Running a Country and a company (1997)
Had lunch with an expatriate operations manager who was about to leave Singapore for home. French man Philipe Robeyns has spent quite a number of years in Asia. So I asked him how he found Singapore after having stayed here for a few years.
He said that the government is very restrictive and seems to control everything. No freedom for the people etc. Typical westerner's view then.
So I asked for an example and he mentioned the elected presidency and how an opposition candidate was sued until he was declared a bankrupt and had to run away from Singapore. The opposition candidate who ran away was sued for making false statements about the government. These indicated to him that there is no real democracy.
I told him about my view that there is a need to differentiate between free speech and free for all. I believe everyone must be held accountable for their own actions and if they were wrong they must be made to pay for it in a way that hurts. Otherwise, there is no meaning to it. Will anyone take any care or think twice about what they do unless they know that taking an irresponsible action will result in something that has an appreciable personal consequence?
To me that responsibility is necessary in life. We practice and believe in that in our daily life. Why not the same for something as important as running a country?
I then mentioned that I think the way that PAP pick leaders for the party and the country is a good method. They identify potential leaders and rotate them through various supporting positions in the various ministries and government institutions. The party will monitor these people's performance and abilities over time and under various situations before deciding on whether they are indeed suitable to take on key political and administrative responsibilities in the country. That is also how successful companies pick their future leaders. Companies do not pick management staff by having free for all campaign speeches and then have its employee elect who they think should be in the job.
I asked him if he thought he would be in his position in the company if the company had asked each employee to vote on who they want to be the operations manager every few years? I don’t think so. Neither do I think that that's right and good for the company as there are times when the right person for the job may not be the most popular guy around. Also, the character and capability of a person can only be determined by monitoring their performance over time as they handle different challenges. Does he think the employee population in the company is in the best position to know who is best suited to run the company? No? So, the 'popular vote' process alone does not ensure that the best person will get elected for a job. So if a party like the PAP has an internal trial or testing process before they put someone up for selection that is commendable.
I could see that my analogy had more than an enlightening effect on him. In fact, he could then relate to it! And the discussion on Singapore took on a more positive direction from there on.
