"Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin, choking over his words said: “I’m pained by the knowledge that I’ll miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever… In time I will look back and there will be gaps. But that’s life. I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises all of us who do cherish these.” Copied from CNA video/FeedmetotheFish commentary.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
1/20/2012
What did Parliament approve?
The approval of the Salary Recommendation by the Review Committee also means that all the assumptions and logics are accepted as valid. The major points are, need to pay high salary to attract talent, right to peg ministerial salary to top 1000 income earners, right to pay allowances and variable bonuses based on the formula submitted.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
Poll on Ministerial Salary(at top right of page)
Parliament has approved the recommendation of ministerial salary by the Review Committee. Technically, the MPs are representatives of the people and when they support the bill, it means the people also support the bill. So technically the MPs have spoken and voted on behalf of the people and voted for the new salary package.
I have just created a poll on this to find out how many people support this salary package and whether the MPs position is reflective of the people's position and aspirations. This will act as a kind of feedback to the MPs to confirm that the people are with them or the people and the MPs are going in different ways.
I have just created a poll on this to find out how many people support this salary package and whether the MPs position is reflective of the people's position and aspirations. This will act as a kind of feedback to the MPs to confirm that the people are with them or the people and the MPs are going in different ways.
The warcraft of parliamentarians
MPs elected to parliament quickly learn that parliament is not a kopitiam to sing song and talk cock. Parliament can be a treacherous place, like a war zone or battle field and requires special skills to survive the day. Maybe that is a reason why so many MPs chose to disappear during parliament sessions.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
Political appointments are part time jobs
MPs are part time jobs as they have another job or can have another job that requires them to work full time or 8 hours a day officially. MPs that resigned from their full time jobs to go full time are the full time MPs. This is easily understood.
When I say that political appointments are part time jobs, I can see many eye brows being raised. The smarter ones could see immediately where I am coming from and could see the logic of my statement. Ok, let me explain it to the slower ones who are still unable to grasp the logic of part time political appointments.
A full time job requires the incumbent to be on the job for about 8 hours a day, depending on how many days and the organization. A 44 hour week is the norm. Take for example a minister. He could be a minister of a ministry and a second minister of another ministry. He is also an MP. He probably holds several other appointments, like Chairman of A or B organizations, or sits in several committees.
A minister who is in charge of a ministry and nothing else will have all his 44 hours a week working in the ministry. If he has two ministries, he has to split his time between the two. He also has to split his time for his MP role even though some were taken care of by other MPs or grassroot leaders. If he is chairman of two organizations, he would need to spend some time there as well. The more appointments a minister has, the more part time is he in his primary job. It depends on what is the nature of these other appointments and if they are really that important as a ministerial job or if they must be part of a minister’s jobs. If they are not necessarily a minister’s jobs, or if they are of much lesser importance, and if they are taking too much of the minister’s time, what it means is that the minister is paid a ministerial salary to work part time in his main job and part time in other jobs that should not be paid that kind of salary.
For a minister to justify his high pay and devoting full time to his ministerial responsibility, he should be doing lesser of the other lower level or non ministerial work. He can do his MP duties, which is part time anyway, during after office hours, which is fair.
So, depending on the hours and the number of part time or other appointments, a minister is part timing his minister job to look after other part time jobs or appointments. Unless those other appointments and part time jobs are part and parcel of the minister’s main responsibility.
How many of you now agree with my statement that a minister’s job is a part time job? It can only be a full time job if the minister devotes all his working hours on his minister job. And this interpretation can be applied to all the other political appointees.
A political appointee who spent too much time in his secondary appointments like sports clubs or other social and civic or even commercial organizations is part timing his main appointment. The more he spreads his time, the lesser will he have time for his main appointment.
With the kind of world class pay that the political appointees are getting to perform his main job, it is better that he reduces his time on other lesser jobs to justify his pay, I think.
When I say that political appointments are part time jobs, I can see many eye brows being raised. The smarter ones could see immediately where I am coming from and could see the logic of my statement. Ok, let me explain it to the slower ones who are still unable to grasp the logic of part time political appointments.
A full time job requires the incumbent to be on the job for about 8 hours a day, depending on how many days and the organization. A 44 hour week is the norm. Take for example a minister. He could be a minister of a ministry and a second minister of another ministry. He is also an MP. He probably holds several other appointments, like Chairman of A or B organizations, or sits in several committees.
A minister who is in charge of a ministry and nothing else will have all his 44 hours a week working in the ministry. If he has two ministries, he has to split his time between the two. He also has to split his time for his MP role even though some were taken care of by other MPs or grassroot leaders. If he is chairman of two organizations, he would need to spend some time there as well. The more appointments a minister has, the more part time is he in his primary job. It depends on what is the nature of these other appointments and if they are really that important as a ministerial job or if they must be part of a minister’s jobs. If they are not necessarily a minister’s jobs, or if they are of much lesser importance, and if they are taking too much of the minister’s time, what it means is that the minister is paid a ministerial salary to work part time in his main job and part time in other jobs that should not be paid that kind of salary.
For a minister to justify his high pay and devoting full time to his ministerial responsibility, he should be doing lesser of the other lower level or non ministerial work. He can do his MP duties, which is part time anyway, during after office hours, which is fair.
So, depending on the hours and the number of part time or other appointments, a minister is part timing his minister job to look after other part time jobs or appointments. Unless those other appointments and part time jobs are part and parcel of the minister’s main responsibility.
How many of you now agree with my statement that a minister’s job is a part time job? It can only be a full time job if the minister devotes all his working hours on his minister job. And this interpretation can be applied to all the other political appointees.
A political appointee who spent too much time in his secondary appointments like sports clubs or other social and civic or even commercial organizations is part timing his main appointment. The more he spreads his time, the lesser will he have time for his main appointment.
With the kind of world class pay that the political appointees are getting to perform his main job, it is better that he reduces his time on other lesser jobs to justify his pay, I think.
1/19/2012
Singapore Education - A feel good system
The O level results have just been announced and so many students and their parents are elated with their straight A1s. Throw a stone and you will definitely hit one with at least 5 A1s and often more than that. Getting anything less is probably a rarity.
I do not want to dampen their spirit as the Chinese New Year is around the corner. How many of these A1 students will make it to the top JCs, or how many will go to the lower rung JCs?
We have a feel good education system that makes getting straight A1s today as easy as getting straight passes in the past when getting just an A1 was a dream come true. What did all these say of the grades?
The top 4000 or 5000 students from the top schools did not even bother to sit for the O level. One day, don’t be surprised that employers may not want to look at the O level result in the future. Don’t ask me why. The two most important examinations today are the PSLE and the A level. With the bulk of the top students not taking the O level, one could simply slide the bell curve backwards on the grades of those taking the O levels, and viola, a new batch of A1 students is manufactured.
Getting O level results today is such a happy moment for many students and their parents. In the past, it was a nerve wrecking experience for both students and parents. Then they did not know of things like the bell curve and moderation or massaging. It is worthwhile paying for a good massage, definitely.
