Power and Influence

Differential between power and authority is so dated and infantile and needs no introduction for any exposed to introductory management and further verbiage would be waste of previous newsprint. The same might NOT be for power and influence.

Earliest record has Influence as a borrowed word from the French language around 14 century AD as an astrological term. Streaming ethereal power from the stars acting upon the character or destiny of men was described by Webster. This was when understanding of celestial or astrological bodies were more folklore and religious in origin than fact based science. One could attribute a more indirect, persuasive or even mystical intonations to it although later usage does imply the inclusion of power as one of the components.



Power on the hand according to Merriam has its etymology from a vulgar Latin root word possibly equivalent to modern day potent. It has paw prints synonymously with the likes of authority, possession, control of, establishment and most importantly force. A possible diametric complement to imply use of a large force instead of sporadic or individual sustenance can also be reasonably attributed.


The Orwellian maxim of absolute power corrupts absolutely and the USA constitution on the right to bear arms must have some parallelism as the first major constitution of republican origin. The last major preceding was most probably the magna carter under a royalist backdrop where not all man are born equal. The central theme is not gun control or anywhere near that for the matter.

Influence generally have to be earned constantly and would ebb as quickly if not faster than it rises so it is less of an issue. Power once attained can be monopolized or entrenched ad infinitum legitimately, illegitimately or pseudo legitimately. Power like opium is highly addictive and a reading of political history from ancient times to recent past will attest.

Democracy is the governance through the will of the majority represented by their candidates through regular elections for a term of about 4 - 6 years generally. The minority will therefore have to live with the will of the majority so long as their basic human endeavors are not trespassed grossly. A direct democracy is not sustainable save perhaps in utopia.

Limits on term of government like in USA to 2 terms is a possible safeguard though not perfect as a puppet or proxy could very well overcome the limitations but it is not easily mounted. The bigger challenge of limited term is the challenges of seat warming by office bearers in their final term for which there is no easy answer. If auditors of public or listed companies are beginning to be rotated, why mot politicians.

Another apparatus is the segregation between, executive branch consisting of the politicians voted into office, civil service which must be apolitical and serve the executive branch within legislature. A good read or watch of the twin volume/serial of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister by BBC would provide good public education on it in a comical setting. Last but not least is the judiciary for which independence is like the capstone of ancient architecture. Though small as compared to the rest, its absence can cause the entire structure to collapse.

There are no easy answers to such difficult questions nor should there be confrontational my way or highway which is so ancient, archaic and infantile especially for elected office bearers. A more congenial way is  a good way forward as it will make the process of any power transition less painful. Unless the incumbent is hopelessly addicted and only intends to stay forever.


Peter Lye aka lkypeter
lkypeter@gmail.com 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. Peter Lye (c) Peter Lye 2014






MediShield Zero Dollar Buffet Syndrome Part I:TheProblem– Peter LYE, February 2017

The outcome of the zero-dollar rider plans offered in a big way in November 2015 together with MediShield Life after its first anniversary should surprise no one except perhaps the government and insurance companies. Excuse me for the dry humor.

Patients on such plans wanted and expected a cost no object solution to their medical problem as they felt deserving having paid higher premiums for it.

Specialist doctors (not all) tested the beach heads on how far they can bill for their services for such patients since their insurance are paying.

Insurance companies devised plans to guard their beach heads whilst moderating behavior of customers resorting to “reasonable and customary” clauses in some cases.

Government explored soft intervention whilst busily exploring regulatory and legal options behind the scene to keep health care affordable, progressive qualitatively and waiting periods reasonable.

Supply of specialist is fixed in the short term due to limited the long post grad training periods and limited mentoring slots. For some sub-specialties, the total number in private practice is just slightly north of single digit.

Demand for specialist healthcare is also fixed in the short run though it can change with demographics. Save for aesthetics medicine and certain plastic surgery, normal people are not likely to create new demand for specialist healthcare.

One of the primary reason why specialist doctors can adjust their charges northward with less resistance is the mis-match between the consumer and payer in the short run which are faceless insurance companies with their leverage further weaken by the zero dollar clause. Consumers are cognizant that their behavior is against their interest in the longer run as premiums would rise if such trend continues unabated. The lack of direct impact of their behavior on their premiums is further marred by decaying group think as higher premiums is not a direct result of their own behavior per se but that of the group as a whole.

Perhaps the department of statistics in conjunction with ministry of health and inland revenue authority of Singapore could push the longitudinal per capita of specialists in private healthcare which hopefully will not take zillions man-hours and eons to complete in this day and age of computing capabilities.

Do tune in for my second instalment which will address the options and pros and cons which will be a difficult and treacherous topic.


Peter Lye aka lkypeter
lkypeter@gmail.com 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. Peter Lye (c) Peter Lye 2014