Kan Seng has spoken

The police will be tough on protestors, local or foreign, who are bent to create civil disobedience. This is a warning to all who are thinking of creating trouble in the coming major events in the city state. Actually things will be much easier if a chip can be developed and implanted into every resident and visitors here. The chip can then be monitored and tracked by a master computer and linked to satellite technology. The movement of everyone will be known, who they met and where they are meeting will be totally transparent. The chips shall also have the capacity to immobilise the tagged person by the master controller when appropriate. A smarter chip can actually have programmes that can read the person's mind and any evil or criminal thought detected will trigger the chip to immobilise him. A team can then be sent out to pick him up. When such a chip and system are ready, the whole world will be a very peaceful and orderly place. Human beans can look forward to a safe and secure future.

Of power, freedom and money

In the debate on the Public Order Act the govt has made it very clear on its position on power and freedom of expression. Actually it does not need this debate to tell the story. For more than 40 years, the govt has been defining and refining its use of power to manage the people's freedom of expression and the people's money in the CPF. And all these were done for their(people's) own good. In the next election it will be good that these be made an election issue. All political parties should declare upfront their positions with respect to these issues. They should state how much freedom the people shall have, whether they can or cannot demonstrate or assemble in public, and also how they will manage the people's money in the CPF. The other key issue will be the cost of govt. How many PMs will they need, how many SMs, how many ministers without portfolio in the PMOs, how many deputies and how many deputies to deputies, and also how many mayors they need to run this country. And add all these together to get at the final cost of govt. Struggling opposition parties may want to make a case to pay the PM $10m and ministers $5m to attract better talents to join them in their quest. And if this is not enough, they should be brave enough to state that they needed more upfront before they come to power. I feel the people deserve to be told of the position of the political parties before they make their choices.

The appreciative new migrants

More than half a century ago many migrants came from neighbouring countries, including India and China. They were actually running away from poverty in their homelands. Somehow it was not possible to start anew in their home countries, or it was not as easy as trying out in a new country. The going was tough. But there was the promise of a better tomorrow. After a life time of struggle, some made it, some didn’t. Some made it in one generation, some took more. Some never. Fast forward, we are seeing new batches of migrants landing on our shores. They too were looking for a better tomorrow. Some were hungry, some not so. But their conditions were never like those who came earlier. The island is much richer, with better infrastructure and a more conducive socio economic environment to start a new life. Many quickly find success in double quick time, with govt assistance and a more level playing field. They are grateful for the new opportunities. So were the migrants of the past. Why are the locals, who were migrants once, feel left out and less happy with the situation? Or do they? I think many just do not bother. Any expression of unhappiness is likely to be personal and not a common reaction of the populace. Neither is the unhappiness that serious a matter that will be troubling to the policy makers. The govt is reviving the grateful migrants formula and will ride on their votes to power again. Equal opportunities for all, new and old citizens. New migrants will become old migrants and the cycle will be repeated again and again.

Criticism of Public Order Act 2009

Why so many criticisms against the Public Order Act? The law is for the good of the people, to protect the people. Singaporeans should welcome more of such laws that are good for them, ala GST. When things are done for the good of the people the people should be happy and accept them with open arms. Criticisms of good acts and intention are misplaced. My only concern is that what if these good laws were abused by a rogue govt or rogue enforcers of the law? Yes, Sylvia Lim is right on this, that it can become draconian. But with good leaders in charge, everything will be fine. Let's pray that we will forever be blessed with good leaders.

Falling in the line of duty

In three months, he had done so much and touched the hearts of many in DBS. Richard Stanley, the well liked and respected CEO of DBS succumbed to more complications and passed away after months of chemotherapy treatment. And from the flood of obituary in the ST, in his short stay in office he must have won the hearts of many. From peers, associates, business partners and union leaders, and all the staff, only good words were spoken of Richard Stanley. DBS also marked his demise with a one minute silence at 2.45pm yesterday. Richard is the first foreign talent that fell while on duty. He came on board and the minibond crisis fell on his lap. He must have gone through agonising time to tackle this crisis and this must have taken its toll on him. Richard was called home at the prime of his life. He could have done much more for DBS and its staff. But when God calls, it is time to go home.

