Power corrupts but what corrupts Power?
From ancient history to modern time, the golden truth has never changed i.e. Greed (of money) and Sex are the two key factors which will corrupt those people in the position of power.
The famous story of the warring states in ancient China where the defeated 越 state managed to corrupt the king 夫差 of its arch rival 吴 state by sending the most beautiful woman 西施 to become his concubine still lingers on in modern days. 越 state finally destroyed and captured 吴 state. It is a classic case on how sexual desires could corrupt and eventually destroy the whole country if it was left unchecked.
In modern days, woman spies are used to seduce potential targets to get vital National secrets in espionage cases unveiled. In business world as well as civil service such as police force, sex is also widely used to corrupt decision makers and law enforcement officers to get favorable treatments or tip offs.
Of course, beside sex, money is also the common form of bribery used. No government in the world, whether it is under dictatorship or democratic system, could be spared from the corruptions done through these two key factors.
The only way is to minimize the chances of corruptions by using all kinds of measures. In Singapore, PAP has argued that only high pay could keep politicians and civil servants from being tempted by money bribery. But one could argue that how could more money prevent a greedy person from being corrupt? There is no end of desires for more money for a greedy person. It is a debatable issue in governance.
PAP used to have stringent screening rules in their selection process in the search of good candidates to hold political office. It used to have zero tolerance for adultery or sexual misconduct.
Many people have argued that we should not be "moralist" and having affairs are "private matters". Some even argued that what one does in private will not hurt their official work. But the truth is, the CPIB (Corrupt Practice Investigation Bureau) has investigated two Chiefs from the SCDF and CNB recently for alleged "serious personal misconduct" which was rumored to be in connection with sexual favors offered by a woman. It was reported that even if there were no evidence of corruptions involved, both officers would be disciplined internally for serious personal misconduct. They have since been sacked from their positions.
We cannot be sure that anyone in power would be compromised if they engage in affairs or womanizing. But I have argued that human civilization progresses throughout time because we are able to make use of past experiences and data to forecast, make predictions and good judgment. If Sex and Money are two key factors which will corrupt those in power, then people who are greedy or have higher tendency to go astray in their private sex life would be considered as "high risk" individuals to be assigned positions of power.
Thus it is only logical when voters in general would not prefer people with past records of cheating to become their MPs or ministers. It is also understandable that people who are found cheating on their wives or basically womanizers are not preferred to be voted as their representatives or ministers as well. An elected representative, in Singapore's context, holds certain power and influence not only in policy making but also allocating and utilizing public resources when they are tasked to run town councils. Needless to say, any ministers would have even greater powers and privileged sensitive information which concerned National security.
It is a matter of choice in risk taking. Generally, Singapore is still a conservative society which is still pretty risk adverse. It is not only a question of morality but also a matter of practicality in political management that we generally avoid entrusting people with higher tendency of being greedy or committing adultery/womanizing to be elected into political office.
Similarly, a government should be mindful about the character of a person before appointing him to become key senior civil servants. Anybody who fails the tests on greed and sex should not be employed as key senior civil servants at all.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, January 30, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Crisis Management Lessons For Politicians
Right from last December till now, we have witnessed how badly our government and SMRT have managed the various "crisis". In Singapore, we do not have the culture of demanding and providing timely information of all sorts. The importance of timely information is basically ignored. In general, we are not trained in managing crisis.
A domesticated news industry has lost its natural journalistic instinct in looking out for vital information and asking important questions of public interests. Investigative reporting is either discouraged or basically disallowed. Whistle blowers are quickly dealt with internally. The political culture in Singapore is more of "covering up" or providing the least information possible to the public for fear of whatever reasons. However, the New Media has changed the rule of the game.
When certain "undesirable" information is being "leaked" or reported on New Media, blogs or internet based social political websites, the authorities seem to be at a lost on how to deal with such Public Relationship problems.
Politicians from both the opposition as well as ruling parties lack the necessary Public Relationship skills to deal with all sorts of big and small crisis. Most of the time, they would hope that by remaining silent, the problems will just go away. In this internet era, this is not possible. It is an outdated PR method (ostrich mentality) which could only apply with total monopoly of information flow.
