He acknowledged, however, that such ‘time’ is not always possible for directors, who are more often than not, fully employed and engaged with multiple commitments. Perhaps board roles should be filled by semi-retired professionals, Buerger quipped. After all, can directors really give the right advice if they do not put in the time?
Pressed for a view, Gan, the de-facto ‘regulator’ voice within the panel, said that the demands and responsibilities of directors have increased in recent years. While he generally agrees with the other panellists that a fine balance must be maintained between directors and managers, he would prefer a situation where boards start from the ‘intrusive’ side of the pendulum.
“We have many situations where boards are a little too hands-off… While the ‘correct answer’ lies somewhere in-between (non-intervention and intervention), I think it’s better to start from (the latter) and then try to move back (to the former),” said Gan, who stepped down from the SGX in March.
“It’s a lot more difficult to start from the other (non-interventionist) end, and then try to tell the director that he needs to understand the company a lot more,” he added. “The ground has shifted,” so members have to either up their game or get left behind.
Diversity is one important means by which boards can safeguard themselves from group-think. Yet, it would not be an exaggeration to say that most boards in Singapore are still, by and large, gentlemen’s clubs.
According to the 2011 Singapore Board Gender Diversity Report
, 60% of firms on the Singapore Exchange do not have a single woman on their board. Of the 5,138 directorships, 356 positions were occupied by 324 women – a paltry 6.9%.
Contrast this with Hong Kong’s 8.6%, Malaysia’s 7.8%, the UK’s 12.5%, or the 15.7% in the US. Meanwhile, Norway’s 39.5% – the highest in the world – has been attributed to the country’s gender quotas.
None of the panel speakers seemed to be in favour of such quotas for Singapore, though everyone agreed that existing gender imbalances ought to be addressed.
Gender representation is not easy to legislate, said Wong. On the one hand, legislation can encourage more women to step into arenas traditionally dominated by men, but on the other hand, it can be perceived as tokenism – the affirmative action versus meritocracy debate.
‘Meritocracy’ was the clear favourite amongst the panellists, all of whom, in their own words, argued that ability and aptitude know no gender.
“The key point is not about gender, but about competency; whether or not a director can contribute to the board and its functions,” said Choo. However, he admitted that it has been difficult to persuade women to take on directorships.
Adding to that difficulty is the fact that few Singapore females take on leadership roles, which, in turn, places women less favourably in the running for directorship positions. “It’s a chicken and egg, because we can say we’re looking for female directors, but then we don’t have enough women in leadership,” Koh noted.