Being President of this Country is Entirely About Character – Andrew Shepard, the American President

One of the great memories I have of student days was watching “The American President,” in the US at the time of the Lewinsky Saga. The movie is about a President who is a widower, who falls in love with a lobbyist. His girlfriend gets attacked by his political opponents and he ends up screwing her for political expediency. However, at the end, he realizes his mistake and decides to fight back and one of the key lines of his final speech is “Being President of this Country is Entirely About Character.”

I am reminded of this movie because I’ve just seen a Facebook posting by the Fawning Follower, who is one of the more interesting members of the cult of Singapore’s Ruling Party. True to form, the Fawning Followers post is a long tirade against the people who “hounded” former candidate for Member of Parliament, Mr. Ivan Lim from running in the elections. I’m pasting a snap shot of the Fawning Follower’s posting and to get the full post you can click on:

https://www.facebook.com/CriticalSpectator/posts/2948815981892776?__tn__=K-R

The thrust of his argument is that we, the Singaporean voters should not be such namby-pamby babies because Ivan Lim has arrogant elitist tendencies. The Fawning Follower goes onto list a range of great men, who brought great innovations to humanity but were at the same time arseholes of the highest order.

The Fawning Follower proceeds to remind us that, “if you want to judge controversial people do it on their merit (or lack of it) not their character.” He makes the point that “being an a**hole is actually a strength.”

Like most cult members, the Fawning Follower misses the obvious points in his eagerness to defend the cult of the ruling party. His key failure is this – he forgets that we’re not talking about a cult that he belongs to. We’re talking about a political party and because that political party is a governing party, we’re talking about the government of a country. As a citizen of that country, I and every other citizen have a moral obligation to tell our government when they’re f***ing up.

I stress that I am not against the government or the ruling party. As often said, I think they’ve done a good job on balance. As long as I and my little girl have a safe and clean environment, I’m not going to complain too much.

However, there have been major f*** ups that have the potential to affect my basic life. First, there was the issue of exploding Covid-19 cases in foreign worker dormitories. This exposed what is essentially a slave racket and there was no defense for a part of the system that had failed from every standpoint

Then there’s the issue of Ivan Lim. As mentioned in my last posting, the entire saga brought into question the selection process of our governing party and the integrity of a candidate for public office. This wasn’t just a case of keyboard warriors having a issues with Ivan Lim, it was a sad reflection of how a party that normally wins elections by blinking several times was behaving like an organization that could not post letters. This is best explained by my former boss, Mr. PN Balji, former editor of Today in his article, which can be found at:

https://www.asiaone.com/singapore/pn-balji-3-steps-disaster-ivan-lim-affair

While Ivan Lim’s “arrogant” behavior got most of the online attention, the most crucial factor to the story was the fact that there was an allegation that he was involved in a corruption scandal in Brazil. While no evidence of wrong doing has come to light, the question is, how did a ruling party, which places so much stress on its integrity in governance, even consider someone who had an allegation of corruption attached to his name? Surely, the ruling party of the world’s most famous hypercompetent government would have screened a potential candidate more thoroughly. While Ivan Lim has denied he had any involvement in the corruption scandal in Brazil, there are reports that things may not be as he says:

https://mothership.sg/2020/06/ivan-lim-keppel-brazil/

I don’t disagree that high achievers can be difficult to work with. It’s often said that it is the “unreasonable man who gets things done.” Visionaries like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and dare I say Lee Kuan Yew were difficult but they had a vision and got it done. 

However, the Fawning Follower misses the point completely. He fails to distinguish between personality and character. Ivan Lim’s personality is not the issue, it’s his character. Issues of arrogance can be forgiven if they are compensated by hyper competence. Issues of character and integrity are different story. Let’s remember, we are talking about someone who wants to represent people at the highest of levels. Why should we, the paying public, employ him to speak for us if there are reasons not to trust him?

Let’s leave the issue of the issue of corruption in Brazil aside. There was an allegation that he was willing to put lives of foreign workers at risk:

Once again, the accusation has not been substantiated. However, there is an allegation of behavior that would suggests that Ivan Lim is not suited for public office. 

Any normal person running for any elected office would have to be aware that one’s skeletons would be exposed. While nothing has been proven, he has merely denied that accusations and ran away as fast as he could. Is this the behavior you want in your elected representative? The fact that the Prime Minister himself had said that he was accepting the resignation because there was no time to hold a proper inquiry? Is this the reaction you’d expect from a leader whose told that there are serious issues about one his men? 

Running for an elected office is entirely about character. Ultimately, the electorate can forgive you if you’ve got personality issues and if you make mistakes along the way. What they will not and should not forgive is dishonesty, particularly when you’ve been asked about serious allegations. 

What Work Did You Do to Justify Your Charges?

Singaporeans have never been known for their sense of irony. While the population has never been known to appreciate irony, Singapore has more than its fair share of it. The most recent example of grand irony has been in the case of Dr Susan Lim versus the Singapore Medical Council.

It's ironic because the man who has been most vigorously attacking Dr Susan Lim for being "greedy" in the act of "overcharging" the Royal Family of Brunei for medical services performed between January and July 2007 has been non other than Mr Alvin Yeo, SC (Senior Counsel - Singapore's version of the QC), the Senior Partner at Wong Partnership, one of Singapore's largest local law firms. As well as being a very prominent lawyer with impecable credentials, Mr Yeo is also a Member of Parliament for Hong Kah GRC and Chairman of the Government Comity for Home Affairs and Law. He also serves on the board of directors for a number of public listed companies.

