What Raffles could have taught the PAP

In Political governance on 25/02/2013 at 5:28 am

Executive summary: Gd intentions are not enough; move on fast, and mud sticks: in short, life can be most unfair.

Uncle Leong’s latest piece on AIM(, reminded me that I had planned to write about what Raffles could have taught the PAP in its handling of AIM’s contract with PAP town councils. But the Punggol East by-elections and the Population White Paper crowded out the piece. So it got KIVed and then forgotten until Uncle Leong’s piece reminded me of it.)

Over the December hols, I read a very interesting book, “Raffles and the British Invasion of Java”( for more details). As I was finishing the book, the AIM story was developing fast and furious. What struck me was that Raffles got himself into a bit of bother over a similar incident.

But before I go into the details, let me give some background.

When Raffles died, his crowning achievement in the view of his contemporaries was not the founding of S’pore (it was still a work in progress: it was loss making) but his lieutenant-governorship of Java from 1811- 1816. Westminster Abbey has a memorial statue to him erected a few years after his death. The inscription reads: “To the memory of Sir Thomas Stamford Raffles … Lieut. Governor of Java … he raised Java to happiness and prosperity unknown under former rulers”. (While “first President of the Zoological Society of London” was the other achievement inscribed on the memorial, S’pore was not mentioned.)

His career went downhill after Java. It was so bad that after his resignation in 1823 on grounds of ill-health, he was investigated for various financial irregularities. He was cleared but to show his employer’s displeasure at his conduct, he was sent a bill in 1826 for £20,000 (now around £1m). He died shortly afterwards.

As to his rule of Java, Dutch sources and historians disagree with the view of British historians and biographers that he brought prosperity to Java. So does the author of the book I read. To them, he failed to improve the lives of the Javanese.

Now to what the PAP and in particular Dr Teo Ho Pin  could have learned from Raffles.

He had told his employer, the East India Company, that Java would be profitable for the shareholders.

But he was wrong. To try to cover part of the cost of invading and governing Java, he sold some land by way of auction. But he was a member of the consortium that won the auction. Knowledge of his participation became public (to be fair to him, he never hid his participation), people complained publicly, and he had to sell his share in the consortium, at cost, to try to avoid the issue from escalating.

He justified his action by saying he did it to instill confidence: that the fact that he was willing to invest should have encouraged other bidders. His boss, who liked him (and who had wanted to conquer Java from the Dutch irrespective of the cost) told him that he did not doubt Raffles’ good intentions, but it was bad judgment to be a member of the consortium.

Raffles was impeached although the judge dropped the charge after investigating the matter. But the incident dogged him in later life, when the East India Company investigated his financial affairs after his retirement: the issue was raked over again. Actually, the directors didn’t like him because he was into empire-building (literally), when all they wanted were profits. Raffles never ever made money for the East India Company. He was a true-blue predecessor of our SAF scholars, he spent money other people’s money, never made it. For the record, the SAF chief, scholar, Temask MD, now CEO of NOL, has reported yet another loss. And Desmond Quek, another scholar and SAF chief, has admitted that SMRT’s costs can only go up.

To be fair, even Raffles’ many enemies and critics conceded that unlike many other East India Company officials, he wasn’t making money on the side, and that unlike many other officials, he retired poor. Still the Java land sale is a blot on his reputation and judgment.

Will the AIM incident result in a similar permanent blemish on the PAP’s “whiter than white” uniform? In the case of Raffles, mud from the land sale stuck, even though he was cleared of financial impropriety.

And is the PAPpies call for a tender, their way of trying deescalate the issue: if someone else does the job, then AIM is history and we will be asked to “move on”.

Of course if AIM takes part in the tender and wins (remember it helped draw up the tender specifications, all hell will break lose. Knowing the competency of the PAPpies today (think Kate Spade Tin, Hri Kumar, Ms Fool, Dr Teo, Dr Lim, GCT, Mah Bow Tan, Raymond Lim and Wong Can’t Sing), no prizes for predicting that AIM will win the tender.

