuous happenings that provide context and opportunity to bring to surface such innate qualities – in the absence of which, even some such leaders may get lazy and spend his time thinking of ways and means to fritter the national coffers and self aggrandize himself and cronies…

However on a standalone basis, there is some logic in what Singapore government does – make their ministers financially well off so that they have one less motivation to use public office for self enrichment.

I forget that the top leader is also important. He sets the tone and style for the rest of the flock to follow – leadership by example so to speak. If one has a top leader of impeccable integrity, his example and his style and values will permeate and broaden down to the rest and things may turn better (if he is not ousted that is by the baddies). Or vice versa.

In response to AhPek’s post Today at 14: 21.08 (1 hour ago) –
it is not a simple measurement of which is more important for the Cause of Good Governance/Democracy – role of education in shaping leadership and type of government or the prevailing political system!

Although the prevailing political system moulds people’s behaviors, practices, and norms, it is also true – more so – that the people’s behaviors, practices, and norms also mould their voting of political candidates, their demand of what is expected of political standards of public officers, in short the political system itself and changes thereof.

Ultimately, the people’s behaviors, practices, and norms are the final arbiter of the political system you get, and by reason that the more important of the two in terms of sustainability of good political practices. There must be check & balance. The most effective check is Rakyat themselves.

And that’s where education of rights and what constitutes political civic and fair practices become important.

///Singapore’s achievement is something we should emulate, but surely its one party system is a no no to us/// – dawsheng.

The achievement is because of Human Capital. Singapore scours for political talent to fill the posts of ministers, civil servants and even PAP cadres…Basic degree is also not enough; must have first class honours, double degrees etc and if that’s not enough long for those who besides having these qualifications also have experience in running successfully conglomerates and corporations…

What we have is an elitist system, Singapore being small place easy to micro-manage, big brain-power on a small place will bring forward disproportionate achievement. This form of recruitment of political talent is unique – I doubt it is replicated elsewhere….

Whilst it works for Singapore up to an extent, the question however is, for how long, and at what price long term in this Globalised era???

The question is what is “talent” and in particular political talent….A person replete with academic qualifications has a disciplined mind to analyze, dissect, synthesize and draw logical conclusions but are logical conclusions the right conclusions? Will a good technocrat or administrator of a conglomerate necessarily translate to good CEO for the country? Sometimes so and sometimes not.

The danger is when recruiting talent they also look for those whose behaviors, practices, values and norms are similar to those held by the ruling class. There is little room for diversity and contrariety. Will guys who show promise of an independent mind – to question the prevailing thinking and criticize policies of the ruling class be recruited? I doubt so.

Lee Kuan Yew himself said that “if we continue to reproduce ourselves in lop-sided way, we will be unable to maintain our present standards…” Aren’t they reproducing themselves by this recruitment method?

How can there be not one party system when their system work that way? In many ways the achievement is also because of the one party system where the put all the brain power into something and there is no effective opposition or impediment.

That is fine in Singapore but how do this elitist system and elite work with others outside? Are they streetwise enough?

Take two or three examples.

S’pore agreed with China in 1994 to build a giant $30 billion industrial park in the eastern Chinese city of Suzhou to serve as a model for attracting foreign investment to the world’s most populous nation. Five years later, the venture was heavily in debt — undermined and outwitted by local mayor & officials who set up a rival park close by, forcing Singapore to cut its interests in the original project. Many said it was greed. Singaporeans priced products high, locals who supplied land envied, and did their own show!

The other Thai Danu Bank, Singapore expertise did all due diligence, bought the bank, forgot about asset quality and the potential Non Performing loans that suddenly mushgroomed a year or two down the road causing them to throw in some more money until it is not worth to “tahan” further and they sold it to military bank. Temaek’s acquisition of Thaksin’s Shin Corp. also ran into problems on the PR side as locals allege ”Our country has become a colony of Singapore.”

The “I know better” & “go by law” attitude without regard to local nuances and sensitivities run into problems in Indonesia where SingTel (having lots of money) purchased majority control in the two biggest cellular companies in Indonesia. It is now in legal battle against Indonesia Competition (Anti-Trust) regulator that ruled against it owning directly or indirectly.

I agree that these examples may be selective – I have not, for example, heard anything adverse of their acquisition of Dao Heng bank in order to gain access to the Hong Kong banking market – but they are points to ponder.

One thing I must give to these technocrats. They make mistakes by being not that streetwise but they learn fast not to repeat them. :)