Effects of Government on Macro Economic Performance-Singapore Experience

Human nature prevails that where credit is due, the queue to claim it can be mile long and on the same note, when blames needs to be apportioned, all and sundry will stay miles away from the situation. This small and young nation of Singapore commonly known as the little red dot was once near annihilation due to a multitude of factors like racial/religious divide, poor economy, low rate of literacy with absolutely no natural resources to live on the land. This era of the 1960s bore witness to the bitter struggle for independence that was also opportunistically made use by the communist to agitate the populace against their old colonial masters flying the altruistic flag of our struggle for freedom but with a more sinister underlying aim of converting the country into a communist state. Racial and religious issues especially racial issues were polarized to stir the pot of multi-racial harmonious co-existence and tolerance into a struggle for a monolithic society. All these are behind us save for the historians whose records of these events through their individual looking glass on what and why of the past. History was never meant to be an objective study although foundational principles are there to shed light along our path towards the truth.

The then chief minister and the current minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his contemporaries many of which has left the cabinet and this life due to old age have pre-sided over a period of renaissance of Singapore economy with many years of double digit growth and structural transformation of the economy from a industrial/manufacturing to a knowledge and service orientated economy as Singapore survive one after another economic downturn with relatively small and quick healing battle scar of economic recession.

This period also witnessed the baton of premiership handed over from Lee Kuan Yew to Goh Chok Tong to our present prime minister Lee Hsien Loong who is the eldest son of Lee Kuan Yew. The issue of cabinet remuneration and sustainable leadership quality was maturely brought up in the open as a discussion point for the public to opined on. The basic argument being that we cannot expect a quality leadership to bring Singapore into the next leap on an altruistic only basis and a comparatively pittance financial reward. A novel model was brought to bear that benchmarked the political leaders and top civil servants salaries against the top n earners of the captains of various industries like lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. The application of the model had the effect of pushing up the salaries of the these leaders fairly substantially. The basis of which was that it would be a model that will serve us well in good and bad times as the cabinet salaries would decline if the top salaries were to decline in an economic downturn and provides for a certain level of social equity as well.

My basic belief being that poorly remunerated political leaders and top civil servants might lead be linked to poor economic performance but high remuneration is not a pre-condition for good economic performance and might not guarntee good economic performance in most cases.

First of all, we shall try to proxy good economic performance against a basket of indicators and this is not perfect or the best but would suffice for this discourse. The proxies are:

-GDP or GNP

-GDP or GNP compounded growth

-Measurement of government participation in economy - Fiscal Budget/GDP or GNP
-Years in power of head of state
-% of popular votes to ruling party
-% of seats controlled by ruling party
-Gini index
-UN Human Development Index

Our closest neighbour Malaysia has a parallel in having an iconic leader helm the top post for many terms. Mahatair Mohamed in the case of Malaysia and Lee Kuan Yew in the case of Singapore. Fortunately or unfortunately, both countries does not have a ruling to limit the number of terms the prime minister can stay in office like in USA where it is limited to 2 terms. We shall measure USA differently on this proxy in terms of number of presidents that managed to serve their maximum two term. It is indeed a good record as Bush, Clinton, Ragean all did two two terms. It was only in recent past that Malaysia saw some movement after Mahatair stepped down. In both countries, it is not invisible that both iconic leaders continue to enjoy some influence over the political landscape even though they are no longer prime ministers.

Peter Lye aka lkypeter
Safe Harbor
Please note that information contained in these pages are of a personal nature and does not necessarily reflect that of any companies, organizations or individuals. In addition, some of these opinions are of a forward looking nature. Lastly the facts and opinions contained in these pages might not have been verified for correctness, so please use with caution. Happy Reading. Copyrights of all contents in this blog belongs to Peter Lye unless stated otherwise.