Mr Yeo has spent the better part of the month trying to show the world that Dr Lim is a greedy little money grabbing tart who has abused the noble profession of medicine to make money. As far as Mr Yeo has been concerned, Dr Lim has betrayed every standard of ethical propitiatory in order to chase the almighty dollar. Leaving aside the merits of Mr Yeo's case into Dr Lim - one might be tempted to ask Mr Yeo is he's guilty of the very things that he's been accusing Dr Lim of.

Let's put things in perspective. As excessive as Dr Lim's S$25million bill may sound, it was a bill that was issued by a thriving medical business and it was for work done over a period. The fact is, had that S$25 million been paid, most of the money would have gone to cover expenses that Dr Lim incurred by caring for the patient, including the building of an ICU infrastructure and transplanting it via private jet (paid by her business). Fact remains that of that S$25million, Dr Lim would probably only received S$3.5 million, which was her annual salary for running the group.

Dr Lim does run a vast and very successful operation, which was recently valued at some S$80million. While this fact may not endure her to Singaporeans who are convinced of her greed, Dr Lim has been a successful entrepreneur as much as she's been a doctor. She has placed her personal money into the operation. She has taken on personal risk in starting an enterprise and it's a rule of business that the person who takes on the risk gets the lion's share of the rewards for the success of the business (she would also take the lions share of the cost if the business fails). Dr Lim may be making a lot of money, but she is also responsible for feeding over 30 people as well as caring for her patients. In short, that hefty salary that she earns is measured by the work that she does. If she fails in her work, not only does she lose her business and work but at least 30 additional souls get thrown out of work.

Mr Yeo by contrast has it relatively easy and like Dr Lim, he's no pauper. If Dr Lim can be accused of running a "scam," Mr Yeo's "scam" makes Dr Lim's look like child play. Mr Yeo has found a way of minting money without assuming any of the risk and responsibility that Dr Lim has.

Let's start with his day job. As the Senior Partner at Wong Partnership, one can expect Mr Yeo to take home nothing less than S$50,000 a month. What exactly does he do to earn this money? Well, just as no one doubts Dr Lim's talents as a surgeon, nobody is doubting Mr Yeo's talents as a litigator. I've heard him argue. He's articulate and logical when he presents his case. He's also good at disturbing his opponents. He knows how to play up to the public gallery as much as he does the judge.

So, I guess you could say Mr Yeo deserves his money from his day job in that many of the firms clients are there because of him. However, most of the leg work is done by his juniors (approximately 300 lawyers under him and let's not forget the paralegals) and let's face it - Mr Yeo was the founder of his firm and the personal risk he faces from the success or failure of the firm are negligible, especially when compared to the risk that Dr Lim faces.

While Dr Lim's income is derived from the business she has started and runs, Mr Yeo has done something even better. He's found a host of part-time jobs the supplement the income he makes from his full time job. His part time jobs also involve very little actual work for generous pay.

Let's start with his various directorships. What exactly does a board of directors do in public company? The answer is they look after the interest of the shareholders and they keep the CEO on his toes. The board of directors does not get involved with the day-to-day management of the company and they get paid not ungenerous fees to attend the usual yearly annual general meeting. They protect the shareholders by signing off on the report presented to them by the CEO and signed off by external auditors. So, if you think about it, what Mr Yeo is doing is very clever. He attends enough board meetings to enjoy enough swanky meals. Reads through a few annual reports and gets paid a decent sum for say a days work.

His directorships are, however, nothing when compared to his main part-time job - namely that as Member of Parliament for Hong Kah GRC. What does this part-time job take from him and give to him?

The answer is simple. He is required to listen to his constituents whine for about an hour a week. Once in a while he may be required to visit a few people and may be grace a few events. His comity work will involve maybe another two hours a month.

In return for doing all of this, he receives an allowance (Note - this is an ALLOWANCE not a SALARY) of a mere S$15,000 a month (around S$1,875 per hour worked). As long he serves two terms (10-years), he's entitled to this for life. He is also entitled to a pension which around two thirds of the allowance.

What he does not receive in money, he more than makes up for in the prestige of being a Member of Parliament. Wherever he goes, people will be aware of the fact that not only does Mr Yeo argue laws, he has a role in making them.

What risk does this part time job entail? Well, in theory he has to face the voters every five-years. However, Hong Kah has been a "walk-over" constituency - so he's never had to face the buggers who pay him for visiting them. Then let's look at this way - the work that he needs to do for his weekly visits are actually performed by volunteers in the grassroots.

As an MP, Mr Yeo is running one of the most impressive enterprises in the world. Everything that you make is gross and net to you. The cost are either borne by the State or by volunteers who want nothing better than the chance to say they licked your boots.

At the very least, Mr Yeo makes S$65,000 a month. This figure may not be as impressive as the S$25million that Dr Lim is supposed to have billed. However, it's far more secure. To date, Dr Lim has yet to receive a penny for the work that she did. The cost have had to be written off. By contrast, Mr Yeo's monthly salary is guaranteed and long as he stays within the comfort of his full and part-time job.

Which leads to the question? Why does Mr Yeo need to have an MP's allowance and pension when he's making the money he's making? Then you have to look at the fact that Mr Yeo, like Dr Lim is doing "Noble" professions. Lawyers are supposed to be interested in justice rather than in money. Being a Member of Parliament is ALL ABOUT SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. The member does NOT receive a SALARY but an allowance to cover things like transport (which in Singapore is negligible).

So, why doesn't Mr Yeo public ally announce that he's going to forgo one of his incomes and continue to do two jobs. That would be called "service to the community." His income as a the Senior Partner at the Wong Partnership is more than enough to cover the expenses he runs up on state business as an MP.

Mr Yeo made this point in court - "What work did Dr Lim do that could possibly justify her charges?" I would like to ask Mr Yeo the same thing - a significant portion of his income does not come from the Sultan of Brunei - it's comes from people like you and me.

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."