And to think that the PAP was known for its competency, while the WP was known to be the home of bicycle thieves, loonies and economic illiterates. Those were the days, my friends; when we were young.

  1. Today is the day-From military dictatorship to liberal democracy to lady president-S.Korea
    Dictator’s Daughter Park Geun Hye Returns to S. Korea President Mansion after Thirty-four years
    By Sangwon Yoon – Feb 25, 2013 12:00 AM GMT+0800

  2. […] Thoughts of a Cynical Investor: What Raffles could have taught the PAP – Yawning Bread: Book: Authoritarian Rule of Law, by Jothie […]

  3. Our population should never reach the Hong Kong type of populations level of 7 millions, Hong kong is way too overcrowded, their houses are tiny, dirty and unhygienic expecially,where the poorer populations live. 100k of them live in cages, due to overpopulations and less resources to take care of them?

    Our target of 18 million tourist arrivals in 2016, now already extreme overcrowding our transport system compare to the 90s and our MRT frequently breakdown due to overstrain on the system, and put a heavy strain on our system and reduce our productivities,when the who trains of workers went to work late and overcrowding of facilities? We should not keep overstretch until breaking point.

    Any severe flood like a tsunami will put our country in heavy crisis

    By 2020 could be 22 millions of tourist arrivals. Don’t forget overcrowding is related to climate change? Polician might have their own agenda of keep bringing people here?

    Numerous death recorded in Hong KOng 2003 SAR:

    Wiki: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is a viral respiratory disease in humans which is caused by the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV).[1] Between November 2002 and July 2003, an outbreak of SARS in Hong Kong nearly became a pandemic[citation needed], with 8,273 cases and 775 deaths worldwide[2] (9.6% fatality)

    Due to overcrowding, unhygienic living conditions.

    Every effort should put in to improve our local populations standard of living, stop the importing of people strategy to grow our population, which had very negative side effects?

    Hong KOng stock and properties market collapse billions were wipe out, many bankrupt in 2003 SAR crisis.

    We should not take chances, the most long term should be restricted to only 5.6 or 300k more, only specific persons that can reduce our income gap then we bring them in, like inventors, innovators & designers, people from creative industries, artists etc.

    Can we reduce our populations from 5.3m to 5m? What do you think?

    With smaller populations, we can enjoy very high standard of living due to their larger space, not through they have lot of resources as in Nordic countries, many countries has lot of resources but failed to make use of it? Having lots of resources doesn’t means the countries rich and have a high standard of living? Some has mismanage their resources? With a large populations how can we have a higher standard of living, the reverse is true? The skills that develop it is more important, a designer from Japan buy the teak wood and sell to the S’pore hotel ten times its original price, that he designed?

    Should we lower our ministers pay to 20 percent more then the Nordic ministers pays, so that they don’t need to think of kept importing people to justify their pay? An concentrate of improving the life of present populations, something wrong if you tell people you improve the standard of living by importing people?

    We got to consider our children, they got difficulties to complete with the cheaper imports in the future, if both parents and children jobs were taken away, Singapore will be in trouble more poor people to take care?

    Hong Kong poor people need more then 100k of low cost housing, but they are unable to provide in near term?

    Do you want our Singaporean jobs to be taken away and sleep in the beach or street?

    The Nordic countries spent much money in developing their locals, so that they can best contribute to the society and retired happily, without worrying about their children future.

    They never use this method of importing people because of very high social cost? Many similar countries manage their countries and economies well with low population

    Every effort should be put, to develop and grow our SME and train our locals to multi-tasking, improve work processes, develop better working methods, make new inventions & products, better services, automation, innovations, increase efficiency, lower costs, reduce wastage, reduce reliance on foreign companies which they usually look for the cheapest workers, and cheapest foreign workers?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: