myth 131

Beware of your supporters! This guy dug a hole in the middle of the road. Then he went to his master and assured him the road ahead was all rosy. And together with a few more followers they cheered their master as he gingerly tip toed ahead towards the hole.

down with silly virtues and idealism

Virtues and benevolence in public office are passe I read with amazement, Chua Mui Hoong's article that in the present new age of Moneyism, old virtues should be dumped. Forget about Confucianism. Just think Money with a capital M. She also said that only the ministers and PAP MPs were strongly in support of high pay for ministers and the opposing voices came from the opposition and NMPs. This is only a simple generalisation as some MPs also spoke candidly about their opposition. What I am uneasy about is whether Chua Mui Hoong is extolling the new virtues of money talks? No money no talks. No money no public service, no passion for service to nation and people. Sacrifice is now an anachronism. And she put it as if this is what the new generation of Singaporeans are today. Is that a true picture? Are the people all so money minded? Are there no longer any saints or heroes among Singaporeans who would work just for a paltry $1 million in public service? Are chivalry, duty and honour, all to be dumped into the waste bin? I am wondering what are we teaching our young in schools today? I am also wondering what are we telling our soldiers and our civil servants? Would every Singaporean walk into his boss' office and ask, 'How much?'

work ethics and public assistance recipients

Public Assistance Recipients These people are defined 'as those with no kin nor any means to support themselves due to age, illness or disability.' What kind of work ethics can we expect from these people?

Defending an Indefensible position

Defending an Indefensible position An article by Jasmine Yin in the Today paper tried to defend the position that it is justifiable to pay ministers the million dollar payrise and $1 extra a day for the destitute. And it was argue that the two were separate issues and had 'no logical linkage'. Come on lah, the linkages are so loud and clear for all to see. Only the blind or those who refused to see them would say so. And it was also said that 'Money is not an issue'. What the f... Money is THE issue. If not, all these debate, all the time and resources would not have been spent to justify the million dollar increase. What I want to say is that the $290 for the poor and the multi million dollars for the ministers are very delicately intertwined. One is a social issue that the govt must look after. The other is the pay for the people who are going to look after this issue. How can $290 a month be enough when more than a million cannot be enough? It is all about public service. People who want to make millions must not think of making the millions from taxpayers money. There are many avenues to make the millions. Taxpayers money is to pay a reasonable rate for the passionate people who want to look after the nation and people. Not for cold logical people who want to be multi millionaires and still want the power of public service. Obviously after the debate, both in the media and parliament, many people do not agree with the increase and are unhappy with it. It is the people's view that matters. Maybe not. Maybe it is the decision makers' view that matters.

More than just MONEY

More than just MONEY Balaji Sadasivan finds more value in being a Minister of State, earning lesser money, than being a practising neurosurgeon. The position of a Minister or Minister of State is a position of a national leader and cannot be measured simply in monetary terms. So what if someone is making several millions more? A minister, the appointment as a minister, the role or function of a minister is much much more. A minister is a much respected and honoured member of our society. He is someone to be looked up to, a leader, a guardian of the people and nation. Let us not degrade the value of a minister and the respect and honour due to such a position and compare them to money. Money is just money, to be earned and spent. It is not recognised as anything worthy except as as a commodity. We should accord more respect to our political office just like in developed countries. Why would so many successful people want to take up political offices and assume the role of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers, and getting lesser income? Do they take up public office because they can take more under table money? Obviously not. These positions are positions of authority, of fame, of recognition, of being part of history. How can we equate them with cheap money? We should cease comparing the value of political office with money. For all the money that a person may earn, he is never in the same standing as the political leaders of a nation. Balaji knows when he chose to remain as a Minister of State. It is a greater honour. Money cannot buy such positions. Can it? And I am not even talking about the power that comes with it. Why is it that historically many leaders will just cling on to the seat of power and refused to let go?

a gaffe, to correct or not to correct

Singapore Press Club gets it right the second time 'It has been an embarrassing start for the new management of the Singapore Press Club. The first order of business was to correct a gaffe.... A news report in the ST, based on the circular, triggered a flurry of email among club members and office bearers, with one describing the circular as "misleading and inaccurate" and urging that it be withdrawn immediately. Another member wrote "the record does need to be set straight" but added that it would be a "shame if issuing a correction to members is at the ocst of any embarrassment to..." A third member who said he was uncomfortable with the circular wrote "we need to quickly control the damage".' The above was reported in the Today paper on the mistake made regarding the appointment of Patrick Daniel as the 'new First Vice President" of the Press Club but there was no such position. The mistake was later corrected by Leslie Fong.

