The Convenient Racist

 

The big news on the international stage is the choice of Ms. Kamala Harris to be the Democratic Party’s choice for Vice-President. Ms. Harris, who is currently the junior senator from California will be the first “woman of colour” (her father is black Jamaican and her mother is Tamil) to be on any primary ticket. Of the four running for office this November, Ms. Harris stands out as something refreshing (the other three being crusty white men) and she’s helped electrify the campaign with Donald Trump calling her mean (she won’t sleep with him) and she’s made the elections interesting beyond America’s borders:

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53750619

While Ms. Harris has proved herself to be a capable politician in her own right, the truth is that she was chosen because of her gender and bi-racial roots. The Biden Campaign’s strategy in choosing a “woman of colour,” is obvious. If the Trump-Pence Campaign is all about getting old white men out to vote, the Biden-Harris campaign is going to be about getting women and “people of colour” to vote.

Ms. Harris isn’t the only politician in the world to be “helped” by her gender and race. Like it or not, the world is simply not colour blind and what you have between your legs counts when it comes to the polling booth. As much as we like to think of ourselves as “progressive” and being blind to colour and ethnicity, we’re not. It took America, the land that gave us a constitution based on individual happiness and liberty took more than two hundred years to elect a man who was slightly darker than pink (and let’s not forget his mother is white) and then promptly reversed that by electing his successor who decided that America needed to be more White than White and while it’s taken two hundred years to elect someone darker than pink, America has more famously never elected a woman to be president or vice-president (by contrast, the more “sexist” societies of the Muslim parts of South Asia have put four women into power).

People generally like people they are comfortable with. Unfortunately, comfort usually means people who are most like them and in a democratic society that happens to be ethnically and religiously homogeneous, leaders tend to look pretty much like the rest of the electorate. However, in diverse societies, the politics like business becomes a question of target markets. In American Presidential Campaigns, a presidential candidate looks for a running mate who can compliment him (most of them being men). The most striking example being the young and black Obama choosing an old white man called Joe Biden.    

If the divisions in a society are particularly deep, you might find a case of certain political offices being reserved for certain communities. In Lebanon it was understood that the President would always be a Maronite Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of Parliament being a Shia Muslim.

Singapore did have something similar in its presidency. Lee Kuan Yew states very clearly that he needed to show the government in KL that a Malay could rise up in Singapore and so he chose Yousof Ishak to be Yang De Pertuan Negara (Malay for Head of State, a title conferred on the Malaysian Sultans, though Ishak was to be a non-Royal head of state. The title was changed to President once we became an independent republic).

In our early days it was understood that the Presidency would be reserved for ethnic minorities as it was understood that as the Chinese were the majority, it was more than likely that the government and Prime Minister would be Chinese.

The rationale for reserving the presidency for ethnic minorities was clear. This was to preserve ethnic and religious harmony and it was a valuable symbol for ethnic minorities.

However, by 1985, it was obvious that the government felt that race was no longer a thorny issue and Mr. Wee Kim Wee (obviously ethnic Chinese) became our President. Then towards the end of Mr. Wee’s term, the Presidency moved from being about racial harmony to being about looking after our savings. The Presidency became an elected office in its own right (even if two Presidents have had their elections fixed).

The evolving nature of our presidency should be the story of our progress in race relations and this was a government that felt the need to reserve the head of state role for ethnic minorities. This is a government that is known to read the ground and plan carefully. So, when Mr. Wee Kim Wee was appointed to be President in 1985, they must have felt that it was no longer necessary to reserve the office for ethnic minorities because our race relations must have improved.

Singapore’s government also acts tough of “racist” or “acts that disrupt racial harmony.” I, like many Singaporeans grew up with the message drummed into our heads that racial harmony was something special.

Yet, while successive Singapore governments have done so many right things in the name of promoting racial harmony, they’ve also been playing the “race card” in a rather ingenious way.

The first step was to return the presidency to being about race and the rather clumsy attempt to arrange the winner (fix being an ugly word). The most embarrassing moment came from our Minister of Trade and Industry, Mr. Chan Chun Seng, who said “An Indian Muslim is a Malay,” which any half-educated Western Expatriate could tell you is not true. The nicest thing you could say about the Ministers comments is that our management of race relations must have been so successful that he couldn’t tell the difference between an Indian Muslim and a Malay.