The most common quote you can hear from officials is "We do not comment on rumors". While this may apply fairly well on certain issues but it may look bad on the person in question when the rumors are basically detrimental to his or her integrity or reputation. The most common rumor circulated on internet forums is about prominent politicians having extra-marital affairs.
I have been observing Taiwan and Hong Kong politics for quite some time. I will quote a couple of interesting examples of how politicians deal with Public Relationship crisis.
In the run up to the Hong Kong Chief Executive elections, BOTH potential candidates Henry Tang Ying Yen (唐英年, commonly known as Henry Tang) and Leung Chun Ying (梁振英,commonly known as CY Leung) were rumored to have extra-marital affairs. These rumors were spreading like wild fire on the internet but no one has shown conclusive evidence just yet.
CY Leung responded to such rumor immediately to dismiss it as a lie. He even added that it would not be FAIR to the women mentioned in the rumor if he did not come up to deny it outright. He has portrayed himself as someone who is not only protecting his integrity but also protecting the reputation of the women being maligned.
For a politician to respond in such a way, he must be 100% sure that this rumor is false or at least, he must be damn sure that no one could produce any conclusive evidence of such affairs. Most likely, he did not do it and it turns public perception to his advantage. Such rumor will be viewed as malicious attempt out to discredit him.
For Henry Tang, he did the opposite. He walked up to the press, holding his wife's hand tightly and made a simple statement of admission. He didn't answer to any questions raise during the press conference but just read out his statement. He said he is sorry that his personal indiscretion has caused much trouble to many people, especially the woman involved. He refused to confirm the identity of the woman, so to protect her from further unnecessary harassment. He reiterated that the affair was in the past and his wife has forgiven him. They have moved on from that past episode. This will be his first as well as the last response he would make with regards to the extra-marital affairs.
Some may wonder why Henry Tang should offer apology and admission even though no solid evidence has been offered by anyone on the internet. When a rumor is created, there will be some people who will defend the accused politician while there will be people who will use the opportunity to bring him down.
If the politician chose not to respond or deny but eventually someone come up with some conclusive evidence, the tide will totally be turned against the politician. His supporters will feel cheated and he will lose all his support base. This is the greatest nightmare to a politician. He will lose every support, even sympathizers if he ever lied or remained silent. He will be forever labelled as a cheat, a liar and irresponsible person who does not dare to bear the brunt of his own wrong doing.
The alternative option for the politician is to admit it openly and seek forgiveness. In the process, demonstrates that he would be responsible for whatever mistakes he has made in his life while trying to protect the women involved. He will most probably retain his support base and gain more sympathizers.
Furthermore, by making a short and swift response to this rumor, it will end the media disaster. Even if there are any compromising evidence leaked in future, it will have little or no value. The media will hype about it for the admission but it will die off eventually. This is evident in Henry Tang's case. The campaign didn't get derailed into reports on slanderous affairs but rather focus on his policy options he has to offer.
It is with such considerations and advice given by his PR manager that Henry Tang finally stood up and admit. He has successfully neutralized the great amount of bad press generated by this rumor hanging like a sword above his head.
Some may argue that such extra-marital affairs are private matters and it has nothing to do with the capabilities of the politician. However, such argument may be debunked quickly because politicians hold great powers in certain aspects in managing public assets and resources. If he could cheat his own spouse, he could cheat anyone, least to say, the public. Thus, the important thing is to minimize the perception of such cheating. If a politician choose to "try his luck" and bet on others not having concrete evidence, then he will reinforce the perception of being a dishonest man if any such concrete evidence surface.
Thus, in retrospective, Henry Tang has successfully removed or minimized the impression of being a cheat or dishonest by admitting outright, apologized and gained forgiveness from his wife. He also builds up his image as a person who will take up responsibility of any wrong doing. He has successfully minimize the damage of his extra-marital affairs done to his campaign. Nobody seems to think that his extra-marital affairs would matter anymore in his bid for the Chief Executive post after his open admission.
I hope the two case studies I have provided here would enlighten some in crisis management. On the PR perspective, it is not what trouble you get into that matters most. It is about the loss of confidence of your supporters that matters most and it will be determined by how you manage your own crisis.
Of course, I would want to reiterate my personal maxim, 因果不存侥幸: Never try your luck with Karma. The best way to avoid trouble is not to plant the seed at all.