Appropriate sense of proportion

Appropriate sense of proportion I worked up this morning with a few old songs ringing in my head. The first one goes like this, 'If you want it, here it is come and get it. But you gotta hurry costs it may not last.' The second one was by the rock group the Monkeys, and it goes like this, 'Money, money, money. Must be money. It's a mad, mad world.' How could one explain why people can correlate the same thing to different things? For instance you point to a dog and a child will scream 'dog.' You point it to a teenager, and he will shout 'pet.' And you point it to a foreign worker, he will shout 'food.' So don't be surprised when you show someone a $600,000 bill and the person shouts 'peanut.' It is all about circumstances and experience in life. Some people count the number of zeros behind the number and some count the zeros in front of it. Once they get use to them, it becomes second nature. $30 is huge to someone who is used to get by with $260 a month. That is more than 10%. A few million is small change to those who are used to the numerous zeros behind the number. So the recipient of the $30 will be very grateful. But the recipient of the millions may not. For $1, I have been worshipped like a god by a bicycle cab peddlar. The ride was $1 but I gave him $2 instead. He immediately dropped on his knees and prayed to me like he was praying to Buddha. That extra $1 was a windfall to him. This story only tells the right sense of proportion at different level of society. It is a different world to different people. It is a mad mad world.

PAP's most severe test in 40 years

PAP's most severe test in 40 years Shall I or shouldn't I put my frank assessment of this current crisis facing the PAP after the controversial decision to raise ministerial pay? I emphasise, the issue is ministerial pay and not the increment for the civil servants. Though the main stream media is trying to do its best to present a picture that the people are mostly in support of this decision, the truth is far from it. And they have bungled badly. I know that no one would be happy with the messenger of bad news. But the situation has deteriorated so far that only the blind would fail to see the true picture. Until today, I have yet to hear an honest person telling me that all is well and the ministerial pay is a good thing and a welcome thing. So I will try to be as diplomatic as possible to tenderly touch on the unpleasant truth. Actually, the whole ugly episode can be akin to the severance of a strong bond between the government and the governed, painstaking built over a period of 40 years. With this bad decision, the Red Sea was parted. This is truly a very bad judgement call of unbelievable proportion. The debate in parliament was clearly divisive with many MPs trying very hard to express their disagreement without breaking rank. It's negative impact is like the NKF but at a national scale. For those who spoke out in favour of this move they would have to live with the consequences of their misjudgement in times to come. Hsien Loong must have sensed the seriousness of the temper on the ground and is trying to do some damage control by announcing that he will freeze his own pay, to gain some moral authority on this issue. Unfortunately the damage is quite devastating if one really and honestly try to feel the ground. It was a tough decision and a tough call. The worst thing is that it was seen as self serving. The people find it hard to see how this is to benefit them and not the ministers. The obvious is just too obvious. The cardinal rule that one must not decide to benefit one's self interest has been broken. The objective and honourable justifications become irrelevant. Would any minister or the President have the temerity to hang on to the pay increase and still think that the people will see them the same way as before? Like it or not, it is the people and their perception that matters, not the clever arguments in parliament. It is right to say that it is an emotional issue. But the logic and reasoning also failed miserably to convince the people that it is the right and necessary thing to do. People are free to disagree with my assessment. But the question now is how the PAP is going to turn this around and regain the confidence and trust of the people? The moral ground, the moral authority has been severely undermined. It is not a right or wrong thing to do. It may sound logical on paper. But if the government cannot sell it and the people refuse to buy it, it becomes a disaster. It is politics and a political decision, and the reaction of the people is political and yes, emotional.

White House official floored by our Ministerial Pay

White House official floored by our Ministerial Pay He shouldn't be. It takes tremendous skills and ability to be able to push through such a motion without the people protesting. The White House official should also deserve a huge payrise if he can get it pass Congress for a similar motion.

myth 130

Myth 130 Singapore leaders are the highest paid in the world 'The Taiwanese media reported on Monday that our Prime Minister's salary is 10 times that of their President's...their President gets a private jet, spending millions with each overseas trip, whereas our Prime Minister only gets to travel first class on Singapore Airlines.' Ong Ah Heng At least we have the Taiwanese who are paid more than us. And they are also facing corruption charges while we are clean.

making tough decisions

'Even if a person has a wonderful brain, without the hands, legs, eyes, nose and ears, he cannot function effectively. We need to pay top civil servants well, but we must not forget the rest of the public service.' Halimah Yacob. In the past when pay increases were implemented, everyone would get roughly the same percentage, a little plus and minus. And then the lower income will get a lump sum which actually boosted their percentage to a very high level. It was all because everyone knew that in percentage terms, the higher income will get that much more. 10% of $100k is $10k. 10% of $1k is $100. Today, there is no attempt to be apologetic. The ministers are going to get something like 25% increase. And at the lower end, something like 14% ot 33%. And in absolute terms, the amount is in hundreds of thousands against a few hundred bucks at the lower end. This is indeed a very tough and unpopular decision. They really deserve to be paid the huge increase for having the nerves and toughness to make such an unpopular decision, all for the good of the people. We need strong leaders who can make tough decisions like this one.