One has to question why the government felt it was necessary to play the race card with the presidency when it had felt it was no longer necessary to do so back in 1985. Are we to say that race relations have worsened in this supposedly more “liberal” age and if the rights of ethnic minorities has become worse or at least so much so that you have to make the presidency about race again, what does that say about the government’s management of race relations since the 1980s?

Instead of having a candidate that could appeal to all (Malay, Muslim Lady), what we got was a presidency that lost its legitimacy before it even began.

The other point of convenient racism came when the party kept insisting that “Singapore is not ready for a Chinese Prime Minister.” This is despite the fact that the most popular member of government happens to be from an ethnic minority. While, Senior Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has said that he’s not interested in the job, one has to ask which part of Singapore is not ready for an ethnic minority to be Prime Minister when the Senior Minister is considered a “dream candidate” for so many.

To make matters worse, the newly appointed “Leader of the Opposition” or leader of the only other party to win seats happens to be an Indian. If the electorate is willing to support “non-Chinese” party leaders, where does the government get the idea that the nation is not ready to be led by a non-Chinese? Is the government still stuck in the politics of the 1960s while the electorate has moved on?

A government that has worked so hard to create a society that is “regardless of race” has to understand that it cannot no longer micromanage race relations or impose yesterday’s fears on today’s population. Talk to many local Chinese and you may find that they’re more comfortable with their Tamil and Malay buddies than they are mixing with Mainland Chinese. You need to address current issues rather than dig up old wounds. When the incident with Ramesh Erramalli broke out, Singapore’s Tamil population sided with an old Chinese security guard rather than with their “own kind.”

When the electorate gives a party led by an Indian more seats after you’ve said that they’re not ready for a “Non-Chinese” Prime Minister, the message is clear – Stay Out of Race Politics.”

Don’t Forget the Hippos

The current geopolitical scene today is dominated by two elephants, namely the USA and China. The USA remains the world’s largest economy and the American military remains the only military force on the planet that can fight two wars in the world at any given time. The other elephant is China, which in the last four decades has grown its economy to being able to challenge that of the USA (even American policy makers admit that it’s a question of when China becomes the larger economy) and with growing prosperity, its invested in its military, so much so that American military planners don’t take assume that they’ll automatically win any potential war with China.

Unfortunately for the rest of the world, both elephants have character flaw. China, under President Xi has become especially mean, nasty and secretive. Whatever growing rights that China’s citizens enjoyed under his predecessors have since vanished. In the handling of the Covid-19 outbreak, scientist in China who tried to warn the world ended up vanishing, which was something that didn’t happen during the SARS outbreak of 2003. Mr. Xi has used anti-corruption drives to consolidate power to such a point that he has decided that he’ll do away with the tradition of leaders handing over power after a decade.

While the USA under Trump isn’t nasty, it become something of an incompetent buffoon, which has become particularly noticeable in its handling of Covid-19. America, which used to be a donor nation in any disaster has needed to get mask from elsewhere and the world has been transfixed by images of American doctors begging for basic protective equipment. As this happens, you get daily scenes of the President bragging about the great job he’s doing. Even before the outbreak of Covid-19, the Trump Administration was unashamedly transactional in its foreign policy and its high staff turnover suggested that it could barely get its act together.

So, what can the rest of the world do? How do you choose between a nasty elephant and an unpredictable and stupid one? I’ve previously argued that small nations need to work more closely together, as in the case of the European Union. There’s another solution, which my favourite litigator reminded me of in a recent article that he shared on Linkedin:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/small-world-big-thinking-exporting-your-brand-services-mark-goh/?trackingId=

The answer is to remember that while the elephants are by far and away the most dominant animals in the jungle of geopolitics, there are other large animals who can help small insects. For my favourite litigator, the two animals are the United Kingdom (the dominant global power before the USA) and Japan (the dominant power in Asia, before China). You could say that if the USA and China are elephants, the UK and Japan are hippos.

Hippos may not be as domineering as elephants but they have the potential to offer the world. Britain may not have the firepower of the USA; the British armed forces have been an invaluable ally in America’s conflicts. The British Armed forces are considered to be amongst the world’s most professional and experienced, so much so that I remember one of my favourite Englishmen reminding a group of Singaporeans that American Navy Seals go to the UK for training by the SAS and SBS. British Armed forces have defended British citizens in troubled spots and have shown themselves more than capable of defending their interest.

The economy of the UK isn’t something to be sniffed at either. London remains New York’s only competitor as the world’s main financial centre, even with the loss of unfettered access to Europe through Brexit. The UK remains the sixth largest economy in the world with a nominal Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) of US$2.83 trillion and a Purchasing Power Parity (“PPP”) of US$10.4 trillion. It’s not the largest economy or largest market but it is still in the top ten places of markets to be.