An IM for food hygiene and handling

The criticism is piling up. Now the target is National Environment Agency. Letters were written to the media and the usual is that it cannot happen here. We are the best, first world, world class talents and salaries. This kind of mass food poisoning can only happen to poorly managed developing countries. It is shocking, alarming. What have the NEA done? We need a hero to resolve this crisis. I think Tan Yong Soon is cut out for this job. He should put what he learnt in Paris to good use. Come out with an Instructional Manual on food hygiene and handling for kitchens and food handlers and the cooks. His culinary course must have included these as a major part of the syllabus. The quality and cleanliness of food, utensil, equipment and people are very important to produce good and safe food. Let's have a comprehensive IM for all the hawker stalls, markets and food courts. Or perhaps privatise them would also do. The standard of cleanliness should also improved with privatisation. And if they pay the food handlers and cooks better, better qualified people will become hawkers in markets and food courts. But don't suggest sending them to Paris, please.

What a genius!

What an ingenious idea! This appeared in the St. Petersburg Times Newspaper yesterday. TheBusiness Section had asked readers all week for ideas on "HOW WOULD YOU FIX THE ECONOMY?" This man nailed it. Dear Mr. President, Patriotic retirement: There's about 40 million people over 50 years old in the work force - pay them $1 million apiece severance with the following stipulations: 1) They leave their jobs. Forty million job openings - UNEMPLOYMENT FIXED 2) They buy NEW American cars. Forty million cars ordered - AUTO INDUSTRY FIXED. 3) They either buy a house or pay off their mortgage - HOUSING CRISIS FIXED. Like I have been saying, they are bailing out the wrong people. We can modify this solution and it would not cost that much. And the govt will definitely be returned to power in the next GE.

Fear is in the air

Since the brilliant grab for power in Aware, there have been many postings questioning the group and its intention. There were many speculations and even talks of bigger things to come and bigger organisations to capture. Why should there be fear as long as the group is legitimate and not criminal? In a democracy, it is all about organisation. The people with the resources and organisation skills will be in a better position to grab power, and then grab anything they want. And with morality at its most perplexing time, when rights and wrongs are all grey, who shall stand on high moral grounds to be the judge of who is good or bad? Let the contest of ideas, organisation, ability and talent begins. And winners take all. Everything is up for grabs to the talented and well organised.