Please ask why the top schools and their top students are not taking the O level examination. And if they do sit for the same examination, how would the distribution of straight A1 students be like? Would it be that 99% of the top school students be getting 10 A1s? Maybe that is too high a number, 90% should be just right. Or would they slide the bell curve back to where it was supposed to be?
If all the top school students would to sit for the O level, it is not surprising if there will be a few hundred 10 A1s students and a few hundred 9 A1s students from each cohort. It is simply possible.
I do not want to dampen their spirit as the Chinese New Year is around the corner. How many of these A1 students will make it to the top JCs, or how many will go to the lower rung JCs?
We have a feel good education system that makes getting straight A1s today as easy as getting straight passes in the past when getting just an A1 was a dream come true. What did all these say of the grades?
The top 4000 or 5000 students from the top schools did not even bother to sit for the O level. One day, don’t be surprised that employers may not want to look at the O level result in the future. Don’t ask me why. The two most important examinations today are the PSLE and the A level. With the bulk of the top students not taking the O level, one could simply slide the bell curve backwards on the grades of those taking the O levels, and viola, a new batch of A1 students is manufactured.
Getting O level results today is such a happy moment for many students and their parents. In the past, it was a nerve wrecking experience for both students and parents. Then they did not know of things like the bell curve and moderation or massaging. It is worthwhile paying for a good massage, definitely.
Please ask why the top schools and their top students are not taking the O level examination. And if they do sit for the same examination, how would the distribution of straight A1 students be like? Would it be that 99% of the top school students be getting 10 A1s? Maybe that is too high a number, 90% should be just right. Or would they slide the bell curve back to where it was supposed to be?
If all the top school students would to sit for the O level, it is not surprising if there will be a few hundred 10 A1s students and a few hundred 9 A1s students from each cohort. It is simply possible.
The people who truly sacrificed for their country
It really makes me sick to hear people whining that they are sacrificing for the country. So ‘jia lat’. The ruling govt must be damn ‘chek ark’ to turn these people into martyrs of modern Singapore. When a Sinkie is called to stand for political office, the first thought that came to his mind is ‘sacrifice’, despite the world’s highest paid salary, with many even getting more than the President of the USA. My God, young men and women being paid that kind of money had sleepless nights worrying about the sacrifice they are going to make!
Of course it is not a calling. Many had left their high paying jobs when God called. For modern Singapore, the Brits used to pay their soldiers hardship allowance for a posting to the Far East, ie Singapore. Going into politics today must surely be a kind of hardship posting to Siberia.
Do we really need people who cried sacrifice so readily? Are they thinking that the people owe them a debt for their big sacrifice to go into politics to earn a miserable pay? Are they demanding that the ungrateful and unappreciative Sinkies kneel and bow and praise them for their sacrifice? Wan suay, wan suay, wan wan suay.
The opposition MPs in Parliament (never heard any of them griefing that they are making a big sacrifice without the big pay) should ask those who feel so aggrieved to stand up and be counted, and tell them there is a beeline of equally if not more able people who are willing to take their places. Just tell them, prease, no need to sacrifice lah. Just go home and be happy, there will be someone more willing, more committed and more capable and happier to do the job.
Do they believe that Sinkies are so untalented and the 80 plus are all the talents in this piece of rock and no one else is more able than them? Tell them they are not irreplaceable and not indispensable, that without them the island will not sink. How about a walk out, all resign and see if the country will sink? Don’t they feel embarrassed at all?
Where is the pride, the sense of duty and honour, the sense of recognition and satisfaction to be called upon to be leaders of a nation? Hey, the whole machinery is so well oiled to serve and put you into office, with all the grassroots running around at your becks and calls. These are the people who really sacrificed their time, money and energy to help the politician wannabes. Without them, the machinery and the GRCs, running for election is not going to be a cake walk. Many would not even make it. What a sacrifice!
But the people who sacrificed the most are the NS men. Some are even treated worst than new citizens, can’t buy public housing, not even invited to sacrifice for the country to be politicians, to be paid world best salary. New citizens who have not done any NS are called instead. And looking at them and looking at the Sinkies around, what is so great about the new citizens that the Sinkies are inferior to them? Why are good Sinkies left out of the great sacrifice to serve the people and country?
I think all the Sinkies will be queueing up to sacrifice themselves and happily say thank you Sir with the kind of pay they are not happy with.
Of course it is not a calling. Many had left their high paying jobs when God called. For modern Singapore, the Brits used to pay their soldiers hardship allowance for a posting to the Far East, ie Singapore. Going into politics today must surely be a kind of hardship posting to Siberia.
Do we really need people who cried sacrifice so readily? Are they thinking that the people owe them a debt for their big sacrifice to go into politics to earn a miserable pay? Are they demanding that the ungrateful and unappreciative Sinkies kneel and bow and praise them for their sacrifice? Wan suay, wan suay, wan wan suay.
The opposition MPs in Parliament (never heard any of them griefing that they are making a big sacrifice without the big pay) should ask those who feel so aggrieved to stand up and be counted, and tell them there is a beeline of equally if not more able people who are willing to take their places. Just tell them, prease, no need to sacrifice lah. Just go home and be happy, there will be someone more willing, more committed and more capable and happier to do the job.
Do they believe that Sinkies are so untalented and the 80 plus are all the talents in this piece of rock and no one else is more able than them? Tell them they are not irreplaceable and not indispensable, that without them the island will not sink. How about a walk out, all resign and see if the country will sink? Don’t they feel embarrassed at all?
Where is the pride, the sense of duty and honour, the sense of recognition and satisfaction to be called upon to be leaders of a nation? Hey, the whole machinery is so well oiled to serve and put you into office, with all the grassroots running around at your becks and calls. These are the people who really sacrificed their time, money and energy to help the politician wannabes. Without them, the machinery and the GRCs, running for election is not going to be a cake walk. Many would not even make it. What a sacrifice!
But the people who sacrificed the most are the NS men. Some are even treated worst than new citizens, can’t buy public housing, not even invited to sacrifice for the country to be politicians, to be paid world best salary. New citizens who have not done any NS are called instead. And looking at them and looking at the Sinkies around, what is so great about the new citizens that the Sinkies are inferior to them? Why are good Sinkies left out of the great sacrifice to serve the people and country?
I think all the Sinkies will be queueing up to sacrifice themselves and happily say thank you Sir with the kind of pay they are not happy with.
An arbitrary salary package based on judgement call
The ministerial salary recommendation was passed after three days of debate. Though there were some attempts to take issues with the recommendation on grounds of principles and methodology, eventually all was convinced that there was really nothing to discuss as it was a judgement call. And there was elation when a common number was found and a hurry to move on with no regards to how it is derived. The only agreement was that there is a need to pay well to attract the right calibre of candidates for the important position of ministers.
Though I have been away from the human resource industry for a while, I cannot help but to see a reluctance to really do a thorough proposal based on what should be the relevant factors and inputs to come out with a less subjective recommendation. The main flaws in the recommendation are the insistence on the use of top income earners and the refusal to use comparative salary of politicians of other countries. The latter was pooh pooh away by raising a few strawmen as justifications, that because of these flimsy excuses, comparing them would be unsatisfactory. I will come back to this later.