The United Kingdom has serval key strengths which cannot be rivalled. It is the home of the English language; the language used in global commerce and has strengths in soft power exports like music and sport (90 percent of Manchester United Fans have never been to Old Trafford). The UK has the Oxbridge Universities, which are consistently in the top ten of the world’s best and British Universities have trained many global leaders. The Commonwealth of Nations, which was formed from the empire provides the UK with relationships to a quarter of the known world. Furthermore the “Common Law” Jurisdiction allows British Entrepreneurs to operate in a wide variety of familiar legal jurisdictions, a fact that my favourite liquidator is banking on. Britain is in many ways incredibly flexible and friendly for entrepreneurs.

In Asia, the forgotten player is Japan, which is the world’s third largest economy with a nominal GDP of US$5.1 trillion. While this is dwarfed by the US$14.1 trillion of China, the average Japanese remains wealthier and Japan has advantages in high technology manufacturing. Japan is in many ways a very futuristic society that has embraced technology in ways that no one else has done, as this video from Drew Binsky explains:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzIBbF-8lAU

Japan may lack the sheer mass that China has, it has one crucial advantage, stronger soft power. While Japan has yet to atone for many of its crimes in the Second World War (which is a source of tension with its neighbours), it is perceived as a more benign force that China. Everyone in the ASEAN region worries about China swallowing their territory in the South China seas. There are no corresponding fears about Japan.

Furthermore, the most obvious friendship in Japan’s favour is India, the only country that competes with China for sheer mass. India is what you’d call the proverbial third elephant that never quite lives up to its potential because of its schizoid politics. Like Japan, India has a rivalry with China and as Bloomberg Columnist Andy Mukherjee said many years ago, Japan’s most obvious bet is to build India up. Japan has the money and technology but does not have the size to compete, whereas India has size but remains poorer and more backwards than China. Hence, Japanese-Indian cooperation seems like the most obvious course to follow and the warm relationship between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Shinzo Abe can only speed up this process.

Both Japan and the UK are in many ways, “sunset” powers that once occupied top spot and are now forced to find their global relevance by playing second fiddle to the American elephant.

However, the fact remains that both the UK and Japan are countries that play a role on the global stage. The British in particular had to build their global empire by learning how to operate as small units cooperating, have certain skill sets that the rest of us can learn from.

Working with elephants is important, even if one of them is stupid and the other one is nasty. However, they aren’t the only animals in the proverbial jungle and working with other large animals can also be a way of securing ones future.

What’s next for George?

I am really happy that Singapore’s much liked former foreign minister; George Yeo will not be running for the Presidency. Mr Yeo, who was regarded as one of the more ‘liberal’ members of the ruling elite would have had an awful time as President.

He would have been caught between his former cabinet colleagues who would expect him to be on their side and the public who would have expected him to be an independent minded President. Mr Yeo has wisely decided that it is better not to be caught between a rock and a hard place.

So what’s next for Mr Yeo? If you look at his credentials and his number of years of service to the nation, Mr Yeo should have plenty of options. He could, for example, take on the role as an advisor to a number of statuary boards and government linked corporations. He could easily take up a role as a lecturer, talking about Singapore’s place in the world. Not only would Singapore’s universities hire him, he could also lecture in universities around the region.

Personally, I think Mr Yeo should be bold and look for opportunities beyond Singapore and the Southeast Asian region. He should look towards getting a senior management role in a big multinational – which if you consider GIC and Temasek Holding’s investment in some of the world’s largest corporations, should not be too difficult.

To put it simply, Mr Yeo’s presence at a multinational corporation like General Electric (GE) or 3M or JP Morgan would help his former cabinet colleagues seal the argument about the need to pay themselves high salaries.

The argument for paying ministers high salaries has always bordered on the need to counter corruption (well paid people have less temptation to look for bribes) and to attract talent. On the corruption front, this argument has worked relatively well. Singapore has been a steady number four on the list of the least corrupt governments in the world (though the more cynical do argue that Singapore should be number one).

On the argument of attracting talent, this argument is less effective. The initial argument for paying Ministers high salaries was that it was necessary to bring bright minds into politics, which might otherwise have gone into the private sector.
As far as politics is concerned, it is OK for big countries like the USA to accept that you can pretend to be a President for US$20 million in a movie instead of being the President for US$400,000 a year, but it is not possible for small countries like Singapore. We need the best political talent we can get and we need to pay high salaries to stop them from running to places like JP Morgan and GE.