My feedback to the Stock Exchange in June 2005

The Relevance and Effectiveness of Corporate Governance I will like to express my appreciation to the Stock Exchange for asking the public for feedback to improve the trading system. I will just touch on three issues here, A. Corporate Governance and Independent Directors, B. Responsibilities and Accountability of Issue Managers/Auditors, and C. The Roles of SGX as a Regulator and a Business Concern. A. Corporate Governance and Independent Directors Independent Directors can play a very important role in ensuring that companies are proper and professional in the conduct of their businesses. By being involved, and being hands on with company operations, the Independent Directors are by far the most suitable candidates to help in ensuring compliance and due diligence in all corporate matters. However, the current procedures and system of appointing Independent Directors are seriously flawed. It is not the numbers that matter, but how Independent Directors are being appointed to the Board of Companies. When companies and their management staff have the sole prerogative to appoint Independent Directors, when the remuneration and tenure of Independent Directors are dependent on the goodwill of company management, how independent can Independent Directors be? Like it or not, Independent Directors have vested interests to maintain a cordial relationship with the company’s management and even major shareholders. There is thus a need to balance the opposing demands to oversee company operations in a professional manner and, on the other hand, to be acceptable to company management so as to be nominated to the board again. Independent Directors who are too thorough, too demanding, or even becoming whistle blowers, will soon work themselves out of all company boards. They will carry their reputations along with them and will not be appointed to any boards in a matter of time. No whistle blowers can ever hope to be invited to sit in any organizations. They can blow their whistles only once. In order to maintain as ‘correct’ a relationship as possible, and to improve the chances of being reappointed, Independent Directors may have to compromise their positions, and may even restrain themselves in the execution of their duties, thus undermining their roles as the watchdog of company wrongdoings. Recommendation 1 A new procedure to appoint Independent Directors is obviously needed. Independent Directors must be appointed independent of company management. Those appointed by company management have a credibility problem. There will always be a doubt as to whether they can be truly independent if their benefactors are the company management. It is a practical and real issue. The setting up of an unrelated independent body to appoint Independent Directors to company boards is a prerequisite to impartiality and transparency. The position of Independent Directors must not be compromise in anyway if they are to do a proper job. Otherwise it is a fallacy to believe that Independent Directors are really independent. What good is there if all the Independent Directors are either the relatives, friends or drinking kakis of the management, chosen and paid for by the management? A possible candidate to take on this task is the Stock Exchange itself. Or alternatively the Securities Investors Association of Singapore, SIAS, can be appointed by SGX/MAS to assume this role. SIAS is an ideal candidate as it is the representative of small investors who, as a group, represented quite a substantial interest in companies listed in the SGX. The small investors have so far been the victims of all these corporate frauds, and it is time that their interests be taken care of. Independent Directors selected and appointed by an organization representing small investors could fit in this role nicely. No other organization can claim to represent the small investors and to defend their interests. By giving SIAS a bigger role in this area, SGX and MAS can then be seen to be fair to the small investors. For the Independent Directors to be effective, three Independent Directors should come from SIAS and be represented in the Nomination, Remuneration and Audit Committees of the Companies. These committees shall provide the Independent Directors with access to information that affects the health and wealth of the companies. SIAS can set up a department to select, train and appoint Independent Directors under a set of guidelines that best served to protect the interests of small investors, and in the process self regulate company operations and management to comply with SGX regulations and good governance. An added feature is for SGX to emphasise the responsibilities and accountability on all Independent as well as non Independent Directors. Appointment to company boards must not be seen as a birthday party, but a serious undertaking that demands professionalism and integrity. All directors, including Independent Directors, shall be held accountable for negligence, wrongdoings or not doing their due diligence while on the boards. They must be made aware that they are holding in trust the interests of all investors, large and small, and must not be found wanting, or they will be taken to task. They are paid to do a job and this comes with a heavy responsibility. B. Responsibilities and Accountability of Issue Managers and Auditors Issue Managers are the key people who promote and market a company to investors resulting in large sums of monies being invested by the public. The Issue Managers and their associates, especially the management and finance professionals, are the people in the know. They are also the people who prepare the company operations and financial reports. How truthful, accurate and proper are these reports will solely be dependent on the professionalism, trustworthiness and integrity of these professional people. The investors, including professional fund managers, are likely to make their decisions based on these reports and the presentation of the company by the Issue Managers and the management. It is accepted that Issue Managers/Auditors and company management will want to present the best picture they can to the investors. It is their task to sell the company. What the investors and regulators can hope for is that these people are truthful and professional in the packaging and marketing of the companies. They are expected to do their due diligence. They are not expected to make misrepresentation of the companies, or worst, make fraudulent reports to deceive the investors into investing in unsound companies. Recommendation 2 Nothing short of accountability and making good of what the Issue Managers/Auditors and company management made their companies out to be. Caveat emptor is not enough. When there are misrepresentations or wrongdoings, the guilty parties must be dealt with severely. Full restitutions for losses must be made to compensate the innocent investors. The public must not be put in a position where they are at the mercy of Issue Managers/Auditors and company management without any recourse. It is inadequate and unfair when a public issue goes drastically wrong due to negligence or misrepresentation and caveat emptor becomes a convenient excuse. Issue Managers/Auditors and company managers must all be aware of the severity of their actions and the recourse of criminal proceedings if they are found to commit wrongdoings or negligence in the course of listing the companies. The SGX has a duty to protect the public investors. C. Role of SGX as a Regulator and as a Business Concern SGX is now a private company with profit making as a primary objective. Its other role as a regulator is now incompatible with its new status. There is a conflict of interests and the two functions must be detached and managed separately. SGX cannot function as a player as well as a referee in the same game. It cannot be objective when it is also involved in generating profits for itself from the system. Even if it does try to be objective, other parties may not perceive it in the same way. Its dual roles only complicate matters further and will undermine the credibility of SGX. People will always be skeptical of whatever actions or decisions it takes that affect the players and the market. Recommendation 3 For transparency and good business practice, SGX may want to consider relinquishing its role as the regulator of the stock market. An independent agency shall replace SGX to ensure that there is fair play and a level playing field for all the players. No matter how impartial or above board SGX can be, it is in the best interest of SGX for it to be monitored separately. This is to avoid being accused of any complicity whenever a decision is seen to be doubtful in the eyes of the public. An interested party can never be objective in its own dealings. A Side Issue I must raise this issue though it is not directly related to the above. It is very serious and it is affecting the viability of the stock market and the stockbroking industry if nothing is done to arrest the problem. I will make it very short and brief. Before the liberalization of the industry, foreign funds must trade through local broking houses, paying commission for their trades. With liberalization, these huge funds can now trade on their own by setting up offices here. And trade they did at no commission. What this means is that they could literally trade in hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stocks at practically no cost other than the minimal clearing fees and GST. They could thus push stocks up or down at their whims and fancy, making profits at the expense of small investors and traders. The big trading volumes we are seeing daily are thus fictitious. We have replaced syndicate trading of the past with fund manipulations at a more vicious scale. With syndicate trading activities, at least they still pay some commission that will somehow filter back to lubricate the system. With big fund trading today (including proprietary trading), no commission of such nature will be generated. If syndicate trading activities were seen as an undesirable and criminal act, how can we justify fund manipulations as legitimate and desirable, and at no cost? When all the small players and traders are wiped out from the market, when there are no more money to be made from the market, these big funds could just wind up their activities over night, and we will have a ghost town, a stock market devoid of trading activities. It will lead to an immediate collapse of the stockbroking industry. The scenario that I have painted may have been too extreme. But the possibility of it becoming a reality is very real. We have already witnessed the first phase of casualties, the small traders. Most of them have lost their pants or are too fearful to reenter the market. What the SGX may want to consider is to provide a level playing field for the big boys to play. Let the fund/broking houses, the proprietary traders and the private syndicates be the market movers on equal terms. Let them rejuvenate the market and trade within the existing rules. But the terms given to these players shall not be vastly different from the small players and investors. A special levy comes into mind.

