CBF is better

The shock therapy of Lim Chong Yah is facing immediate resistance. It is flawed in many ways. In the first place it was not a sought after advice. Nobody asks for it. So it looks like a ‘keh khian’ or smart alec type of proposal. The saying in paradise is to be smart but don’t act too smart. And do not give advice if not asked for.

The second problem with the therapy is that it is free. There is no need to pay a million or two to consult a foreign expert to work on it. Things that are free are not good. And there is no angmoh element to give it some weight?

The third flaw, it seems, is that it is from a different camp type of thing. It is like everything from the opposition is bad. Only the super talents can come up with good solutions. I can bet the next salvo of questions will be something like, how is he going to pay for this therapy? Chen Show Mao already kenna from this kind of questioning. And Tan Jee Say also got it for his $6o billion restructuring programme. Both failed because there is no money to pay for them.

Come to think of it, giving 50% increment to the pay of workers is too far fetch a dream to come true. The workers will not accept it. The workers will prefer to go for CBF, cheap, better and faster solution. That is a sustainable solution in the long term. It has been in practice with full support from the tripartite arrangement or the holy trinity. Our workers only believe in the trinity and will not want the proposed 50%. They are happy as they are.

And the audacity to freeze the salary of top talents for 3 years is unthinkable. You want them to suffer, you want their life style to be painfully affected, you want them to be quitters?

The shock therapy is a no go from the word go. Now everyone will be asking for the blood of the good old professor. He should have done the politically correct thing, freeze the worker’s and raise the super talent’s salary by 50% over the next 3 years and receive all the praises and recognition.

Meanwhile someone may be thinking of lining up a team of super foreign talents with super consultancy fee to go with to counter this outrageous therapy. It must be done as the non economists and the layman politicians would not have the credentials or ability to shaft this recommendation down the longkangs in the usual way. This therapy must be exposed and every point rebutted to show that it cannot work.


Matilah_Singapura said...

Most people don't have economics degrees, nor do they need to have one to spot a DUD.

You cannot simply increase low pay and freeze the high pay. This will lead to all sorts of problems and it is correctly labelled "very risky".

The amount individual persons earn earn in a (relatively) free-wheeling labour market is a direct correlation to HOW MUCH VALUE they individually produce.

If the state forcibly INCREASES the minimum wage, businesses will tend to HIRE LESS people due to the increase in expense, and no apparent increase in productivity.

High wage earners tend to be society's most productive people. If you suppress their rewards, many of them will simply leave for better pastures or simply resign their paid positions and get rehired on A CONTRACT basis through a Pte Ltd company.

In other words, centrally attempting to control minimum and maximum wages is a failure in the making.

No matter what you do, or don't do, the fact remains that some people will earn a lot and some people will earn only a little.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Minimum Wage Laws

Matilah_Singapura said...

Govt Caused Unemployment

Minimum wage makes some people unemployed. But fear not, the govt will provide "welfare" -- taking money from those who work, redistributed to support those who are out of work, because of government's minimum wage laws.


XYZ said...

Your comment that the workers wil reject the offer of a wage increase is not as far-fetched as it might seem. Will it surprise anyone if the NTUC unions come out in the coming days rejecting the proposals and being "very risky" or "dangerous"? reminds me of the peasants in Tolsoy`s Resurrection rejecting the Count`s offer to give away his lands to them because it was too dangerous for them to be owners of the lands.

Anonymous said...

"Cheap and good."
I first heard this phrase about 25 years ago.
As a fresh graduate on my first job.
From a Sinkie trying to get me to try him out as a supplier.

This phrase stuck in my mind as a competitive tool.
I refined it in my mind to include cheap, good and fast.

After much informal discussions with colleagues over many years, I came to the conclusion that the concept is viable with one caveat.

Cheap, good and fast will only work if you choose 2 out of the 3 options. i.e.
a.Cheap and Good. Don't expect it to be fast.

b.Cheap & fast. Don't expect it to be good.

c.Fast & Good. Don't expect it to be cheap.

I don't pay one million dollar salaries to my managers to TELL my workers to be cheaper, better, faster.
My janitor can do that at a fraction of the million dollar salary.

I expect my managers to SHOW my workers HOW to be better, cheaper and faster.

Don't tell us.
Show us.
If you are a leader, lead from the front.
Only cheerleaders are allowed to shout from sidelines.
But I don't pay million dollar salaries to cheerleaders.

Anonymous said...

I get your point. Cheap, good and fast are meant for workers only. For leaders, it must not be cheap for one or it will be seen as no good.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is..money is a bad instrument to motivate people because eventually, it will corrupt behaviors.

How to dismantle the rule of money? You guys who are wiping your mouth after eating the forbidden fruit is still thinking through your assholes.

Veritas said...

You cannot simply increase low pay and freeze the high pay. This will lead to all sorts of problems and it is correctly labelled "very risky".

A guillotine will do. The French has shown us how to do with those "talent" in 1789. Yes those refined, well-educated, smarter talent are murdered in cold blood but a bunch of stupid ruffians.

The world has since then become a better place. Material well being for everyone, technological progress, emanicipation of human being, are made possible when those heads were rolling.

6000 years of human history has shown us that, everytime wage gap closes, human being progresses. The reverse it true.

Stop all your Bull shit Matilah.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Welcome back Veritas. Matilah is going to feel uncomfortable again: )

tkw said...

There was an Economic Restructuring Committee and Report in 2002/2003...including a portion on labour/wages/productivity.

Did it achieve anything or was it just an exercise of intellect...

Now, perhaps there will be another Economic Restructuring Committee and will it achieve anything too.....

Perhaps all of us should re-look at the last report and ask ourselves the tough questions...

Anonymous said...

"Perhaps all of us should re-look at the last report and ask ourselves the tough questions.."

This is good.
Time to make people accountable for what they say, do and promise.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Wow. I don't think this Veritas fellow likes me.

What a shame he cant make a decent argument. So much foe Singapore trained engineers eh?

Hur hur hur

Matilah_Singapura said...

Actually I must clarify: I hope the standard of engineering talent in Singapore is not set by this Veritas dude... who, after reading his posts you see that he's not very "competitive" in a sense that a foreigner is preffered. Perhaps the foreigner is simply better, and thus better value for them employers buck.

Anyway Veritas has pleaded with me to "stop my bulshit". But he doesn't say how to do this.

Anyway I have some 'free' advice: spend less time attacking me, and go and learn somthing to close those vacuous holes in your knowledge.

In other words, it is clear to me you need "upgrading" because you so perfectly demonstrate how really below par, and bordering on inept you are.

Good luck. At this time because of your lack of skill and intellect, all you have is LUCK ;-)

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Stop being naive would you?

Hiring on merits? So many were hired based on all the wrong reasons except on merit. But I am sure you didn't know this right?

Veritas said...

Hi Mad

Go back and study Econs 101. Show me examples where market fundamentalism don breaks down?