However, there’s one small problem. If you look at the pre-ministerial careers of most of our cabinet ministers, you’ll find that more often than not they’re careers have always been in Singapore and in the public sector. We have plenty of former military people and other civil service types and even the rare few who have spent their careers in the private sector have spent it in Singapore – Tony Tan, former Deputy Prime Minister for example, was the CEO of OCBC and our former Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong was once at Neptune Orient Line (Temasek Holdings is a primary share holder).

This in itself has not been a bad thing. As governments go, the Singapore government has been acknowledged as a fairly good one. Our public sector is filled with bright people who do quite a good job in running the show.

However, having good people does not mean we’ve been getting the best. The point about paying high salaries has been that we need to attract people who might otherwise have gone to JP Morgan into politics. However, not one of our cabinet members has come from international organisations. The majority have in fact been bread at home and on government scholarship – ie they’ve been bonded to the government before they could even decide if they wanted to go for jobs at places like JP Morgan.

Not only have our top people started in the government, they’ve stayed within the protection of the Singapore government after they’ve retired from active cabinet duty. Think of the most high profile retirees, Senior Minister Goh and Minister Mentor Lee, who became advisors to the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Government Investment Corporation respectively.

So, how good are our top people? They’re good by Singapore standards but where does that leave them on the international stage?

Well, Mr Yeo should look at answering that question and discover what he can do on the international stage. Getting a job at a top level corporation would be a good place to start.

Alternatively, Mr Yeo might decide that he wants to do something entrepreneurial or perhaps philanthropic. Mr Yeo has made plenty of money from his career as a minister and built up a contact base of movers and shakers. All he needs is a little bit of imagination and he could start something that could make an impact on the world. Look at what former US Presidents do. Bill Clinton’s foundation is devoted to fighting AIDS while Jimmy Carter travels round the world trying to make peace.

Losing an election could be the start of something great for Mr Yeo if he puts his mind to it. Chris Patten lost an election and became a much respected Governor of Hong Kong as well as European Commissioner. Mr Patten travels the world writing books and giving seminars. He’s Chancellor of Oxford University. In short, we think of Mr Patten’s success and the failure of a lost election has become a distant memory. This should encourage Mr Yeo in his post-political career.

An Extension of an Old Age Pension….

The Singaporean Presidential Election is looking set to get interesting. A day after the former head of the insurance arm of the National Trade Union Congress (yes, we have a union – it sells products to the workers) decided to enter the fray, the incumbent decided to drop a few hints about his wanting to stay on.

President SR Nathan, who has been President for the last 12-years, was in Mauritius when he dropped his hint. He mentioned that he has worked quietly despite what his critics had said and he mentioned that he was aware of his constitutional limits. So what exactly is going on here?

The last time Mr Nathan faced an election, he made some noises about how he was getting on and wanted to rest. Then he said that we had to “Ask God,” if he should run and then he ran and won an uncontested election.

So, has Mr Nathan decided that he likes being in the Istana after all? Well, in a way you can’t blame him. Mr Nathan receives some S$4 million a year in salary and since he spends time on State business, a good portion of that money has been his to keep.

We also have to except the possibility that Mr Nathan has done a fairly good job and the prospect of his Presidency being extended is unlikely to cause harm to Singapore. Unlike the other recently retired Octogenarian, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Mr Nathan is not in the position to influence executive decisions and he’s been good at the ceremonial aspects of the job. He has shown genuine warmth for the people. He’s looked dignified when he’s supposed to and he says, he knows the limits of the job.

So, what’s the big deal about Mr Nathan running for a third term, especially if he’s been good at his job? One might argue that Mr Nathan who is turning 87 is getting on a bit and the prospects that he might die in office is very real. However, given that we have an aging population that feels left out by a society obsessed with youth, having a man who works till he dies is not a bad thing.

Let’s face it, we should not stop Mr Nathan from running again and we should be open to the possibility that he might actually be what we need – a dignified symbol of continuity in times of rapid change.

However, it would be a shame if Mr Nathan left things at that. He has an opportunity to provide moral leadership on one of the most pressing issues in society today – the question of the aged. Singapore as we have been constantly reminded is an aging society.