When privatisation is a fear word

Privatisation used to be the key word to symbolise improved efficiency, better quality of products and services and a necessary evil, higher cost. The last part is always unspoken. No body wants to talk about it. Two letters by Ang Ah Ho and Zhuang Kuan Seng in the Sunday Times were literary pleading for mercy against HDB and privatisation. They questioned the role and responsibility of HDB in a tender exercise for Sengkang wet market. It went to the highest bidder, Renaissance Properties, at $500,001 pm. All these make business sense as the new tenants will definitely improve the efficiency of running the wet market as well as improving the quality and services. The residents only see fear of higher cost of basic food that they will get from the market. And they were concerned even in the way HDB framed its reply in a nonchalant way. But they were barking up the wrong tree. HDB is no more a govt organisation. It is privatised, just like the wet market is going to be. And profit is one of its key goals. They must remember how the second batch of Duxton Pinnacles flat owners have to cough out another $200k for each unit because the prices of similar flats have gone up. The residents in Sengkang should look at the brighter and positive side of things. Life style will improve with new concepts in wet marketing. The fish, meat and vegetables will be fresher and of better quality. And the stall holders will probably say thank you when they buy from them. And the higher cost of living is just part of the deal. It has to be. But it will be very affordable. All new housing estates have better quality food courts than the heart of Raffles Place and Chinatown. The food centres at Golden Shoe, Hong Lim and Chinatown are much cheaper, $2.50 can get one a bowl of noodle or rice, mixed vegetable rice or chicken rice. But the quality must be not so good as the food courts at HDB estates, and no aircon some more. Soon everyone will be frequenting food courts in HDB estates. I pray and pray that these hawker centres will not be privatised. Personally the quality of their food, at $2.50, is damn good. But I am biased. And so must be all the happy customers, some wearing ties and Prada frequenting them. Please do not privatise them. Not everybody has a first world income and want to pay first world prices for basic needs. As for the Sengkang residents, they are welcome to Raffles Place to enjoy a $2.50 meal, if they can afford the train or bus fare. For the time being, they should count their blessings. Actually we must be very thankful that the govt did not privatise all the ministries. Of course the quality and efficiency will improve, but the cost of their services will be much higher than now.