Why the preoccupation with the top 1000 income earners and how relevant is this? The perceived intrinsic bias to use these high numbers is that the salary will have a higher base to start with and thus self serving. The cynics would not be happy for many obvious reasons. The PAP’s argument to favour this selective pick of the top 1000 is that the potential candidates should come from this pool of people, apparently logical but not really.
I will just point out two fallacies from this assumption. One, top money earners are not necessary top political leadership material. Political leadership means many more important things than just about ability to make money from any means or profession. The second point is that top income earners are likely to be so wealthy that they would not be distracted by a few million dollars, plus or minus. Money is not really an issue to attract them as they have plenty of them. And this is well pointed out earlier by another MP.
Money is only important to the talents that are not making that kind of money, and wanted to earn more, or near to what these people are making. The disconnect between this logic and the target group is pretty obvious. It is a flawed argument, a flawed basis to work on.
The second point I want to make is the quick dismissal of using foreign political leaders for comparison. Why? The often quoted reasons are related to corruption and tangible and intangible perks or benefits. As far as benefits are concerned, it is easy to find out and easy to quantified. For people who shoot freely about Air Force One or about trying to pay peanuts, these are foolish arguments that should not be entertained as quoting them showed that they are not serious. Second home allowance or travelling allowances of UK politicians are only relevant to them as the country is big and it is costly to travel from Scotland to London for Parliament sittings. Armoured plated cars for Obama is not a benefit but a necessity as his head has a big price. When mentioning benefits, one must be serious and not spurious just to win an argument.
All the perks can be tabled and the compensation specialists can review them for their relevance. This is something very lacking in the whole process. The dismissal of inputs from the compensation experts and every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that designing compensation packages is about commonsense and anyone can do it. Maybe they are right if it all boils down to judgement call. The taxi driver too can come up with a set of numbers.
Some benefits are specific and unique in nature and are simply inappropriate for consideration. Whatever perks that are official are obtainable and can be monetised in some ways. Intangible perks may be a problem if relevant. Getting a proper list of all the perks for consideration cannot be a difficult task for such an important matter.
The corruption part is more tricky but not unsurmountable either. We are talking about developed countries and not lawless dictatorships which should not even be part of the equation. Under table payouts cannot be considered as morally they are wrong and illegal. No sensible govt will dare to quote corruption as something that must be paid in a country that is incorruptible and makes corruption illegal.
Then again there are ways to by pass such issues of morality by creating a corruption index to help the incumbents from being corrupt. Of course this kind of thinking would not be tolerable to many. Assuming that it can be bulldozed through, then make a provision for it by calling it under whatever terms, or make a judgement call.
What I find disturbing is that there was no serious attempt to use the salary and perks of foreign political leaders for comparison when this is the most logical thing to do. All the exceptions and differences, in terms of size, economy, population, land mass, uniqueness etc can be moderated or massaged, with different weightages attached, to make them meaningful.
By brushing aside the most appropriate source of comparison and plunging into something that is really of no relevance to political leadership makes the recommendation and approval by Parliament a bit rancid and distasteful. Quite disappointing really, when the top and bestest talents were involved to challenge the recommendation or supporting it. At the end of three days, hook, line and sinkers were all swallowed in one big gulp and everyone seems so please, and with a sense of great achievement.
Where are the inputs from the human resource and compensation specialists?
Though I have been away from the human resource industry for a while, I cannot help but to see a reluctance to really do a thorough proposal based on what should be the relevant factors and inputs to come out with a less subjective recommendation. The main flaws in the recommendation are the insistence on the use of top income earners and the refusal to use comparative salary of politicians of other countries. The latter was pooh pooh away by raising a few strawmen as justifications, that because of these flimsy excuses, comparing them would be unsatisfactory. I will come back to this later.
Why the preoccupation with the top 1000 income earners and how relevant is this? The perceived intrinsic bias to use these high numbers is that the salary will have a higher base to start with and thus self serving. The cynics would not be happy for many obvious reasons. The PAP’s argument to favour this selective pick of the top 1000 is that the potential candidates should come from this pool of people, apparently logical but not really.
I will just point out two fallacies from this assumption. One, top money earners are not necessary top political leadership material. Political leadership means many more important things than just about ability to make money from any means or profession. The second point is that top income earners are likely to be so wealthy that they would not be distracted by a few million dollars, plus or minus. Money is not really an issue to attract them as they have plenty of them. And this is well pointed out earlier by another MP.
Money is only important to the talents that are not making that kind of money, and wanted to earn more, or near to what these people are making. The disconnect between this logic and the target group is pretty obvious. It is a flawed argument, a flawed basis to work on.
The second point I want to make is the quick dismissal of using foreign political leaders for comparison. Why? The often quoted reasons are related to corruption and tangible and intangible perks or benefits. As far as benefits are concerned, it is easy to find out and easy to quantified. For people who shoot freely about Air Force One or about trying to pay peanuts, these are foolish arguments that should not be entertained as quoting them showed that they are not serious. Second home allowance or travelling allowances of UK politicians are only relevant to them as the country is big and it is costly to travel from Scotland to London for Parliament sittings. Armoured plated cars for Obama is not a benefit but a necessity as his head has a big price. When mentioning benefits, one must be serious and not spurious just to win an argument.
All the perks can be tabled and the compensation specialists can review them for their relevance. This is something very lacking in the whole process. The dismissal of inputs from the compensation experts and every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that designing compensation packages is about commonsense and anyone can do it. Maybe they are right if it all boils down to judgement call. The taxi driver too can come up with a set of numbers.
Some benefits are specific and unique in nature and are simply inappropriate for consideration. Whatever perks that are official are obtainable and can be monetised in some ways. Intangible perks may be a problem if relevant. Getting a proper list of all the perks for consideration cannot be a difficult task for such an important matter.
The corruption part is more tricky but not unsurmountable either. We are talking about developed countries and not lawless dictatorships which should not even be part of the equation. Under table payouts cannot be considered as morally they are wrong and illegal. No sensible govt will dare to quote corruption as something that must be paid in a country that is incorruptible and makes corruption illegal.
Then again there are ways to by pass such issues of morality by creating a corruption index to help the incumbents from being corrupt. Of course this kind of thinking would not be tolerable to many. Assuming that it can be bulldozed through, then make a provision for it by calling it under whatever terms, or make a judgement call.
What I find disturbing is that there was no serious attempt to use the salary and perks of foreign political leaders for comparison when this is the most logical thing to do. All the exceptions and differences, in terms of size, economy, population, land mass, uniqueness etc can be moderated or massaged, with different weightages attached, to make them meaningful.
By brushing aside the most appropriate source of comparison and plunging into something that is really of no relevance to political leadership makes the recommendation and approval by Parliament a bit rancid and distasteful. Quite disappointing really, when the top and bestest talents were involved to challenge the recommendation or supporting it. At the end of three days, hook, line and sinkers were all swallowed in one big gulp and everyone seems so please, and with a sense of great achievement.
