at the rate our extraordinarily talented mm goes round putting
down other countries, i believe we will see more of the
below:
http://www.mrbiao.com/blog/danish-citizen-responds-to-mm-lees-mediocre-government-comment.html
April 23rd, 2007 by mrbiao
Today, I received an interesting comment from a reader all the way
from Denmark. Here is his well-researched and insightful response,
reproduced in full.
I read with interest Mentor Minister Lee Kuan Yews remark in
Singapores Parliament that Denmark, Finland and Switzerland can
afford mediocrity in the remuneration of their ministers.
I shall restrict my observations to Denmark and Finland.
These 2 Nordic countries reward their leaders, in both the private
and public sectors, somewhat less handsomely than Singapore.
Despite this, I would suggest that both countries governments are
by no means mediocre, and neither have they evinced any indication
of being able to afford it.
Finland has managed to weather the collapse of the Soviet Union in
the early 90s, a market for 20% of its exports, in no small part
due to its successful transformation from a resource-based to a
knowledge-based economy. Its leading multinational, Nokia, is the
market leader in the mobile telecommunications industry, with a
global market share of 36% in the manufacture of mobile phones
(Q42006) and revenues of 41.121 billion (2006). While most of the
credit for this success story can be attributed to the Finnish
private sector, Finlands government had a significant role to play
in creating the optimal framework for the flourishing of the
technology sector. From the mid 1960s onwards, there were special
efforts to expand higher education, with a law on higher education
passed in 1966, the result being that Finns are some of the most
well-educated people in the world.
The Finnish government was also instrumental in pushing for the
promotion of GSM as the European mobile telephony standard, based
on the Nordic countries experience of NMT, an earlier, pan-Nordic
standard. The early adoption of GSM in Finland provided the
platform for Nokias global breakthrough. Decades before the global
liberalization of telecommunications markets in the 1990s,
Finlands telecoms market had already been liberalized, and thus
had possibly the worlds most competitive market for telecom
operators and equipment makers. Credit for this is in no small part
due to the role of the Finnish government. Finland devotes a higher
percentage of its GNP to research and development than most
countries, and the role of the government has been critical,
especially in the early 90s, where public-funded research increased
despite recession.
In the case of Denmark, the government made the decision in the
1970s to intensify research into renewable energy. Important
research was carried out at Risoe, the government research centre,
into wind energy. It took political courage to subsidize feeder
tariffs for wind turbine-produced electricity. That decision has
paid off handsomely. Today, Danish-based companies have a global
market share of ca. 50% in the manufacture of wind turbines, an
industry with global annual growth rates of 30%, and estimated
revenues of 10 billion (2006, est.). Indeed Denmarks Vestas has
recently set up engineering and research facilities in
Singapore.
In more general terms, I would submit that both countries systems
and governments are not mediocre, and are like Singapores, acutely
aware of not being able to afford it. Rather than Europe being
there to catch Finland and Denmark should they falter, both
countries have been net contributors to the European Union budget
since their accession. Mediocrity is not a hallmark of either
society either. In the last 30 years, both countries, despite their
small populations, have produced individuals who have won Olympic
gold medals, Oscars and Nobel Prizes. They have produced New
Economy pioneers, for example Finlands Linus Torvalds, the creater
of Linux (an open-source operating system and competitor to
Microsofts Windows) and Denmarks Janus Friis, co-founder of Skype
(a peer-to-peer telephony application).
In conclusion, both countries positions as globally competitive
economies and high-achieving societies have been attained against
the backdrop of low corruption levels, and high levels of trust
between citizens and government, and seemingly despite high taxes
and comprehensive welfare states. This has not required
stratospheric levels of remuneration of government leaders and
officials.
Mr. Gregory Glen
Holstebro, Denmark