Goh Meng Seng
A domesticated news industry has lost its natural journalistic instinct in looking out for vital information and asking important questions of public interests. Investigative reporting is either discouraged or basically disallowed. Whistle blowers are quickly dealt with internally. The political culture in Singapore is more of "covering up" or providing the least information possible to the public for fear of whatever reasons. However, the New Media has changed the rule of the game.
When certain "undesirable" information is being "leaked" or reported on New Media, blogs or internet based social political websites, the authorities seem to be at a lost on how to deal with such Public Relationship problems.
Politicians from both the opposition as well as ruling parties lack the necessary Public Relationship skills to deal with all sorts of big and small crisis. Most of the time, they would hope that by remaining silent, the problems will just go away. In this internet era, this is not possible. It is an outdated PR method (ostrich mentality) which could only apply with total monopoly of information flow.
The most common quote you can hear from officials is "We do not comment on rumors". While this may apply fairly well on certain issues but it may look bad on the person in question when the rumors are basically detrimental to his or her integrity or reputation. The most common rumor circulated on internet forums is about prominent politicians having extra-marital affairs.
I have been observing Taiwan and Hong Kong politics for quite some time. I will quote a couple of interesting examples of how politicians deal with Public Relationship crisis.
In the run up to the Hong Kong Chief Executive elections, BOTH potential candidates Henry Tang Ying Yen (唐英年, commonly known as Henry Tang) and Leung Chun Ying (梁振英,commonly known as CY Leung) were rumored to have extra-marital affairs. These rumors were spreading like wild fire on the internet but no one has shown conclusive evidence just yet.
CY Leung responded to such rumor immediately to dismiss it as a lie. He even added that it would not be FAIR to the women mentioned in the rumor if he did not come up to deny it outright. He has portrayed himself as someone who is not only protecting his integrity but also protecting the reputation of the women being maligned.
For a politician to respond in such a way, he must be 100% sure that this rumor is false or at least, he must be damn sure that no one could produce any conclusive evidence of such affairs. Most likely, he did not do it and it turns public perception to his advantage. Such rumor will be viewed as malicious attempt out to discredit him.
For Henry Tang, he did the opposite. He walked up to the press, holding his wife's hand tightly and made a simple statement of admission. He didn't answer to any questions raise during the press conference but just read out his statement. He said he is sorry that his personal indiscretion has caused much trouble to many people, especially the woman involved. He refused to confirm the identity of the woman, so to protect her from further unnecessary harassment. He reiterated that the affair was in the past and his wife has forgiven him. They have moved on from that past episode. This will be his first as well as the last response he would make with regards to the extra-marital affairs.
Some may wonder why Henry Tang should offer apology and admission even though no solid evidence has been offered by anyone on the internet. When a rumor is created, there will be some people who will defend the accused politician while there will be people who will use the opportunity to bring him down.
If the politician chose not to respond or deny but eventually someone come up with some conclusive evidence, the tide will totally be turned against the politician. His supporters will feel cheated and he will lose all his support base. This is the greatest nightmare to a politician. He will lose every support, even sympathizers if he ever lied or remained silent. He will be forever labelled as a cheat, a liar and irresponsible person who does not dare to bear the brunt of his own wrong doing.
The alternative option for the politician is to admit it openly and seek forgiveness. In the process, demonstrates that he would be responsible for whatever mistakes he has made in his life while trying to protect the women involved. He will most probably retain his support base and gain more sympathizers.
Furthermore, by making a short and swift response to this rumor, it will end the media disaster. Even if there are any compromising evidence leaked in future, it will have little or no value. The media will hype about it for the admission but it will die off eventually. This is evident in Henry Tang's case. The campaign didn't get derailed into reports on slanderous affairs but rather focus on his policy options he has to offer.
It is with such considerations and advice given by his PR manager that Henry Tang finally stood up and admit. He has successfully neutralized the great amount of bad press generated by this rumor hanging like a sword above his head.
Some may argue that such extra-marital affairs are private matters and it has nothing to do with the capabilities of the politician. However, such argument may be debunked quickly because politicians hold great powers in certain aspects in managing public assets and resources. If he could cheat his own spouse, he could cheat anyone, least to say, the public. Thus, the important thing is to minimize the perception of such cheating. If a politician choose to "try his luck" and bet on others not having concrete evidence, then he will reinforce the perception of being a dishonest man if any such concrete evidence surface.