Where are the inputs from the human resource and compensation specialists?
1/18/2012
The days the world fought with China
Below are 7 short clips of WW2 films about the Japanese invasion of China and how this poor and unprepared nation was battered to pieces. It was only their human will and the spirit to live a life of freedom and the assistance of foreign forces from the West that helped the Chinese people defeated the overpowering and well equipped Japanese invaders.
All peace loving and anti war human beans should watch how destructive and painful war can be. The West, particularly the Americans, should view these short films produced by the Americans, to have a better understanding of what it was when Americans and the Chinese and people who suffered under the brutal Japanese war machines fought together, side by side, for freedom and for mankind.
It was a very painful history of China on film for every living Chinese to remember the times when they forgot to stand up as a people, as a nation.
Subject: Fw: Battle of China
This is excellent footage and archival material on the invasion of China by the Japanese. I sat through the 7 videos to see how our ancestors fought back the invaders despite overwhelming odds and unspeakable atrocities committed, particularly in Nanking in 1937. Now we know why China had to be what she is today, for never again will she suffer humiliation from foreign invaders. China has come of age, reminiscent of days of old, with a culture that goes back four thousand years. How true: “China may be invaded but never, never conquered†.
BATTLE OF CHINA
World War II Films about China - Produced by US Government
A very good history lesson. Worth viewing the whole 7 segments.
Every Chinese should watch this wonderful series of documentary films, to really learn about China and the true history.
The amazing adversities and abilities of our ancestors can inspire us to take it easy with any difficulties we may have in our life and become a winner.
The film is in English with very good CHINESE subtitles. Now go to:
WW-II 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQTWtokeF5Q
WW-II 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcjVWe3xgAo&feature=related
WW-II 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTIylgLDHE&feature=related
WW-II 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6z-fZwpmME&feature=related
WW-II 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHk6eepm0E&feature=related
WW-II 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_zntg-eFF0&feature=related
WW II 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hZiD5Uk5I&feature=related ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hZiD5Uk5I&feature=related
All peace loving and anti war human beans should watch how destructive and painful war can be. The West, particularly the Americans, should view these short films produced by the Americans, to have a better understanding of what it was when Americans and the Chinese and people who suffered under the brutal Japanese war machines fought together, side by side, for freedom and for mankind.
It was a very painful history of China on film for every living Chinese to remember the times when they forgot to stand up as a people, as a nation.
Subject: Fw: Battle of China
This is excellent footage and archival material on the invasion of China by the Japanese. I sat through the 7 videos to see how our ancestors fought back the invaders despite overwhelming odds and unspeakable atrocities committed, particularly in Nanking in 1937. Now we know why China had to be what she is today, for never again will she suffer humiliation from foreign invaders. China has come of age, reminiscent of days of old, with a culture that goes back four thousand years. How true: “China may be invaded but never, never conquered†.
BATTLE OF CHINA
World War II Films about China - Produced by US Government
A very good history lesson. Worth viewing the whole 7 segments.
Every Chinese should watch this wonderful series of documentary films, to really learn about China and the true history.
The amazing adversities and abilities of our ancestors can inspire us to take it easy with any difficulties we may have in our life and become a winner.
The film is in English with very good CHINESE subtitles. Now go to:
WW-II 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQTWtokeF5Q
WW-II 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcjVWe3xgAo&feature=related
WW-II 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTIylgLDHE&feature=related
WW-II 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6z-fZwpmME&feature=related
WW-II 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHk6eepm0E&feature=related
WW-II 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_zntg-eFF0&feature=related
WW II 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hZiD5Uk5I&feature=related ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hZiD5Uk5I&feature=related
The Aussies celebrating ASX
The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Jan 2012
Had the ASX deal gone ahead, Bocker could have comfortably hidden the far deeper downturn in equities trading experienced by his group than ASX over the past six months (although many a local stockbroker suffering loss of hair, sleep and a job might contest that view).
Acquiring the ASX would also have reduced (although in some ways deepened because of Australia's weighting to resources) SGX's currently heavy reliance on equities trading for revenue generation because the ASX is, in spite of perceptions, less dependent on the cash volume in the equities market....by Ian McIlwraith
The above is the first para of McIlwraith's article about how lucky ASX was in not merging with SGX. Good reading the whole article.
Had the ASX deal gone ahead, Bocker could have comfortably hidden the far deeper downturn in equities trading experienced by his group than ASX over the past six months (although many a local stockbroker suffering loss of hair, sleep and a job might contest that view).
Acquiring the ASX would also have reduced (although in some ways deepened because of Australia's weighting to resources) SGX's currently heavy reliance on equities trading for revenue generation because the ASX is, in spite of perceptions, less dependent on the cash volume in the equities market....by Ian McIlwraith
The above is the first para of McIlwraith's article about how lucky ASX was in not merging with SGX. Good reading the whole article.
Hsien Loong still thinking of career development
Hsien Loong is still thinking about promotion and career development of his employees. This kind of anomaly only exists in one country and no where else. No where in a democratically elected govt does a head of a political party has the privilege of career planning and development, and a salary scale for politicians as if they were employees of the state. In a normal healthy democracy every term of appointment could be the last term before the next general election.
Would Obama or Cameron be talking about career planning for their ministers with salary increment and promotion to come with it? What is happening here is a unique situation that could no longer exist in the next general election. It is not going to be the same anymore looking at how things are developing. Any political party that is elected to power should count themselves lucky. And to be reelected again, is not going to be a sure thing. In many countries, a two term party is a great achievement that many could only hope for.
What happens if a new govt is elected to power in 2016 and subsequently political offices change hand more regularly? It is something that can happen. To be elected again and again is no longer going to be a guarantee as the political system matures, as the people get wiser and more demanding and more selective.
Would Obama or Cameron be talking about career planning for their ministers with salary increment and promotion to come with it? What is happening here is a unique situation that could no longer exist in the next general election. It is not going to be the same anymore looking at how things are developing. Any political party that is elected to power should count themselves lucky. And to be reelected again, is not going to be a sure thing. In many countries, a two term party is a great achievement that many could only hope for.
What happens if a new govt is elected to power in 2016 and subsequently political offices change hand more regularly? It is something that can happen. To be elected again and again is no longer going to be a guarantee as the political system matures, as the people get wiser and more demanding and more selective.
Confirmed, Sinkies are not good banker/CEO material
David Conner is retiring from OCBC after 10 years. He took over from Alex Au, the previous CEO. Alex was a Hongkie. The successor to David Conner is none other than another Hongkie, Samuel Tsien. DBS too did not have a local bred CEO for nearly two decades. The only local bank that still has a local in charge is UOB, which surprisingly is out performing the foreign run local banks if the value of its share price is an indicator.
What should be done to get our local boys and girls to be good enough to be the top dog of local banks in the banking industry? Why is it that they are all found wanting? What is so lacking in the local talents. Maybe the real talents are all into politics, making sacrifices to serve the people.
