My Take on DPM Wong

Following the farcical escape of Mas Selamat bin Kastari from the Whitley Road detention center over four months ago, there have been repeated calls for the government officials responsible for the lapse in security to be held to account. After a lengthy investigation, punishments have been meted out to the officials running the detention center, the guards who were responsible for securing Mas Selamat and the Ministry officials supervising the detention center itself. However, it is notable that senior officials in the Ministry, up to and including Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng himself, escaped unscathed.

The DPM has been quick to reject any calls for his resignation, stating that it was counterproductive to point the finger of blame, and arguing, somewhat disingenuously, that because those individuals who bore direct responsibility for the Mas Selamat escape were so many layers removed from him in the bureaucratic hierarchy, there is no way he could be held accountable for their actions. In a well-thought out Straits Times piece on the issue of ministerial responsibility, the writer pointed it out it was a rare rather occurrence, even in Britain, for politicians to resign due to a lapse or oversight (resignations due to a matter of principle is another thing altogether). Yet, at the same time, it is difficult to run away from the fact, personified by former US President Harry S. Truman, who had an ornament on his desk bearing the inscription 'the buck stops here', that as the ultimate decision maker, the Minister in charge must be responsible in a sense. The question is to what degree?

I had a conversation with a friend who defended DPM Wong, and suggested that it would be counter-productive for him to resign. On that front, I am in general agreement. One only need recall Japanese officers ordering their men to shoot themselves, or blow themselves up with grenades (so tragically portrayed in Letters from Iwo Jima) to underline the wastefulness, the futility and in some situations utter stupidity of throwing yourself on your own proverbial sword due to the loss of honour brought about by failure. Yet, at the same time, we do admire individuals, who when faced with a extremely severe situation of their own making, acknowledge their culpability and their mistakes, and take responsibility for it.

The analogy I wish to bring to bear on this situation is that of a corporate CEO. This is particularly apt given that our Ministers earn massive salaries which are specifically linked to what top tier executives from the private sector are making. If a large corporation, such as a bank, suffers a massive loss or general poor performance for a period of time, the CEO will have to resign. The recent sub-prime mortgage crisis is a case in point. In many ways, it was a one-off, and in a sense it was an unpredictable occurrence. Surely a CEO could not have anticipated it, and should not be held directly responsible for the losses? Shareholders beg to differ - as evidenced by the resignation of a number of CEOs from some of the top banks that have suffered big losses in the crisis.

So, we come back to DPM Wong. Yes, the Mas Selamat escape was an unpredictable one-off occurrence, and of course he could not have direct control over the detention center, the staff, and the specific circumstances in which the escape took place. But so it is with corporate CEOs during the sub-prime crisis with their own staff. The rule in the cut throat world of business is simple - you captain the ship, you bear the consequences. In adopting the corporate model for salaries to our top ministers, we cannot just offer the high rewards inherent in a demanding job with a high degree of responsibility - we must also adopt the high risks inherent in such a position in the event of failure, as the two are inextricably interlinked.

The conclusion for me is inescapable. If DPM Wong had been a corporate CEO, and the equivalent of a corporate Mas Selamat had occurred, I have little doubt that he would have had to resign. Given that, it is hard to argue against the fact that the buck has to stop firmly at his feet.