Thus, in retrospective, Henry Tang has successfully removed or minimized the impression of being a cheat or dishonest by admitting outright, apologized and gained forgiveness from his wife. He also builds up his image as a person who will take up responsibility of any wrong doing. He has successfully minimize the damage of his extra-marital affairs done to his campaign. Nobody seems to think that his extra-marital affairs would matter anymore in his bid for the Chief Executive post after his open admission.
I hope the two case studies I have provided here would enlighten some in crisis management. On the PR perspective, it is not what trouble you get into that matters most. It is about the loss of confidence of your supporters that matters most and it will be determined by how you manage your own crisis.
Of course, I would want to reiterate my personal maxim, 因果不存侥幸: Never try your luck with Karma. The best way to avoid trouble is not to plant the seed at all.
Goh Meng Seng
Monday, January 16, 2012
Stand by me
I attended the birthday celebration of Yong Vui Kong at Speakers' Corner Hong Lim Park today. I have met many friends there, both social and political activists. M Ravi has spent years in his consistent work towards the Anti-Death Penalty campaign. M Ravi has spoken so passionately about his cause ever since I first met him many many years ago when he was helping the late JBJ.
I have met up with many political activists as well, from various parties. Some of them have really paid a heavy price for their participation in opposition politics during GE2011, both on the job front as well as personal relationships. Such sacrifices are hardly appreciated by others and the mental fatigue they had suffered after the GE is affecting them tremendously. This is especially so for first time contestants whom some would fall into depression and disillusion.
I would like to dedicate this song, which was very well sang by Joshua Chiang this afternoon at Hong Lim, to all social and political activists. What couldn't break us will make us stronger ever. Take heart, we will stand by each other on this path of activism.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
部长薪金调整 – 换汤不换药的政治秀
历时超过半年的《政治职位薪金检讨报告》昨天终于出炉，建议大幅削减总统、总理和部长薪金达28% 至53% 。这双位数字的减幅看来大刀阔斧，但是仔细研读当中的魔鬼细节后，就不难发现检讨报告只是一场换汤不换药的数字游戏。
去年大选之后，李显龙总理为了“顺应”民意，成立了政治职位薪金检讨委员会，检讨多年来被批评为过高的总理及部长薪酬，这也被普遍视为大选失利而重新笼络民心的动作。然而委员会到头来所作出的薪酬计算建议，显然是令人大失所望，因为它缺乏大胆改革薪金制度的决心。
首先，委员会建议把部长薪金基准与新加坡300万劳动人口中最高薪的48人，增加至与1000人挂钩，这种改动没有实际意义。单单把薪酬与高收入人士看齐，却忽略中层和基层人士薪金的变动，得出的结果是狭隘和有偏差的。
以2007年为例，当年我国基层人士的薪金呆滞，中产阶级的加薪幅度也不高，但是部长薪金却因为跟高薪人士挂钩而水涨船高，一口气飙升了60%！在贫富悬殊日益严重的新加坡，这种荒谬的现象更突显了薪金计算机制的不合理。
此外，委员会建议沿用花红制度，并作一些无关痛痒的小修小补，即使改革后的最高花红从以往的27.5个月降低至14.5个月，但对国人来说，这仍然是个天文数字。
在计算表现花红方面，若纯粹以总理的主观意愿来决定，而完全缺乏客观的理据，那又如何避免官官相护呢？虽然国家花红的水平是依照包括经济增长、失业率等四方面的因素而定，但是报告所设的门槛过低，根本无法准确反映政治官员对国人福祉的贡献。
再者，新加坡作为一个开放型的经济体，取得的经济增长主要是受到外围经济环境的左右，不能直接跟部长的表现扯上关系，更遑论以此作为制订花红的指标。
不过，最重要的还是身为服务国家的公职人员，竟然采用私人机构的薪酬配套，以所谓的“工作表现”来决定花红的多寡，未免偏离了公共服务人员应有的献身精神。
其实，就算不计花红在内，我国最初级部长减薪后的年收入，也大幅超越美国总统薪酬多达20万新元，并与香港特首的薪酬看齐。如果这样才能吸引人才，甚至确保高薪养廉，国人所付出的代价恐怕会是另一个“世界第一”。
诚然，检讨报告的确削减了政治官员的薪金，但是问题的症结未解，薪酬计算方法仍然不合理。我建议简化计算方法，取消花红，综合高、中、低层人士的收入作为官员基本薪金的指标，把官员和整体国民的收入全面挂钩，从而加强总理和部长对民众问责。
如果执政党天真的以为这次薪金检讨能成功化解民怨，那未免过于低估国人的政治智慧了。国民期望的是更彻底的改革，而不只是单纯的减薪。但是从执政党声明接受检讨结果来看，他们显然是缺乏政治决心去实行认真、彻底的改革了。
事实上，部长薪金过高只是民怨的其中一个诱因。多年以来，我国部长在领取世界第一高薪的当儿，却没有为自己的各种政策失误负起应有的政治责任，反而以各种理由搪塞，这才是引发民怨的真正原因。如果行动党不认真对症下药，切实执行政治问责制，相信民怨将继续累积，选民必然会在下届大选中以选票表达不满。
吴明盛
去年大选之后，李显龙总理为了“顺应”民意，成立了政治职位薪金检讨委员会，检讨多年来被批评为过高的总理及部长薪酬，这也被普遍视为大选失利而重新笼络民心的动作。然而委员会到头来所作出的薪酬计算建议，显然是令人大失所望，因为它缺乏大胆改革薪金制度的决心。
首先，委员会建议把部长薪金基准与新加坡300万劳动人口中最高薪的48人，增加至与1000人挂钩，这种改动没有实际意义。单单把薪酬与高收入人士看齐，却忽略中层和基层人士薪金的变动，得出的结果是狭隘和有偏差的。
以2007年为例，当年我国基层人士的薪金呆滞，中产阶级的加薪幅度也不高，但是部长薪金却因为跟高薪人士挂钩而水涨船高，一口气飙升了60%！在贫富悬殊日益严重的新加坡，这种荒谬的现象更突显了薪金计算机制的不合理。
此外，委员会建议沿用花红制度，并作一些无关痛痒的小修小补，即使改革后的最高花红从以往的27.5个月降低至14.5个月，但对国人来说，这仍然是个天文数字。
在计算表现花红方面，若纯粹以总理的主观意愿来决定，而完全缺乏客观的理据，那又如何避免官官相护呢？虽然国家花红的水平是依照包括经济增长、失业率等四方面的因素而定，但是报告所设的门槛过低，根本无法准确反映政治官员对国人福祉的贡献。
再者，新加坡作为一个开放型的经济体，取得的经济增长主要是受到外围经济环境的左右，不能直接跟部长的表现扯上关系，更遑论以此作为制订花红的指标。
不过，最重要的还是身为服务国家的公职人员，竟然采用私人机构的薪酬配套，以所谓的“工作表现”来决定花红的多寡，未免偏离了公共服务人员应有的献身精神。
其实，就算不计花红在内，我国最初级部长减薪后的年收入，也大幅超越美国总统薪酬多达20万新元，并与香港特首的薪酬看齐。如果这样才能吸引人才，甚至确保高薪养廉，国人所付出的代价恐怕会是另一个“世界第一”。
诚然，检讨报告的确削减了政治官员的薪金，但是问题的症结未解，薪酬计算方法仍然不合理。我建议简化计算方法，取消花红，综合高、中、低层人士的收入作为官员基本薪金的指标，把官员和整体国民的收入全面挂钩，从而加强总理和部长对民众问责。
如果执政党天真的以为这次薪金检讨能成功化解民怨，那未免过于低估国人的政治智慧了。国民期望的是更彻底的改革，而不只是单纯的减薪。但是从执政党声明接受检讨结果来看，他们显然是缺乏政治决心去实行认真、彻底的改革了。
事实上，部长薪金过高只是民怨的其中一个诱因。多年以来，我国部长在领取世界第一高薪的当儿，却没有为自己的各种政策失误负起应有的政治责任，反而以各种理由搪塞，这才是引发民怨的真正原因。如果行动党不认真对症下药，切实执行政治问责制，相信民怨将继续累积，选民必然会在下届大选中以选票表达不满。
吴明盛
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