One way to make this situation less embarrassing to the Sinkie bankers and Singaporeans in general, is to include a citizenship application form when a foreigner is offer a CEO position in any large Singapore corporation. And the appointment will only be confirmed on approval of citizenship. Then all can be happy that the CEOs are Singaporeans, that Singaporeans also got talent.
What should be done to get our local boys and girls to be good enough to be the top dog of local banks in the banking industry? Why is it that they are all found wanting? What is so lacking in the local talents. Maybe the real talents are all into politics, making sacrifices to serve the people.
One way to make this situation less embarrassing to the Sinkie bankers and Singaporeans in general, is to include a citizenship application form when a foreigner is offer a CEO position in any large Singapore corporation. And the appointment will only be confirmed on approval of citizenship. Then all can be happy that the CEOs are Singaporeans, that Singaporeans also got talent.
Filling the ocean
This guy was at a public tap with a big hose and filling water into a big tanker. Standing beside him was a long queue of human beans each with a pail or plastic container waiting for their turns.
They have been waiting for hours but the tanker is so huge and may take several hours to fill it up. And several tankers were also waiting. Occasionally the guy at the tap would turn around and slosh a few seconds of water into a couple of empty pails and then turn back to fill the tanker.
Just for a few minutes, many of those in the queue would have their pails filled and can go home happily to continue with their lives. But because the tankers must be filled, probably owned by some big shot, the rest of the peasants would have to wait for their turns, and a little mercy from the dispenser.
The moral of this incident is similar to someone trying to fill the ocean that is full of water and ignores the little ponds, rivers and streams, leaving them high and dry. This is what is happening in countries that believe in pure meritocracy, when the more the merits, the more deserving one should be, and their bank accounts should be continuously be filled even when they have no time to spend the money. The lesser merit or undeserving ones can go on and be hungry. Randians? Wide income gap is natural and nothing can be done about it, so said the meritorious and deserving. Get out of my elite uncaring face.
This is the basic pillar of a pure meritocratic system, pure capitalism. This is the road we are marching on.
They have been waiting for hours but the tanker is so huge and may take several hours to fill it up. And several tankers were also waiting. Occasionally the guy at the tap would turn around and slosh a few seconds of water into a couple of empty pails and then turn back to fill the tanker.
Just for a few minutes, many of those in the queue would have their pails filled and can go home happily to continue with their lives. But because the tankers must be filled, probably owned by some big shot, the rest of the peasants would have to wait for their turns, and a little mercy from the dispenser.
The moral of this incident is similar to someone trying to fill the ocean that is full of water and ignores the little ponds, rivers and streams, leaving them high and dry. This is what is happening in countries that believe in pure meritocracy, when the more the merits, the more deserving one should be, and their bank accounts should be continuously be filled even when they have no time to spend the money. The lesser merit or undeserving ones can go on and be hungry. Randians? Wide income gap is natural and nothing can be done about it, so said the meritorious and deserving. Get out of my elite uncaring face.
This is the basic pillar of a pure meritocratic system, pure capitalism. This is the road we are marching on.
Exceptional country, exceptional solution
We must see ourselves as the number one place to live for exceptional people. We must be an exceptional country and for that, the pay of our political leaders must be exceptional. We want the best and we shall pay the best salary in the world to get the best talent the world can provide.
So far every suggestion and proposal for the minister’s salary is arbitrary. The logic is arbitrary logic, selective and some may say self serving. The team making the recommendation chose who they want to compare with, chose the criteria they want to ensure that the pay is still in the millions. Chose to treat ministers like employees, call it pragmatic or to be unkind, mercenary. Chose to motivate them like employees of a company instead of leaders of a country leading the people by their exemplary conduct and dedication.
Let me suggest another selective arbitrary proposal. Pick ten of the world’s top countries, on any criteria, logically should be first world or developed advanced countries, not kingdoms or sheikdoms, and take the salary of their heads of govt for reference. Include all the perks that are measurable and relevant. Forget about Air Force One. It is a stupid comparison.
Convert all their perks into monetary terms and add them to their salaries. At the end of the exercise, take the average number, in monetary terms, and pay them to our head of govt. The rest of the ministerial salary can be a percentage of that. No one then can argue that there is no real comparison because these leaders have other perks. We add in the perks.
I think this formula should provide a handsome income to our ministers. And make it clean, no more other incomes or perks or bonuses. It is arbitrary but arbitrarily fair and logical. And like the Worker’s Party suggested, make the total payout public. It cannot be a case of clean and transparent but cannot tell. There should be nothing to be ashamed of that cannot be made public. Unless all the claims of transparency and clean wage is hogwash. Please tell.
The only unfair bit is that the talents may not live up to it as our talents come from a small pool of self proclaimed elite. Nevermind, be generous and aim to be an exceptional country with exceptional leadership. It may look like an aspiration, an idealistic goal, but we need to start somewhere. And starting with an exceptional salary for our leaders is a good start in the right direction.
So far every suggestion and proposal for the minister’s salary is arbitrary. The logic is arbitrary logic, selective and some may say self serving. The team making the recommendation chose who they want to compare with, chose the criteria they want to ensure that the pay is still in the millions. Chose to treat ministers like employees, call it pragmatic or to be unkind, mercenary. Chose to motivate them like employees of a company instead of leaders of a country leading the people by their exemplary conduct and dedication.
Let me suggest another selective arbitrary proposal. Pick ten of the world’s top countries, on any criteria, logically should be first world or developed advanced countries, not kingdoms or sheikdoms, and take the salary of their heads of govt for reference. Include all the perks that are measurable and relevant. Forget about Air Force One. It is a stupid comparison.
Convert all their perks into monetary terms and add them to their salaries. At the end of the exercise, take the average number, in monetary terms, and pay them to our head of govt. The rest of the ministerial salary can be a percentage of that. No one then can argue that there is no real comparison because these leaders have other perks. We add in the perks.
I think this formula should provide a handsome income to our ministers. And make it clean, no more other incomes or perks or bonuses. It is arbitrary but arbitrarily fair and logical. And like the Worker’s Party suggested, make the total payout public. It cannot be a case of clean and transparent but cannot tell. There should be nothing to be ashamed of that cannot be made public. Unless all the claims of transparency and clean wage is hogwash. Please tell.
The only unfair bit is that the talents may not live up to it as our talents come from a small pool of self proclaimed elite. Nevermind, be generous and aim to be an exceptional country with exceptional leadership. It may look like an aspiration, an idealistic goal, but we need to start somewhere. And starting with an exceptional salary for our leaders is a good start in the right direction.
1/17/2012
Alvin Yeo makes good sense
Be realistic and compares apple with apple. Alvin Yeo brought out an interesting point, that the political leaders of UK and US came from wealthy background and could afford to take lower salary. He quoted a few British politicians with net worth of 4 or 5 million pounds with the Cameron’s waiting to inherit a 30m pound fortune. For those with 4m or 5m pounds, actually ‘sub sub suey’ compare to our politician’s wealth.
The American leaders are worth more, in the region of $100m or $200m. So they can afford to take in lesser salaries. This is an excellent point.
I do not know how wealthy are our ministers, but I think they are worth not less than the Brits and Americans, except for a few. Or they were not that rich before joining politics.
What is important is that if we want to attract the best, the rich or big income earners, we must go for it, get the really rich to serve. And the irony is that the really rich in the US and UK don’t need to be fed more to be fatter. Are our really rich the same as them, or they are different, that they need to be fatter cats? Even without taking the calculator or computer, one can easily conclude that the top 1000 high income earners would worth as much as the British and American leaders and should not be eyeing for more money.
The whole argument seems to go round and round. They are so rich, they need not be paid so much. And then we need to attract these very rich and need to pay them more? They would not be happy with less? Maybe as a non talent, I am unable to grasp the brilliance or logic in the argument. Really pai seh.
The American leaders are worth more, in the region of $100m or $200m. So they can afford to take in lesser salaries. This is an excellent point.
I do not know how wealthy are our ministers, but I think they are worth not less than the Brits and Americans, except for a few. Or they were not that rich before joining politics.
What is important is that if we want to attract the best, the rich or big income earners, we must go for it, get the really rich to serve. And the irony is that the really rich in the US and UK don’t need to be fed more to be fatter. Are our really rich the same as them, or they are different, that they need to be fatter cats? Even without taking the calculator or computer, one can easily conclude that the top 1000 high income earners would worth as much as the British and American leaders and should not be eyeing for more money.
The whole argument seems to go round and round. They are so rich, they need not be paid so much. And then we need to attract these very rich and need to pay them more? They would not be happy with less? Maybe as a non talent, I am unable to grasp the brilliance or logic in the argument. Really pai seh.
KPIs are good and bad
Heard everyone screaming for KPIs like words from the mouth of gods. KPIs are the answer to work performance and an objective way to measure performance of an employee. HR professionals would tell you that it is just a tool. And a tool is as good as the person using it. It is not something so simple to set.
Does anyone know how much time and effort to write a good and reasonable KPI and how much time and effort to monitor it? It is a very tedious process. But some employers think it is so easy. Either they write it in 10 minutes and tell the employee to write his KPIs which he does not have any clue whatsoever. And the discussion is over in 30 minutes or less, to meet again in 12 months time. And the appraisal is to do the appraising thinking he knows what the employee did all this time. The other flaw is that the result may be achieved by means that have adverse and harmful consequences.
Another issue, who sets the KPIs? You the people who are being affected by the KPIs or the PM who decides the KPIs whether you like it or not, or benefits you or adversely affecting you? The assumption is that the KPIs are good for the intended people and country and the people agree to it. An excellent example is HDB. What should be the KPIs for the minister in charge? Build more and cheaper flats? Build less and charge higher and bring in more profits? Hold back the building to shrink the supply for higher profits? Or tell the buyers, you buy according to my schedule. I need to maximize profit and minimize waste.
Would an employee blindly pursue the KPIs at the expense of other issues for his bonuses instead of long term good of the organization, inn this case the people? Many organizations are caught by this short term KPI trap. There are many conflicting interests in govt than in a private organization. The latter is so much simpler. Governing is not a black and white issue and often more grey and compromises.
Should the people set the KPIs instead? Why should the PM be setting the KPIs? Is there a conflict between what is good for country and people and what is good for party? No, anyone say no? Think of the Whip.
Would there be KPIs for MPs? Who is going to set KPIs for opposition MPs and are they entitled to the same kind of reward and bonuses? It is public money you know.
Does anyone know how much time and effort to write a good and reasonable KPI and how much time and effort to monitor it? It is a very tedious process. But some employers think it is so easy. Either they write it in 10 minutes and tell the employee to write his KPIs which he does not have any clue whatsoever. And the discussion is over in 30 minutes or less, to meet again in 12 months time. And the appraisal is to do the appraising thinking he knows what the employee did all this time. The other flaw is that the result may be achieved by means that have adverse and harmful consequences.
Another issue, who sets the KPIs? You the people who are being affected by the KPIs or the PM who decides the KPIs whether you like it or not, or benefits you or adversely affecting you? The assumption is that the KPIs are good for the intended people and country and the people agree to it. An excellent example is HDB. What should be the KPIs for the minister in charge? Build more and cheaper flats? Build less and charge higher and bring in more profits? Hold back the building to shrink the supply for higher profits? Or tell the buyers, you buy according to my schedule. I need to maximize profit and minimize waste.
Would an employee blindly pursue the KPIs at the expense of other issues for his bonuses instead of long term good of the organization, inn this case the people? Many organizations are caught by this short term KPI trap. There are many conflicting interests in govt than in a private organization. The latter is so much simpler. Governing is not a black and white issue and often more grey and compromises.
Should the people set the KPIs instead? Why should the PM be setting the KPIs? Is there a conflict between what is good for country and people and what is good for party? No, anyone say no? Think of the Whip.
Would there be KPIs for MPs? Who is going to set KPIs for opposition MPs and are they entitled to the same kind of reward and bonuses? It is public money you know.
There was nothing self serving
The debate on the Ministerial Salary has started. A brief description of what I heard and read is that everything about high ministerial salary is for the good of the country and people. There is nothing about self serving.
The island needs strong, good and capable leaders. And how to get them is through paying them well. The ministers and MPs are arguing for more money not for themselves, but for the country and the people. Bad leadership will turn the country upside down overnight. They are preparing the groundwork for future able leaders to come on stage.
Bad leaders are likely to be corrupt and self serving. Only more money can keep them from being corrupt and self serving. Like the gardener, pay him less and he will help himself with the apples to make himself richer. It is human instinct, natural human traits.
The choice of not comparing with foreign leader’s salary is that they are getting much more in undisclosed perks. Ours is clean and everyone knows how much our leaders are getting, from the types of allowances, the number of months of bonuses, the other appointments etc etc. All their income is clean and transparent. These are nothing compare to what foreign leaders are getting in other kinds of perks.
Pegging them to the top 1000 income earners has a logic, not arbitrary. We need people from this group of high income earners to step forward to serve. Never mind that this group of people are high achievers and not really in need of additional money to live on. Many would have been comfortable for life without having to earn another cent. But there is a need to be fair to them, to their families, that their lifestyle is not affected by stepping forward to serve the people and country. The high salary is for this purpose, to attract these people, to tell them that they will not lose out in monetary terms.
Not all people are altruistic and selfless. We got to be pragmatic and realistic. People who made a lot of money are motivated by money. And it is good to provide more monetary incentives to motivate them to work better which will end up better for the people. Bonuses, variable bonuses will be a good start to lure these people into public service, like bait in a mouse trap. We used to have daft and selfless people coming out to serve the country. But that generation of leaders is over. We are living in a brave new world where the ethos is self first. We must accept this and the high salary for ministers is really a recognition of a new reality.
The people must support this high salary recommendation. It is good for the country and people as we go forward. We are talking about the future leadership, about the well being of our children. There is nothing self serving to support such a recommendation.
The island needs strong, good and capable leaders. And how to get them is through paying them well. The ministers and MPs are arguing for more money not for themselves, but for the country and the people. Bad leadership will turn the country upside down overnight. They are preparing the groundwork for future able leaders to come on stage.