A profound quote

A profound quote 'As responsible leaders, we must be careful not to leave behind a system or structure that combines power and monetary rewards to such high levels, where incumbents are so handcuffed by this lethal combination that they find it hard to let go.' Denise Phua Ah Kow and his party will be waiting in the wing, and with our stupid electorate, one day Ah Kow and his party is going to be elected into power. And yes, they will not let go. With so much power and money for the taking, who would want to let go?

The formula is flawless

The formula is flawless The timing is right. The methodology is good. The amount is just right. The assumptions and reasonings are all well thought out. In other words, it is flawless, the best formula there is. Chee Hean has all the answers to queries, questions and objections. And all were answered perfectly to the satisfaction of every questioner. Any more questions? But I find this quote quite difficult to understand. 'If a person is motivated by money, then even a low salary has its dangers.' Teo Chee Hean I am still trying to understand the essence of this quote. But the people can rest assured that all the politicians are not motivated by money. For if they are, they would have been dismissed long ago.

A matter of values and perception

A matter of values and perception Who says the ministerial salary is high? There will be those who say the ministers are underpaid for whatever reasons. And there will be those who say that it is too high, unreasonable and unjustifiable. And some will be very angry that you say so and will tell you how important they are and that they should be paid even higher. It all depends on who you are, which angle one is looking at it and also whether you have a vested interest in it. Better not ask a minister if his salary is high. Better not ask Ng Eng Heng as he is famous for earning $4 million a year. Can we ask ministers who used to earn $200k, if there is one? And also don't ask an aspiring minister. His answer will be too obvious. Or shall we ask the people if the salary is high? Who should it matter whether the salary is high or low? Does it matter to anyone at all? I think it does not matter to anyone. Everyone will have his own view on this, right or wrong. Life goes on. Let's move on.

hard questions in parliament

Samples of Hard Questions raised in Parliament 'My Greatest worry is that an open ended linkage between ministerial salaires and top earners,...could in the long run undermine the moral authority the Govt needs to lead the people...' NMP Siew Kum Hong 'There are others who feel our Govt leaders are paid to much compared to other countries...This comparison is grossly unfair.... The key issue here is that of opportunity cost. If our ministers decide not to be ministers...chances are they'll be head honchos of some of our listed companies....' NMP Gautam Banerjee 'With the right leaders, no amount is too much. With not the right leaders, any amount sees too much- that is the heart of the issue.' MP Alvin Yeo 'I believe that the great public interest generated...serves as a timely reminder for those of us in public office that we are measured by the extent of our active compassion for our fellow citizens.' Mayor Zainudin Nordin '...the senior civil servants will never, ever have to face a downward cycle because it is pegged to the salaries of top earners (in the private sector) and there will always be top earners.' MP Lim Biow Chuan The issue is about timing. 'Has the PM lost a single minister or a perm sec? I think the issue is not as urgent as it's made out to seem....about a month ago, debating and arguing why we shouldn't be giving our Public Assistance recipients - some 3,000 of them - another $100...and now we are talking about million dollar salary increases.' MP Inderjit Singh 'What signals are we sending Singaporeans?' Inderjit Singh '....We believe there is no need for enormously large salaries to attract and retain the right talent... It's also ironic that we are consuming taxpayers' money and discussing how much more of a fraction of a million to pay civil servants and ministers while we haggle over additional tens of dollars to hand out to our needy and disadvantaged citizens.' MP Low Thia Khiang '...ministers in other countries may make more money after their term in office ends, such as through public speaking.' Well spoken by MP Josephine Teo

How much is your IQ?