Working is a crime! The officer was in hot pursuit of an illegal worker. He fell, picked himself up immediately and continued the chase. The culprit was arrested. Such is the drive, dedication and commitment of a well trained team of MOM officers in the call of duty. They have a job to do and they did well. Efficiency in the line of duty is hallmark in all civil servants. And one should not forget the exemplary efficiency and effectiveness of our car park attendants. They never miss issuing a ticket if it is deserving. What am I grumbling about? The illegal immigrants were not selling pirated VCDs or operating a gambling den or prostituting. Many were just moonlighting as cleaners and odd job labourers. They were prepared to sweat, work hard, to exchange their labour for a few dollars. Why are they turned into criminals, chased around by govt officers, arrested, fined and maybe even caned? Yes, they are criminals. The law said so. No permit to work is a crime. Period. What about the employers who employed them and exploited them for their cheap labour? Why were they not arrested? Would it not be easier to arrest the employers and terminate this vicious cycle when hungry men and women are turned into criminals just because they want to work? Oh, these are children of lesser gods. Just a general comment. The law is neutral and has no feelings, and inhuman at times. And the law is the law. The issue is the zealousness in the execution and persecuting of the violaters. I would be more at ease if public officers, in the course of their duties, think a little about rights and wrongs, about being humans, about justice and fairness, about righteousness and moral principles. If public officers cannot think or will not think, and leave morals and principles in their lockers, govts will be better off deploying a task force of Robocops, machines that just do within thinking, with no morals, no feelings and no moral principles. I am saying this in general. This sickness is affecting govt officers all around the world, and particularly so in dictatorship or authoritarian regimes. And worst of all, the biggest violators of such inhuman acts is the US. There, children of lesser gods have no rights, and are treated as collateral damages. The hideous acts of public officers when they abused their positions of power are more criminal than the crimes committed by criminals. Sad thing is that they did not think so and think that it is their job, in the course of duty,something to be proud of. A couple of days back there was this woman in China who had her 4 front teeth knocked out by public officers just for protesting about a crime or injustice done to her. Sometimes you would not know who are the real gangsters. I always call George Bush and his team gangsters.

Aware – What a brilliant coup!

They came and took over Aware in an AGM. Veterans and established Aware members were in shock and disbelief. They were caught completely off guard when an army of new members marched into the AGM and out voted almost everyone, and grabbed 9 out of 12 executive committee seats. With the exceptionally high turnout the incumbent committee still did not see it coming. And one by one the old committee members were knocked out of office by brazen new faces, all unknown. How would they dare to do such a thing? Who were they, what do they stand for, how could they just take over an established institution, just like that? No big no small! The old committee members were jolted out of their comfort zone. It was very troubling, alarming, and they made an attempt to challenge the right to take over. Basically they were saying, hey, this is our turf, you have no right to do this. If you want to take over, join the queue and wait to be invited. Unfortunately the new and brash challengers were in no mood to explain the whys. Neither did they bother about the feeble resistance. They simply brushed them aside, irrelevant. Their main concern was to win as many seats as they could. They were well prepared for it, with military precision. It was a coup well executed! Well done girls. Your planning and execution were meticulous and brutally efficient and effective. I am keen to know what is their next target. With such organising skills and talents, they could achieve anything they want to. Don’t just stop at Aware.

Kenneth Jeyaretnam joins Reform Party

This is about the best news to break the otherwise dull and mindless churning of stale political news. Finally we are seeing a very able young man standing up to carry on the job of his father. I hope no one is going to say that there is no political talents in Singapore and that Kenneth is a no talent. He has a double first like Hsien Loong. He may not have taken the ride in the bandwagon to earn tens of millions in this small pond. But he has worked overseas, depending only on his own talent and skills to earn his keep. I believe there must be many able young people like Kenneth who are waiting to step forward to serve the country and not waiting to be invited for tea. Would our political system be magnanimous enough to welcome these people as they step forward, or will they face the same sad stories of their predecessors in an unkind environment that has no room for talents in the opposition wing? We are watching and the world is also watching as the game is being played. The same old play or a new play with enlightened players sparring but without the viciousness of a medieval society? The entry of Kenneth into the political fray should raise the standard of politicking to a more sophisticated level. I dread that this is the beginning of another round of gutter politics in the making. We shall see and judge the truth from the tooth.

What’s wrong with disagreeing over issues or policies in cyberspace?