Bad leaders are likely to be corrupt and self serving. Only more money can keep them from being corrupt and self serving. Like the gardener, pay him less and he will help himself with the apples to make himself richer. It is human instinct, natural human traits.
The choice of not comparing with foreign leader’s salary is that they are getting much more in undisclosed perks. Ours is clean and everyone knows how much our leaders are getting, from the types of allowances, the number of months of bonuses, the other appointments etc etc. All their income is clean and transparent. These are nothing compare to what foreign leaders are getting in other kinds of perks.
Pegging them to the top 1000 income earners has a logic, not arbitrary. We need people from this group of high income earners to step forward to serve. Never mind that this group of people are high achievers and not really in need of additional money to live on. Many would have been comfortable for life without having to earn another cent. But there is a need to be fair to them, to their families, that their lifestyle is not affected by stepping forward to serve the people and country. The high salary is for this purpose, to attract these people, to tell them that they will not lose out in monetary terms.
Not all people are altruistic and selfless. We got to be pragmatic and realistic. People who made a lot of money are motivated by money. And it is good to provide more monetary incentives to motivate them to work better which will end up better for the people. Bonuses, variable bonuses will be a good start to lure these people into public service, like bait in a mouse trap. We used to have daft and selfless people coming out to serve the country. But that generation of leaders is over. We are living in a brave new world where the ethos is self first. We must accept this and the high salary for ministers is really a recognition of a new reality.
The people must support this high salary recommendation. It is good for the country and people as we go forward. We are talking about the future leadership, about the well being of our children. There is nothing self serving to support such a recommendation.
The Civil Service is the backbone of the country
The obsessive attention on the politicians and their political pay package has distracted the people from the vital role the civil service plays in the running of the country. The politicians come and go, by choice or by being ousted by the people when they are no longer trusted. The civil servants are career employees who will be there to serve whichever govt that comes to power. They will only have to leave with the politicians should they be compromised or be beholden to the incumbent political leadership and leaving is the only option when the benefactors depart.
The core of talents of the govt is in the civil servants. They are really the talented ones, the scholars. They will do a very good job under good and dedicated leaders. They will only go astray under misguided leadership or compromised to work for politicians instead of the people.
A politician is a politician. The honourable and selfless ones will devote their energy and effort to serve the people. The less honourable ones will be less for the people and more for self. They will keep telling you how much sacrifice they have to take to serve the people, loss of privacy, loss of income, lower quality of life etc etc. It is always about themselves and their own interests. There are plenty of examples in history of good and bad political leaders.
What in my view are good political leadership? A sense of commitment to serve country and people. For these, you don’t need rocket scientists or top surgeons or top lawyers or top money earners. What is needed are people with a heart in the right place and good or above average intelligence to know what is good for country and people. Too clever people with the heart in the wrong place, in their pockets, are unsuitable for political leadership. There must be honour and moral righteousness in people assuming political leadership. Nothing less.
A good political leadership can always count on the pool of top talents in the Civil Service to do the meticulous work of running the country. And they are there to set the right direction for the people and country, not for themselves. They are there also as the guiding light, to lead by examples, to control the civil servants to do the right things. They can only do that when they are upright and honourable, and above money and rewards.
Yes it is about leadership, lead by examples. The idea of paying leaders to motivate them is rubbish, ludicrous. Leaders don’t need to be motivated by monetary rewards or any rewards. They lead the way, they show the way. It is ridiculous for leaders to ask for rewards to do better. Unbelieveable! They can even be paid lesser than the civil servants who are professionals in their work who are there as career employees, not someone parachuted from somewhere, without a clue about govt or the technical abilities of specialised ministries and starts to act and behave like experts.
Political leaders are decision makers, acting on the advice and recommendations of the professionals, the civil servants. Their main concerns are nation and people’s interests, the good of the people and country. They are the checks and balance on the civil servants. The civil servant may be ruthlessly efficient in their jobs, cold and calculative, living by every rule in the book. It is the politician that is there to make them more compassionate and people centric. The decision making process is important and the self serving may argue that this is more valuable, money wise, than just getting the work done. Agree. But such thought already disqualify a political leader from leading as the thought is self serving, greed.
It will be good for political leaders to be as technically competent as the civil servants, but not a pre requisite. In reality it is not always possible. But a good mind and a good heart will lead to good decisions. A misplaced heart will never lead to good decisions, but self serving decisions.
The civil servants and the politicians have different roles, complimentary and also in contrary to each other. They support and assist each other as well as checking on each other. When the interest of the two merges, for the good of people and country, things will be well. When their interests merge for their own good, then there will be chaos and the interests of people and nation compromised.
It is vital to preserve and maintain the integrity and independence of the Civil Service from politicians and vice versa. When the two are in cahoot, the people and nation will fall victims to their self serving schemes and policies.
The core of talents of the govt is in the civil servants. They are really the talented ones, the scholars. They will do a very good job under good and dedicated leaders. They will only go astray under misguided leadership or compromised to work for politicians instead of the people.
A politician is a politician. The honourable and selfless ones will devote their energy and effort to serve the people. The less honourable ones will be less for the people and more for self. They will keep telling you how much sacrifice they have to take to serve the people, loss of privacy, loss of income, lower quality of life etc etc. It is always about themselves and their own interests. There are plenty of examples in history of good and bad political leaders.
What in my view are good political leadership? A sense of commitment to serve country and people. For these, you don’t need rocket scientists or top surgeons or top lawyers or top money earners. What is needed are people with a heart in the right place and good or above average intelligence to know what is good for country and people. Too clever people with the heart in the wrong place, in their pockets, are unsuitable for political leadership. There must be honour and moral righteousness in people assuming political leadership. Nothing less.
A good political leadership can always count on the pool of top talents in the Civil Service to do the meticulous work of running the country. And they are there to set the right direction for the people and country, not for themselves. They are there also as the guiding light, to lead by examples, to control the civil servants to do the right things. They can only do that when they are upright and honourable, and above money and rewards.
Yes it is about leadership, lead by examples. The idea of paying leaders to motivate them is rubbish, ludicrous. Leaders don’t need to be motivated by monetary rewards or any rewards. They lead the way, they show the way. It is ridiculous for leaders to ask for rewards to do better. Unbelieveable! They can even be paid lesser than the civil servants who are professionals in their work who are there as career employees, not someone parachuted from somewhere, without a clue about govt or the technical abilities of specialised ministries and starts to act and behave like experts.
Political leaders are decision makers, acting on the advice and recommendations of the professionals, the civil servants. Their main concerns are nation and people’s interests, the good of the people and country. They are the checks and balance on the civil servants. The civil servant may be ruthlessly efficient in their jobs, cold and calculative, living by every rule in the book. It is the politician that is there to make them more compassionate and people centric. The decision making process is important and the self serving may argue that this is more valuable, money wise, than just getting the work done. Agree. But such thought already disqualify a political leader from leading as the thought is self serving, greed.
It will be good for political leaders to be as technically competent as the civil servants, but not a pre requisite. In reality it is not always possible. But a good mind and a good heart will lead to good decisions. A misplaced heart will never lead to good decisions, but self serving decisions.
