Should there be a "gang" in the Board of Directors?

I strongly agree that a director should step down if he thinks he can no longer be effective.

But is it appropriate for a director to step down for reason that he could no longer be effective in the absence of his "gang" in the board? Let me cite a recent occurrence of this "gang" thingy.

Prof Cham Tao Soon, who was elected to Robinson's board during AGM in mid Oct 2006, resigned in early Nov 2006. He said that he felt he could not carry on since his fellow independent directors - Ms Chew Gek Khim and Mr Winston Tan - were 'abandoning ship'.

Ms Chew, Mr Tan and Prof Cham had offered themselves for election. The shareholders had voted for them during the AGM. They were duly elected to the Robinson's Board. They must have assessed their individual ability to contribute prior to acceptance for nomination. The shareholders who voted for them must have agreed that each of them can contribute. There was no representation from Prof Cham prior to election that he could not be effective in the absence of the other two.

In Siow Li Sen's Business Times article dated 16 Nov 2006, some degree of "collegiate" atmosphere within a board is necessary to maximise their contribution to the business and shareholders.

What is appropriate?
The jury is still out in slowly maturing corporate governance scene in Singapore. As of now, it certainly leaves a sour taste in my mouth.