Siew Kum Hong commented that many people gripe or take pot shots at issues beneath the cloak of anonymity and that they should come out of their comfort zones to do something. I agree and disagree with parts of his comment. There is nothing wrong with being anonymous as long as the comments are fair and reasonablel. But agree, it will be better to let people know who is behind the comment in order to give a better feel and measure of what it was all about. The reasons why many are still speaking in anonymity can be found in the soul of the article by Wong Kim Hoh and reflected by Siew Kum Hong’s own sense of fear. He reminded and also made it clear that he disagreed with ‘the lawsuits and defamation schemes used to suppress dissenting views.’ There need no further explanation why people are not willing to come out into the open to state their views when the political climate is such. People who are comfortable in their lives will not want to get into an unlevel playing field and get hurt for the slightest indiscretion. And as for the challenge to come out and do something if people feel strongly about things, I think this is a bit idealistic in the context of our political culture. Stepping forward, be counted, getting the hands dirty may not lead to anything meaningful. Who really thinks that he/she can make a difference by coming out to get his/her hands dirtied except for a fortunate few? It is quite audacious to even think so. And what is so great about making a ‘political contribution’ if it is just to make a statement, a record on what the citizens feel when, ‘After all the debate…nothing’s changed…so what is the purpose?’ Or what is so different about making a point to be put on record in Parliament and making a point in the media, new and old, to express what some of the citizens are feeling? Maybe there is a big difference to some. But I don’t see or feel it that way. What are the contributions of NMP, NCMP, opposition MPs and the unelected but undying opposition politicians? I must say that each have contributed in their own ways to the political process and development of the country. On the other hand, the contributions of cyberspace and bloggers cannot be underestimated and are in no way lesser than these know politicians. In fact there are many things that cyberspace could do and did much better, like keeping issues alive and harping on them repeatedly in case people claimed that nothing said so no more an issue. Or worst, nothing heard, the people must have accepted them. The biggest contributions of cyberspace and bloggers are griping, kpkb and constantly and repeatedly not letting any issue die. This is an area that no politicians or the old media can compete with. The issues will be posted in cyberspace 24/7 and 365 days a year, for the world to see.

Corruption of the bonus system

The first thing that Obama did right was to curb the abuses of the compensation and bonus payout system in corporate America. No longer will the corporate big wigs be allowed to pay themselves crazy by abusing the trust of the minority shareholders and corruptly paying themselves with their so called bonus schemes. They design and decide how much to pay themselves, with approval of course. Actually I can't use the term corrupt as the bonus schemes were all approved by the board of directors. The payout is thus legitimate and above board, objective and according to an approved formula. The top management could even claimed that every cent they got from the bonus system is deserving. And some companies were paying their CEOs tens of millions even when the companies were bleeding, losing hundreds of millions. Superficially the bonus system appears sound. But as they said, the devil is in the details. Were the formula transparent and made known to the shareholders, and accepted by the shareholders? What were the factors in the formula and how relevant were they to the health of the companies? Could the formula pay out exorbitant amounts, unlimited amounts at the expense of the shareholder's interest? Could the factors be juggled and doctored by the accountants to reflect whatever they want to and to maximise the payout? The other problem with the bonus system is that it can be used to pull wool over the eyes of the shareholders. The top management can, for cosmetic reasons, adopt a pay freeze, smaller increases, or even a pay cut to appease the shareholders. But on the contrary they could boost up their bonus payouts from 3 mths to 6 mths, or 6 mths to 12 mths or 24 mths. No one is wiser except the people designing the scheme and managing the scheme. Transparency is important but not often practised. Obama did the right thing to freeze or cap the bonus payout. And now the American corporate wants to side step this by paying themselves upfront. The top management will scheme and scheme to pay themselves as much as they could as they don't own the companies. They were just employees. Grab as much as they can when in office.

They trusted him

In the Shi Ming Yi case in court yesterday it was reported that they trusted him and let him determine his own salary. And they have good reasons to do so. Ren Ci is so successful today because of one man, I mean monk. Shi Ming Yi is so talented and has a lot of followers and is able to raise the profile of Ren Ci and the multi million dollar donations that it received over the years. So, shouldn't people be grateful to his great contribution and talent and let him continue to run the organisation the way he knows best?