Despite our professed love of Asian Values – we have a shockingly horrible disregard for the elderly in our society. This “Asian” society of ours is the only place where young and educated people will pretend to fall asleep in their seats on the bus or subway rather than to give up their seats for old. That is unfortunately only a visible sign of how the old are regarded in Singapore. Age discrimination is rife in employment and social services. Grandparents have to work at McDonald’s counters because they don’t have enough money to survive.

While nobody expects Mr Nathan to create executive policies on the topic, Mr Nathan should spend his time leading a move to change our social perceptions of the old. Mr Nathan in his position of President is the ideal person to do this. As President he shows that Old People can still work without interfering with the day-to-day running of the lives of the young.

What are the things that Mr Nathan could do? For a start, he should throw the weight and prestige of the Presidency behind institutions that cater to the old. When an old folk’s home opens, he should rush to visit. When a corporation comes up with an aged empowerment program he should rush to give the CEO a plaque.

Then he needs to get creative in the way that Prince Charles has got creative championing his causes. In the UK, we have the Princes Trust, which has helped troubled teens down the productive path of entrepreneurship. Can’t we have something similar in Singapore?

Can you imagine if you had an organisation that helped “pensioners” fend for themselves? As the government has pointed out, many old people do want to work – if not for the money, and then it’s for the feeling of remaining useful. My late grandmother used to complain on a daily basis that one of the worst things about growing old was the feeling of being useless.

Mr Nathan would be an ideal champion of an organisation that helped old people to help themselves. He has the financial resources to start funding things on a personal basis. His time in the Presidency (assuming he does not run again) has provided him with a circle of influential people who could ensure the better ideas that such an organisation would provide can become real.

Now that Mr Lee has “retired,” we need another symbol for active aging and Mr Nathan is the ideal position to take over. Is there a better way for Mr Nathan to secure his legacy as a much loved President than to become the champion of the aged? He’s been given a generous pension – he has the chance to extend his pension – why shouldn’t he spend his remaining days by helping others keep their pensions?

The Expensive Key to Nowhere in Particular

Something unusual is happening in the state of Singapore. This year, this little island that took pride in being predictably boring has suddenly found a new lease of life. Kamal Nath, India’s eloquent transport minister once said of Singapore’s elections, “If you didn’t read the newspapers, you wouldn’t think there was an election. Besides, you already know the result before its taken place.”

Mr Nath was right. A good portion of us lived in uncontested wards. I was one of them. Nobody in their right mind would stand against a senior member of the government and election time for those of us in uncontested wards was simply a matter of collecting a government hand-out. The most exciting thing for us was seeing how generous the government would be.

Well, Mr Nath is no longer right. On May 7, 2011, Singapore went to the polls and proceeded to shock not only the PAP government by taking a Group Representative Constituency (GRC) and kicking out our affable foreign minister – we shocked ourselves by sheer passion an interest in politics. Internet chat rooms were buzzing. The politically apathetic became politically alive. Simply put – from the prospect of never voting, we were given a chance to vote.

The best part about the new found awareness is the fact that not only did we the people get to vote for our government, we are expected to vote for our President in an election that should take place by the end of August of 2011.

The Presidential Election is slightly different from the General One. To be President of Singapore, you must forgo ties to any political party and resign from whatever job you had. The Presidential Election is contest of individuals rather than parties. On paper, the President is the only person to be elected by every individual voter.

Singapore’s Presidency is an interesting one. Prior to 1993, the post was an appointed one. Parliament appointed the President who was primarily a ceremonial figure. Like the British Monarch he (all of our Presidents have been men) opened parliament by reading a speech prepared by the government, inspected the troops on National Day and visit foreign countries as well as receive dignitaries. The best thing that could have been said about the office was the fact that it made ethnic minorities feel a bit more cuddly. The underlying precedent was that since the government would be run by a Chinese (the majority of the population), the President would be from an ethnic minority. Lee Kuan Yew states very clearly that it was essential to have Yousof Ishak, a Malay to be Head of State, as it would signal to the Malaysians (Old Mr Lee had dreams of being part of Malaysia) that a Malay could achieve high office.

However, the reality was best summed up by Devan Nair, our third President. He would refer to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister as “boss” when they were in private.

Then some bright spark decided that it was necessary to have a President who could do something and so the constitution was amended and in 1993, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, a former Deputy Prime Minister became our first Elected President. As the President, Mr Ong had the constitutional duty to safeguard the reserves in addition to being a ceremonial figurehead. Real power remained with the government but the President was a little more than just a tea spoon. He became a little more like the British House of Lords rather than the Monarch. In the Singapore System, the President is part of the legislature rather than the executive.

