Future of a simple man

by Thomas Sim, 9 Dec, 2000

Different people have their different view on what the future will be. One sure thing, the future will be quite the same like now - people resist change basically.

Competition intensifies because of two basic reasons, demographic and technology. Competition will be fueled by increased in population and threats with the speed of information flow. Therefore, whatever idea you might have, if it makes money, it will be copied and refined like what the Japanese did. This time by people near you or even, in nautical miles away from you, everyday and ever will be!

Big corporations will get bigger, and owners of these corporations will definitely get richer. The poor workers will get pressed, and if lucky, dream of becoming part of the owners by speculating in the stock exchange, for a little piece of meat of the mother mover. Remember, not all countries are like the mother US, where anti-trust law may be help to offer a check and balance. And also remember, Policeman is also human, they are subjected to temptation and desire!

Not everyone has the money and brain to be the Mover. It seems that everyone can be the Worker. For a simple man, I reckon that we should strike to be the Regulator. A Regulator makes a better worker than a worker alone. The future scenario will be very much like now, that the Movers pay the Workers and the Regulators are possibly funded by both parties or even by tax collections from the general public.An example is the scenario in corporate governance. The shareholders (the Movers)invest in the business. The employees (managers and officers) do the work to earn money for the shareholders. The Regulators (auditors, secretaries and directors) regulate the business activities to make sure that what shareholders' objectives are pursued by the managers and officers in return for a piece of cake out of it. In this, who is to regulate the Regulators? The answer is many. It could be the Movers because they are the Bosses. May be it is the Workers because they are the taxpayers - by legislation of the Parliament.

As we all know if the source of income is not dependent on solely one party, we are not too ill pressed by circumstances. It is just like putting your eggs in a few baskets. But! How about the risk they are exposed to? How about their competitive environment? What about returns? I don't want to be policeman to be paid peanuts!

Think of the requirements to be a Regulator first. They are relied on by the Mover and the Workers (general public) to regulate or in layman's term to decide the rules of the game. They are usually professionals of their own field or else, who trust them? People do not like to be policed, and if forced, will resist and retaliate. Therefore, the Regulator needs to be protected by the law and be good at self-defense. Because of these requirements, they need to be of certain qualifications to qualify the standard of reliability and integrity. There is usually a requirement of independence or self-regulation. Thirdly, there is the question of liability. Hence, the question of return.If they are not well paid, they might offer themselves to be bribed - as we all know and probably have given some too! If they are not qualified, they are not effective and standard of 'rule of the game' is not kept consistent. If they are not liable, they become dictators - simply make rules for themselves, at their own favour. So what do you think? Surely, they are paid better than the Workers!

I think the answer is obvious. If you have read until here, and not realized what I mean, I am a poor writer. Anyway, who are the regulators? Are they the policemen only? Some examples of a regulator: Company Secretary, Auditor, Accountant, Engineer, Doctor (to some extent), Lawyer and Court Judges (to a great extent), Pharmacist, Surveyor, Government Regulatory bodies like Securities Commission, KLSE and the Police force.

One of the ways to differentiate a Regulator from a Worker is by legislation enacted by the Parliament. For example, the Companies Act 1965 specifies under section 139(1) that every company should have at least a company secretary.

Section 139A again specifies the qualification of a company secretary to be member of the prescribed body. At the time of writing, MAICSA, MIA, MICPA, Malaysian BAR and MACS are professional bodies whose members are vested with the power to act as company secretaries. Legislation of a similar nature are enacted to govern the other professions.