How we pay multi million dollar politicians

Now that the world is standing up to take notice of this extraordinary feat maybe we should enlighten them on the hows and whys. The rest of the world, especially politicians, must be wondering how we could pay politicians this kind of salary and the people are happy and supportive of it. They may think that if they were to propose it in their own countries there will be immediate mass demonstrations and riotings in the streets. But we did it, and for so many years, it has become part of our system of good governance. For the likes of Obama, Brown or Sarkozy, who may want to think about how to go about convincing their electorates to pay them a few million dollars in salary, the following could be a useful guide. In the first place the country must be rich enough to be able to afford the million dollar salaries. And for America and the rich European countries, this is a given and not an issue. If the people were to quibble about it, just tell them that it would cost them each a hot dog a year. Very reasonable and affordable. The next point or the most important point is to convince the electorate that they must have the best talents to lead the country. And the only way is to pay them well. Otherwise they will want to become bankers and lawyers or be in Wall Street making hundreds of millions. Our slogan is pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Surely they would not want their parliaments and congresses to be filled with monkeys. This is a very powerful argument. The other important argument is human nature. People in position of power will by nature become corrupt. To stop them from becoming corrupt, pay them up front, and pay them well so that there will be no incentive to become corrupt. This is understanding nature and human weaknesses. Once these arguments are out of the way, work out a formula to make it objective. Peg the salary of the politicians to the 100 highest paid employee's salary in the private sector. But don't peg it to the top dog. That would be too excessive. Say pick the 49th person or 50th person's salary as the bench mark. That will look very reasonable. Now debate the formula in parliament and passed it into law. Then the salary package will become legal and legitimate. See, QED. Oh, there are some other conditions to make this formula successful. The ruling party must have an absolute majority to ensure its safe passage in parliament. As for street protest in case the ignorant electorate could not understand the brilliance of such a formula, ban them. Actually, the successful implementation of this million dollar salary package for politicians requires supertalents. Only supertalents have the ability to pull this through and be able to convince the people that it is good for them and the country. Actually no, you need exceptional supertalents. Better still if they are demigods and immortals.

Highest paid politicians - the numbers are wrong!

Yes, the numbers quoted for the world's highest top 30 politicians are wrong, way off the mark. Too conservative. What were quoted in the article were only the basic 12 months' salary of the politicians. There is another element that forms part of the package. Oh actually there were two elements, another bonus payment that can go as high as 12 months of the monthly salary. Some have quoted a figure of 16 months. And there is also pension. To quote Hsien Loong during his answer to Steve Chia, a NCMP, this was what he said. 'Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.' It is an entire package, ....it all adds up to a finite amount. So, when we said that a minister or Prime Minister is getting say $3m, he could possibly get $6m, plus or minus a little depending on his bonuses. Then on top of that, if he has reached 55 years of age and has served 8 years as a minister, he is entitled to another 2/3 of his basic salary. There is a formula and definition of the basic salary in the Parliamentary Pensions Act. So if a Prime Minister is getting $3.9m, he could be getting another $3.9m in bonuses and another 2/3 of an X salary. This could easily be another $2m. That will come to around $9.8m. This $9.8m is the entire package, excluding other perks. Thus, all the figures quoted are way off their marks. They should be multiplied by 2 or 2.67 times. Would these numbers drive the political leaders of the world, especially the rich western nations, insane? They must be kicking themselves for being so underpaid.

This blog is quoted in the London Times!

Thank you Green Peas. Your article is not only quoted in the London Times online and in many other blogs and forums around the world, it also enlightens the world on how well we are governed as a country. http://www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/ is now famous man! I have noticed that the readership these few days have shot up furiously. Here is the link: http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/04/the-10-highest-paid-politicians-in-the-world.html#more

Citizens versus Netizens

Joel Gn from Mediacorp wrote an article on the merits of netizen views and how representatives they were in Today. His conclusion can be summarised into the following. 1. There is no face to face discussion and many netizens hide behind the veil of anonymity, especially with regard to policy matters. Thus their views were not credible. Ha, I choose to differ. It is exactly because of the culture of fear here that anonymous views are more real and representative of the truth. Many who spoke in public actually would not disclosed their true feeling and views for obvious reasons. 2. The views expressed in cyberspace are views of a few individuals. So, the views expressed in the old media are not the views of individuals? Even many of the crap surveys and pushed out as the people's views were views of individuals. Even national policies were views of individuals and not the views of the people. Agree? Remember, it is for your own good. Or shall we concede that the views expressed by the professional reporters and journalists were the views of the people, not their individual views? Joel Gn forgot that in cyberspace it is 'the message and not the platform' or the people articulating it that is important. Anyone, no matter how big his title is, if he talks nonsense in cyberspace, he will be declared a clown immediately by netizens. On the other hand, an unassuming person with no title or status but could articulate a sensible view, the view will be respected. It is the message, not who you are. And that is exactly what Joel Gn said. That is the strength of cyberspace. You can't fool anyone by virtue of your position of title. And currently, cyberspace provides the anonymity for truthful opinions and gut reactions to be aired. You can't do it in the old media. They will either be censored, or one will get himself into trouble for airing the truth.