Anyway, as we get closer to the Presidential Election, it might be worth asking ourselves if having an Elected President has been worth the effort. The President is after all an important part of the system and let’s not forget that the post cost money, an essential topic in money obsessed Singapore. Like the British Monarch, the President receives a “Civil List” to pay for staff and state expenses as well as a generous salary. At the last count, the President was drawing a salary of a mere S$4,000,000 a year, making the highest paid public official in the land that already has the world’s highest paid politicians.

Well, the answer has to be – NO. The main purpose of giving the President power over the reserves was so that the reserves would be safeguarded from a spendthrift government. If the President couldn’t check anything, at least he or she could delay Singapore being spent into the US National Debt. While this idea has been nice in theory – there have been two key problems.

The first key problem was highlighted by our first Elected President, Ong Teng Cheong. At the end of his term in office, the late President called a press conference where he described how he had problems asking for an audit of the reserves. As he rightly pointed out, he, the President was tasked to safeguard the reserves so he needed to know exactly how much was in the reserves.

He pointed out that civil servants had been evasive and he was told that it would take 56 man-years to produce a dollar-and-cents value of immovable assets. President Ong then consulted the Attorney-General who conceded that the government only had to produce a list of properties it owned. An incomplete list was given to him several months later and it took three-years to give him the information he requested.
So what exactly are “The Reserves?” Apparently the Singapore government has lots of spare cash which is stashed away somewhere for a rainy day. The topic of “The Reserves” is always spoken in reverent terms but nobody knows exactly what or how much is in the reserves. There is supposed to be something called the Government Investment Corporation of Singapore (GIC) an SWF that manages the reserves – but once again nobody actually knows how much GIC manages or mismanages. If the man who is supposed to safeguard the reserves doesn’t know exactly what he’s supposed to safeguard, how can anyone expect him to do a good job of it.

The second point is that the man who is supposed to safeguard the reserves is supposed to have a democratic mandate from the people to do so and unfortunately, the current President has been denied such a mandate.

To be fair, this isn’t entirely his fault. To eligibility criteria is such that very few people qualify to run for President. You need to be either a former Minister or a CEO of a company turning over not less than S$100million a year. The guys in these jobs are not about to give them up to be a silver tea spoon. Nobody actually wanted to run against President Ong – they had to find someone to run against him and that someone campaigned on the premise that Mr Ong was far more qualified than he was (and he still got 670,358 votes out of a total of 1,756,517 votes cast)

President SR Nathan, has been pretty good at the ceremonial parts of the job. He’s read the speeches he’s been told to read. He waves at the crowd on National Day and everyone who has met him says he exudes warmth. In short, it is impossible to dislike the man.

However, we shouldn’t mince words here. He was to all intents and purposes appointed to the job and knows he has no mandate to fight against a government that has one. So when the government asked if they could dip into the reserves back into 2009 – he said yes. Mr Nathan has made pots of money by doing as he was told. As one Indian friend says, “He is the COMPLIANT Ke Ling” (Which is a derogatory term for Indians of Tamil decent who were originally brought to Singapore as prisoners – hence their chains went ke-ling, ke-ling.)

What can be done to solve this problem? Well, a good start seems to be having an actual contest. It’s nice to see people who meet the criteria throw their hats into the ring. At the time of writing, we have a former Member of Parliament (Tan Chin Bock) and the former CEO if NTUC Income (Tan Kin Lian). The former Foreign Minister, George Yeo is praying for wisdom (read consulting with his former colleagues) on whether he should throw his hat into the ring.

A contest of sorts will restore some legitimacy to the office. A president who is genuinely elected can do what he was supposed to do – be at least a little bit independent of the government.

However, something more important needs to be done. There needs to be a public audit of the reserves. Much has been made about how we cannot talk about the reserves because of National Security. However, let’s ask ourselves, how exactly does having a proper audit of what we actually own harm our security?

If anything, a public audit will create a situation where there will be greater transparency of the management of the reserves. The President, or the second key, will know exactly what he or she is safeguarding. We, the public will know what is happening to our money and if the government is open with us about how they’re managing our money, we’re likely to trust and communicate with them more.

Think of it this way, we trust the bank because we get a statement about how much we have with them. Imagine the next time you asked the bank how much you have in your bank account and they told you they couldn’t tell you for your own good. Now, would be inclined to keep your money with such a bank?

Is there such a thing as a Noble Profession?