How much is your IQ? The intelligence or ability of Singaporeans is measured by how much the person earns. The more he earns the higher is his intelligence and the more qualified he is to run the country. At least that is about what it means during the discussion on ministerial salary over the last few days and in Parliament. We need to pay competitive salary, actually means very high salary, to attract good people, which means people earning very high salary, to be in the govt. People like Wee Cho Yaw, Ng Teng Fong, Ong Beng Seng and Quek Leng Beng, or Sim Wong Hoo, or our Popiah King, or the former Remisier King, will be excellent candidates for the next election. Unfortunately the salary for ministers is still too low to attract them. Mahamat Gandhi, the pauper, will not qualify as a talent in our context. So will Deng Xiao Ping. Or for that matter, all the Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world who earn less than a peanut, will not be good enough for us. Our talents can now briefly be classified under $300,000 a month Top Super Talent or TST. The next level is $30,000 a month Super Talent or ST. The $3000 a month talent should be familiar to all, the FT or Foreign Talent. At the lowest level, the $300 a month NT, No Talent. And one group that I have left out or best forgotten, the ULT, Unwanted Local Talent, found only in overseas market. Some can be found hiding behind the wheels of taxis.

good news!

Good news! 'MINISTERS' salary will rise to $1.6 million from $1.2 million by end of this year. Announcing the pay rise, Minister in-charge of civil service, Teo Chee Hean said on Monday, ministers' pay will be raised further to $1.94 million by end of 2008.' posted by legolas in YPAP forum. Let's hope the ministers are happy with the pay rise and we can have a clean and honest govt. Singaporeans are so lucky that they are not asking for the full offset of the shortfall according to the formula.

Don't expect hefty payrise

Don't expect hefty payrise Hay Group, a human resource consultancy, has cautioned that payrise would be in the range of 2.8% to 3.2% for professionals and senior management. And the reason, according to its MD Roland Ruiz, 'Singapore's current salary levels are already among the highest in the region, which explains the smaller percentage growth.'

Ministerial Pay Debate

Ministerial Pay Debate Today is the day for Parliament to debate on the issue of Ministerial Pay. Let me summarise the justifications put forth so far. 1. The formula said so. According to the formula, the minister's pay is below the bench mark by $1 mil. 2. If we don't pay them the govt may become corrupt. 3. Or they may be poached by Morgan Stanley or other American companies and be paid $5 mil or more. 4. No talented people will come forward to serve. 5. Our women folks will become maids. 6. Singaporeans and the economy will suffer. While there will be a debate, I just read in the paper that there will be no voting. No need to vote? That means it will be passed. Anyway, the MPs promise to ask tough questions. Might as well since the decision has already been made and nothing they said will change the outcome. So far Dr Lim Wee Kiak has said the smartest thing. 'Instead of waiting a few years and doing a big adjustment, why not do a small adjustment every year.' Yeah man, just like bus fare increases. A little at a time, looks more affordable. $1 million increase spread out over 5 years, $200,000 a year. I hope the MPs will also ask where in the world can one earns a life time pension after serving 8 to 10 years in a job? And also it is acceptable and reasonable for people who is to benefit from the pay rise be allowed to put up the supporting reasons and decide on it as well? Don't we need an independent third party that has no interest in the formula to make the proposal and decision? But then again, where to find an independent party that has no vested interest? And with such compelling reasons put forward, how to disagree? I will abstain from commenting on the compelling reasons and let the MPs comment about them in Parliament.

Means Testing is back

Means Testing is back People opt for C wards mainly for two reasons. The first is affordability. The second is an age old wisdom called thrift. For those who are hard on their cash flow, looking at the statistics provided in the MSM, probably 50% of the population will be hardup when faced with a huge hospitalisation bill, this is understandable. The other of course is a great virtue, thrift, spending within your means so that one will not become a burden to other people or society. And no one knows how much one really needs to have to be enough. Thus being thrifty is the best guarantor to be self sufficient. Should our official policy frown on people being thrifty and choose to endure the lesser comfort of a C ward than the creature comfort of A and B wards? There is subsidy and so people are deemed to cheat or deprive others from the subsidy. Good reason. I will never be a cheat because I have a million in my saving. Not yet actually. Still waiting for the Toto winning to fill it up. Maybe next week. When there are so many people demanding for C wards, it means that there is a genuine need for such level of services. It is good reasoning to say that we must always level up, upgrade the quality of our services. Who does not want that? Unfortunately, the income of most people are not levelling up. Many have stagnated and going downhill and would make do with lesser quality of services. Insurance and Medisave are not a real alternatives. They suck away the little cash that the lower income people have for other necessities in living. These people have limited income and any amount stased away for medical uses will mean that some thing has to go. And if we let this great quality of medical service and cost to runaway, it will only mean that the lower income earners are going to be poorer overall. It is a zero sum game when every cent counts.