China's high-speed rail and Singapore's high ministerial pay

Recently read about how the chief of China's massive high-speed rail project was found to be guilty of corruption.  Now, there are questions about what corners may have been cut in the project and whether it might be unsafe.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/world/asia/18rail.html)

With debate flaring up again about ministerial pay in Singapore, this report had me thinking - is there an additional aspect to paying the highest civil service salaries in the world that nobody has considered? (Or perhaps considered but never discussed in public?)

In an ideal world, we would have politicians and leaders who are willing to put the nation before self and sacrifice to serve the people.  Dedicated, selfless, incorruptible.  Then they also have to be of the highest ability, to lead people, solve problems, and foresee future problems before they happen.  As we often hear repeated, and which is undoubtedly true, such capable people would also have other very rewarding opportunities they might have to give up if they enter the civil service or politics.  Paying them sufficiently that they are not sacrificing what they and their families might enjoy - yes, I can see how that would help some capable people decide to serve the country who might not otherwise do so.

So far, so good.  Now, there is what the China situation has me wondering : This chief of the Railways Ministry was obviously very capable.  The achievements are there for all to see - the gargantuan project has progressed faster than anyone thought possible, and China is on its way to leading the world in high-speed rail.  But as we see he also had moral failings.  And judging by the frequency of reports of corruption both in China and elsewhere in the world, he is not alone.  Nor is it easy to weed out people with such weaknesses before problems actually happen.  And when problems happen as a result, the cost may not just simply be the actual amounts lost to corruption.  As in this case, the entire project may be cast into doubt, as you do not know where corners may have been cut.  Reputation of the country takes a beating, and all the societal benefits and future developments directly or indirectly dependent on the success of the project involved are also affected.

If China learnt from Singapore, could it have been able to avoid these problems, and still make use of the talents of this man?  By offering extremely high compensation, you are not only telling people like him, "Here is a lot of money, there is no need for you to be corrupt."  You are also saying, "If you do anything stupid, you will lose the extremely large amount of money I intend to pay you in the future for your continued services and pension."  For those who are morally weak, and who might have been susceptible to temptation, if this can keep them in line and allow their talents to still be used for the good of the country, perhaps that is a small price for China to pay.  Greed, after all, drives the private sector.  And yet it does well, perhaps better than any government.

And perhaps there is also this - that it can be very hard to tell someone's moral fiber until they are face to face with temptation.  If it is possible, by paying everyone more and using future payments to hold their greed hostage, to reduce the risk posed by hidden corruption to projects crucial to the future of the country, isn't it worth it?  Better the devil you know than the risk of spending $750 billion on railroads that won't be safe enough to use.

If I decide to vote for the opposition...

If I decide to vote for the opposition, it will be because I believe it is in the country's best interest.

I am not saying I will vote for the opposition - to be honest, I am still undecided.  And, I also believe keeping one's vote secret is essential to the proper functioning of a democracy.

But if I do decide to vote for the opposition, it will be a long and hard-thought decision.  It will not be because one candidate has better credentials than the other.  It will not be out of protest at the PAP's dominance in parliament, and it will not be because I object to the PAP's policies.  After all, I sincerely believe they have done a good job.

It will not even be because one candidate "connects" better with the Singaporean people while another shows what might be signs of a fundamental lack of understanding of the problems faced by common folk or lesser mortals.  After all, people can learn.  And if they are intelligent and sincere, they do.

If I decide to vote for the opposition, it will be because I feel the country needs a rejuvenation of its political process.  Just as the PAP might tell people to vote thinking of the party, and not just the candidate, I would like to vote thinking of the country and not just of the parties.  And the country needs to show both the world and its own citizens that there is real political discourse and exchange.  Singapore should not need to endure the aspersions so often cast in international circles on the authenticity of its democracy.

And all Singaporeans need to know that their voices can be heard, that their actions can bring about change, for better or for worse, and that they themselves must be the ones ultimately responsible for their country.  If Singaporeans know that, many more will step up to provide voices and hands to help our country grow.  Even the PAP cannot do it all on its own.  The voices and hands of all Singaporeans are needed if we are to build a Singapore for all Singaporeans, the young, the old, and the new.

If I decide to vote for the opposition, that is what I will be voting and hoping for.