Thanks to Dr Susan Lim, everyone is once again obsessed with our favourite past-time - money and talking about it. If you talk to enough people, you'll find that everybody is exceedingly upset with Susan Lim for having the audacity to make money. It has even reached the stage where Susan Lim has become a verb for "overcharging."

The fact that Dr Lim never made money off the general public is irrelevant. The fact that she's in private practice and very successful because she's very good at what she does is also irrelevant. As far as a most people in the streets of Singapore and in cyberspace are concerned, Dr Susan Lim is a symbol of a greedy healthcare system that's milking the poor.

As far as most of the chat rooms are concerned, Dr Lim is wrong because she wants to make money. Talk to enough people about the case and they'll tell you that -"If you want to make money you should be a banker not a doctor," or "Doctors are supposed to save lives not make money." One journalist even went as far as to remind me,"She has a Hippocratic Oath to save lives."

It seems that the thing that's making people very upset with Dr Lim is the fact that she runs a very successful business? Yes, like it or not, a private medical practice is a business with rents and staff who need to be paid. Yet, because private medical practices are ..."Medical" they're supposed to be about something more than just paying the bills and turning a profit.

There are, as they say, professions and professions. Some professions are about making money. Nobody seems to mind when stock brokers make money - they wouldn't be stock brokers otherwise, would they? Then there are professions that notorious for keeping people broke - writing is one of them. Then there are what you call the "Nobel" professions, which are supposed to be about the greater good of mankind rather than making money. However much these professions don't make - they carry an aura of respectability about them.

I take teaching as an example. Teaching is known for being badly paid. Yet, it is a "noble" profession and being a teacher or a school master carries a certain aura to it, which money apparently cannot buy. I remember my late step-grandma who said that she was always relieved when step-grandpa went back to school, it was time when she could hold her head up high and tell the world that she was "Mrs Hart Smith." Step-grandpa Hart worked in the days when teachers did not get paid during holidays. So, he became a salesman for World Book. He made A LOT more money a salesman than he did as a teacher. Yet, as far as the community was concerned, his respectability came from being a teacher.

In a way, doctoring is supposed to be like teaching. Like the teacher and the lawyer, the doctor is a learned man. In addition to being learned, the doctor also saves lives. I think of Dr Christopher Khng, one of my ophthalmologist who teaches and operates on eyes. He says,"When you do good operation you help one person - but when you teach ten people how to do a good operation you help ten times the people." Doctors wear white coats, the colour of purity.

I enjoyed working in the healthcare space. It helped me to understand certain medical conditions and it helped me do some good by getting people I knew to look after their eye-sight.

However, as much as doing good is exceedingly satisfying, I am left wondering if there's such a thing known as a noble profession any more?

It started out with Singapore's politicians. It's a well known fact that Singapore has the world's HIGHEST PAID POLITICIANS. American politicians make their fortune after politics. Here, the politicians have a fortune thrust upon them. Our President, who is primarily a ceremonial figure who's main function seems to be shaking hands once a year on National Day only make some S$4 million a year.

When a few of us grumbled, the politicians made the point that high salaries for PUBLIC SERVANTS was necessary because the nation needed to get bright young things in PUBLIC SERVICE and to stay there. The politicians also made the point that highly paid PUBLIC SERVANTS did not shake down the poor for bribes. Much better to keep a PUBLIC SERVANT content with his lot so that he focuses on the job on hand.

If you think about it, this is a sound argument. Yes, we expect our PUBLIC SERVANTS to be noble people who want to serve society rather than engage in the grubby world of commerce. However, we understand that they need to live and if they see the possibility of living comfortably they're less likely to steal from us. Singapore is close enough to places where being an honest person is akin to being supernatural - able to function without life's basic necessities.

So, we've already bought the idea of the necessity of PUBLIC SERVANTS in NOBLE Professions being handsomely paid.

The next step is to look at the obvious - if we can accept the argument that PUBLIC SERVANTS must be well paid - surely the same argument applies to other so called NOBEL PROFESSIONS.

Then, let's look at the facts - the "Nobel professions" have already been industrialised. Let's go back to the example of teaching. Teachers may be a "noble" lot dealing with something other than money, but education is most certainly an industry and the teachers are slowly but surely realising that what they do for a living is a skill that can be packaged and sold just like any other.

Let's look at America as an example. America has the world's BEST universities. Places like Harvard, Princeton and Yale consistently rank amongst the world's top ten. How do these universities do it? Well, it's simple - they produce the guys who will get hired and promoted to top levels of the corporate sector. This in turn makes them more attractive as places to study and people are willing to pay vast sums of money to get in. If you are brainy but broke, the university has scholarships, bursaries and other schemes to help you out - but the bottom line is - the university still gets paid for providing you with a service.