The civil servants and the politicians have different roles, complimentary and also in contrary to each other. They support and assist each other as well as checking on each other. When the interest of the two merges, for the good of people and country, things will be well. When their interests merge for their own good, then there will be chaos and the interests of people and nation compromised.
It is vital to preserve and maintain the integrity and independence of the Civil Service from politicians and vice versa. When the two are in cahoot, the people and nation will fall victims to their self serving schemes and policies.
1/16/2012
Singapore is a big city indeed
It takes about 13 hours to be in London, or if one drives, about 5 hours to be in KL. This woman and her two teenage daughters took more than a day to walk from Yishun to Tampines. They took a break in Chai Chee at night, sleeping in the void deck, and prepared to walk another 6km to Tampines.
She had recently gone through a divorce and has no place to stay. They were walking to seek help from a relative living in Tampines. And with all their personal belongings they dragged themselves, on foot to Tampines.
They could not even afford the really affordable public transport that Singaporeans are all shouting cheap, cheap, cheap. Or they were trying to save every dollar, perhaps for their meals. Or did they have their meals at all?
In super rich city state of Singapore, there will be those not too clever and maybe like some said, irresponsible and messed up their own lives for not knowing how to take advantage of the pro business culture and system, to grow rich. Some of these successful jokers think that everyone is born the same, with the same opportunities, with parents that are rich and influential, or with a good brain, to earn millions and drive around in Ferraris.
No, in life, not everyone is dealt the same hand of cards. Some may be even have very good DNAs, but the circumstances made it difficult to find a way out of the shit they are in. Some are just too unfortunate to be given a bad hand of DNAs and just simply stand no choice at all. To the uncaring and elitist mindset, these losers have only themselves to blame, for being lazy, stupid and not wanting to work. There are plenty of jobs available.
Life is not always kind to everyone. For those who are better blessed, they can afford to be unkind to those that are not too blessed. It is their good fortune. Enjoy while they can. Spit at the downtrodden, lazy and useless buggers who could not make it, and enjoy that sense of achievements.
I do not know the fate of the mother and daughters. One MP, Tan Chuan Jin, had offered help and was walking with them part of the journey. But the poor too have dignity and pride. They refused all help. It was said that finally they took a ride from a police car.
Life can be tragic and pathetic even in a land of millionaires and roads paved with gold. And to some, their only means of transportation is their pair of legs. This is real! The public transportations may be cheap for the cheapos, but not cheap enough for a few laggards.
She had recently gone through a divorce and has no place to stay. They were walking to seek help from a relative living in Tampines. And with all their personal belongings they dragged themselves, on foot to Tampines.
They could not even afford the really affordable public transport that Singaporeans are all shouting cheap, cheap, cheap. Or they were trying to save every dollar, perhaps for their meals. Or did they have their meals at all?
In super rich city state of Singapore, there will be those not too clever and maybe like some said, irresponsible and messed up their own lives for not knowing how to take advantage of the pro business culture and system, to grow rich. Some of these successful jokers think that everyone is born the same, with the same opportunities, with parents that are rich and influential, or with a good brain, to earn millions and drive around in Ferraris.
No, in life, not everyone is dealt the same hand of cards. Some may be even have very good DNAs, but the circumstances made it difficult to find a way out of the shit they are in. Some are just too unfortunate to be given a bad hand of DNAs and just simply stand no choice at all. To the uncaring and elitist mindset, these losers have only themselves to blame, for being lazy, stupid and not wanting to work. There are plenty of jobs available.
Life is not always kind to everyone. For those who are better blessed, they can afford to be unkind to those that are not too blessed. It is their good fortune. Enjoy while they can. Spit at the downtrodden, lazy and useless buggers who could not make it, and enjoy that sense of achievements.
I do not know the fate of the mother and daughters. One MP, Tan Chuan Jin, had offered help and was walking with them part of the journey. But the poor too have dignity and pride. They refused all help. It was said that finally they took a ride from a police car.
Life can be tragic and pathetic even in a land of millionaires and roads paved with gold. And to some, their only means of transportation is their pair of legs. This is real! The public transportations may be cheap for the cheapos, but not cheap enough for a few laggards.
Rogues in uniform
The ST reported several cases of Singaporeans travelling overseas and were detained for months in foreign jails and treated by criminals. And their crimes were due to some rogues in uniform and their wild imaginations. They arrested them on grounds of suspicions or when they were under some kinds of hallucination that a family could be involved in human trafficking or trying to sell the children they under their care.
Civil Engineer Shirley Too and her husband were arrested in Dubai. They were heading to Rome for the blessing of the baby she was conceiving and ended up in a miscarriage because of the wrongful detention of nine months in Dubai jail, and not allowed to contact the Singapore Embassy staff. Her imagined crime was the four boys, three teenagers and a 12 year old, whom the rogues in uniformed imagined were to be sold by them. A simple inquiry would have resolved such a misunderstanding or false accusation. They were many cases of worst accusations involving drug trafficking when the ulterior motive was bribe money that the rogues demanded for the release.
There must be international laws to punish such rogues if, for any reason, is to protect the innocent from the injustice, cruelty and nightmare that they had to put up with. Children were not spared by such criminals in uniform. Where is the UN when such blatant acts of violating human rights were so prevalent? Could they not do anything?
In the Shirley Too’s case, not only an apology will be adequate. The Dubai govt must be made to pay compensation for the time under wrongful detention and the miscarriage. The release of Shirley Too or other Singaporeans under wrongful detention is not enough or acceptable. The rogues must be punished and their victims compensated. Only then could such incidents be reduced. It is frightening and torturing to be put through such an ordeal for anyone, adult, woman or child.
How many animals are in uniform and given authority to abuse the innocents and could simply get away with their crimes?
Civil Engineer Shirley Too and her husband were arrested in Dubai. They were heading to Rome for the blessing of the baby she was conceiving and ended up in a miscarriage because of the wrongful detention of nine months in Dubai jail, and not allowed to contact the Singapore Embassy staff. Her imagined crime was the four boys, three teenagers and a 12 year old, whom the rogues in uniformed imagined were to be sold by them. A simple inquiry would have resolved such a misunderstanding or false accusation. They were many cases of worst accusations involving drug trafficking when the ulterior motive was bribe money that the rogues demanded for the release.
There must be international laws to punish such rogues if, for any reason, is to protect the innocent from the injustice, cruelty and nightmare that they had to put up with. Children were not spared by such criminals in uniform. Where is the UN when such blatant acts of violating human rights were so prevalent? Could they not do anything?
In the Shirley Too’s case, not only an apology will be adequate. The Dubai govt must be made to pay compensation for the time under wrongful detention and the miscarriage. The release of Shirley Too or other Singaporeans under wrongful detention is not enough or acceptable. The rogues must be punished and their victims compensated. Only then could such incidents be reduced. It is frightening and torturing to be put through such an ordeal for anyone, adult, woman or child.
How many animals are in uniform and given authority to abuse the innocents and could simply get away with their crimes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)