The universities with the most successful business continue to climb world rankings. Those that fail - die. Nobody denies that Harvard is expensive - nobody denies that Harvard is a WORLD CLASS institution. The rules are simple - if you don't like Harvard's fees - you don't go there.

This is as business like and mercenary as it gets. While the American University system is acknowledged as the world's best despite it's mercenary nature, the same is not true lower down the education ladder. American High Schools are funded by the tax payer and any kid can goto high school. When you think of American High Schools, you usually think of a war zone in the same way that you think of an American University as a centre of excellence.

The Europeans who once stood out as the bastion of mass education have learnt the lesson. Business methods work in the supposedly noble business of education. European universities are now charging students for the service of teaching. In the UK, the universal truth remains - the schools that are run like businesses (misleadingly known as public schools) still produce the bulk of graduates at elite levels.

Teaching may be a noble profession but education is big business whatever anyone tells you. I live in Singapore where teaching is an industry. Local publishers survive on text book publishing. Parents spend good money on old exam papers so that they're kids can pass. Not all teachers are civil servants working in schools. If you're unemployed, become a tutor - you'll always have work. If you're entrepreneurial, you should also be a tutor. Retired school teachers with a name, make a very good living either by teaching only children of the well to do or setting a mass market tuition centre.

What is true of education has been more true of health care. Health care is, like it or not an industry in its own right. The doctor may be "noble" and willing to work for free but he or she would not be able to afford to provide you with basic health care without the people who make the equipment and the medicines. Nobody is suggesting that it's wrong for GlaxoSmith Kline or Norvartis not to charge money for their research, development and production.

Say what you like about big pharmaceutical companies but they've produced life saving stuff. Think of Asprin, which seems to cure just about anything. Think of HIV medications - which remain prohibitively expensive for many but have also given many others the chance to live healthy normal lives. More will be done in the field of pharmaceutical healthcare - however, someone has to pay for this and ultimately it's the consumer.

Doctors are part of this industry whether we like it or not. The industry that produces many of the miracle drugs we now take for granted, relies on the feedback of doctors.

Much as we hark back to the ideal of a doctor being all about saving lives no matter the financial status of the life to be saved, it is just that - an ideal. Doctors need to live too and the more well looked after they are, the more they are able to focus on the business of saving lives.

This is especially true of private practice. Doctors in private practice may not like to admit it but they are running a business and you cannot expect them to work on nothing but the love of it. The doctor may want to save your life for free - but the industry that supplies him will want him to pay for the medication and the landlord of his practice will expect to be paid. The staff of the practice will also expect their salaries.

Let's face it, the doctors who make it big in private practice are good at what they do or at least they're good enough for people to open their wallets. The Susan Lim's, Julian Theng's and Ron Yeoh's of this world are darn good at what they do - hence they get people who are willing to pay them top dollar.

I've always believed that life has to be about something more than just money. However, to expect people to provide you with something for nothing is unrealistic. Money is necessary in order to get progress. You need that to fund things like research and development. The money has to come from somewhere and more often than not, it is from the consumer and tax payer.

It's also proven that systems that have an element of business to them tend to be better at providing the basic service. If I had ten high paying clients, I could focus on just ten. My concentration for every client would be better than if I had to service a hundred poor paying ones. You like at the difference between the American University System and High School system as the best comparison.

Noble professions are not immune from the basic rules of business. Education, healthcare and dare I say legal systems are becoming more industrialised and not all of this is bad.

While noble professions may be less so, that does not exclude people from being noble. My favourite litigator devotes an incredible amount of time to "bro-bono" work and he's not the only lawyer doing it. His argument is that he believes in a system and the work he devotes to cases like Zen and Eric is a way of paying providence for giving him clients like Zim.

The same is true for doctors. Susan Lim may have charged Pangiran Damit millions, but she has given free surgery before. Dr Ron Yeoh has a lucrative eye care practice in Camden Medical centre serving an elite client el, but he and his team continue to do work at the National Eye Centre (SNEC).

Doctors and lawyers do give away pro-bono work. However, they have to get the money from somewhere to keep their practices flowing.

You cannot expect people to be noble without any consideration to their ability to take care of themselves. As one taxi driver says - "You cannot expect me to treat you like you are in a restaurant but pay me a Kopi Diam rate."