In his latest State of the Union Address, Obama Barack came across as a happy, balanced and contented man. In his Presidential speech it was all about nation and people, nothing about self. He was not there to defend his pay or asking for more pay. The only time he did mention about his pay was to say that he was very satisfied with his meagre official pay and was more than willing to pay more taxes on top of what he was paying under the current tax laws.
Some may squirm and privately mumble to themselves that Obama could be paid more under the table. But no one has any evidence to say so. Given the American liberal and open system, any such wrongdoings would not hide pass muster. It is not so easy to be corrupt or be paid under the table without being discovered as the President of the USA. This is unlike Asian systems of opagueness, non transparency and non disclosure when many things could be hidden or undisclosed and plenty can be hidden under the sun.
The closest Asian system that is as transparent as the American, and clean, must be our very own system. The slight difference is that Obama is a happy and contented politician who is happy with his lesser pay than our politicians who are still feeling quite sore of the hair cut. A contented man, some say silly man, is a wise man. Of course this is very subjective and many in paradise will be laughing themselves silly at Obama for such a big job and responsibility and afraid to fight for more pay. He could simply use our model to justify his $600k pay upwards many times.
Whether he is wise or silly is a matter of opinion, a judgement call really.
1/30/2012
Close down our Medical College
I read that it will cost a student about $600k to study Medicine in Australia or more in the US or UK. This is a princely sum of money to acquire a skill to earn a living. I can presume that the cost of training a doctor locally is just as much, though it may cost less to a student after govt subsidies. The full cost could be as much as a million to produce a locally trained doctor to practice as a GP. For the specialists, the cost will be much more.
In my view this is just not cost effective. When we can get fully trained doctors overseas, including specialists, without paying a cent for their training, why do we need to spend so much of our resources on training doctors locally? All the infrastructure, the manpower, resources, etc can be put to better use elsewhere. In a way, we can outsource our medical training overseas by recruiting foreign talents. And we can pay them cheaper than our locals with their unjustly high expectations.
Boon Wan is talking about cutting cost in the medical profession by increasing productivity. I think he should consider this option. The cost will definitely come down, without the costly investment and with cheaper doctors readily available.
In the name of efficiency, cost effectiveness, we can put this kind of thinking further by closing all our universities and recruit foreign talents and graduates to work in the professions and industries as well. Definitely cheaper, hungrier, and more dynamic and with cost advantage, will make our economy more competitive and vibrant.
As for the Singaporeans, they are quite expensive to train locally. If they can afford it, they can join the army of locals in their march to foreign universities which are deemed to be more valuable and better, and come back as foreign talents. They can foot their own training without the state having to fund the local universities and to provide subsidies on their tuition fees.
The net effect is that we will have cheaper doctors who are better trained by overseas universities to serve our people. It is a win win situation.
In my view this is just not cost effective. When we can get fully trained doctors overseas, including specialists, without paying a cent for their training, why do we need to spend so much of our resources on training doctors locally? All the infrastructure, the manpower, resources, etc can be put to better use elsewhere. In a way, we can outsource our medical training overseas by recruiting foreign talents. And we can pay them cheaper than our locals with their unjustly high expectations.
Boon Wan is talking about cutting cost in the medical profession by increasing productivity. I think he should consider this option. The cost will definitely come down, without the costly investment and with cheaper doctors readily available.
In the name of efficiency, cost effectiveness, we can put this kind of thinking further by closing all our universities and recruit foreign talents and graduates to work in the professions and industries as well. Definitely cheaper, hungrier, and more dynamic and with cost advantage, will make our economy more competitive and vibrant.
As for the Singaporeans, they are quite expensive to train locally. If they can afford it, they can join the army of locals in their march to foreign universities which are deemed to be more valuable and better, and come back as foreign talents. They can foot their own training without the state having to fund the local universities and to provide subsidies on their tuition fees.
The net effect is that we will have cheaper doctors who are better trained by overseas universities to serve our people. It is a win win situation.
A jaw dropping act
The big salary cut for ministers and politicians is a jaw dropping act of sort. It is a very significant admission that the salary paid to politicians was way way excessive in all counts and that finally it came to the open, and no one in his right mind would dare to defend it. It is also a confirmation that it was wrong in the private thoughts of many people, maybe even among the recipients of the huge salaries, but all just buat bodoh and makes hay while the sun shines.
And now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is pointless and helpless to put it back. The ugliness of the high pay cannot face the light of moral justice, not even political correctness. It is just indefensible. It has to be dumped into the darkness and be forgotten.
The troublesome part is that, how could something that is so wrong be upheld and perpetuated for so long as something that is right? It can only happen in a country with unthinking people or absolute power.
So what is the new mantra? Greed is good, greed is normal, greed is the way to go, unstoppable. It has to be that way if we are to progress. Feed the greed and the greedy will be more motivated and will excel in what they are doing.
Actually one can be damn greedy without being productive at all. And one can spend all his energy trying to grab the money by all kinds of schemes instead of working for it.
I wrote the above before the Parliamentary debate. And I was completely wrong. There were still people staunchly believing in it and defending it with tooth and nail. We know who they are now. We also know who kept quiet throughout the debate, either they were against it or too embarrass to defend it, or wanting to enjoy it without being caught defending it.
The biggest sin in this issue is that the people who are benefitting from it are defending and justifying it. And the people who are against it have no avenue to fight it except for 6 opposition members. And if my poll is anything to go by, the majority of the people are against it.
Can the ministers walk around with heads held high, that the people approved their high salary? Did they ask the people about it. Or there is no need to ask at all? And some were very angry at those who spoke against it. They have decided how much they want to pay themselves and they will vote for it in a Parliament where they have absolute majority, with the Whip in force. They will have their way, all 81 of them, not the majority of the people who did not agree with them.
This is democracy at its peak. The rule of the majority in Parliament, by the people, of the people, and for the people. Maybe this definition of democracy needs a little tweaking.
And now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is pointless and helpless to put it back. The ugliness of the high pay cannot face the light of moral justice, not even political correctness. It is just indefensible. It has to be dumped into the darkness and be forgotten.
The troublesome part is that, how could something that is so wrong be upheld and perpetuated for so long as something that is right? It can only happen in a country with unthinking people or absolute power.
So what is the new mantra? Greed is good, greed is normal, greed is the way to go, unstoppable. It has to be that way if we are to progress. Feed the greed and the greedy will be more motivated and will excel in what they are doing.
Actually one can be damn greedy without being productive at all. And one can spend all his energy trying to grab the money by all kinds of schemes instead of working for it.
I wrote the above before the Parliamentary debate. And I was completely wrong. There were still people staunchly believing in it and defending it with tooth and nail. We know who they are now. We also know who kept quiet throughout the debate, either they were against it or too embarrass to defend it, or wanting to enjoy it without being caught defending it.
The biggest sin in this issue is that the people who are benefitting from it are defending and justifying it. And the people who are against it have no avenue to fight it except for 6 opposition members. And if my poll is anything to go by, the majority of the people are against it.
Can the ministers walk around with heads held high, that the people approved their high salary? Did they ask the people about it. Or there is no need to ask at all? And some were very angry at those who spoke against it. They have decided how much they want to pay themselves and they will vote for it in a Parliament where they have absolute majority, with the Whip in force. They will have their way, all 81 of them, not the majority of the people who did not agree with them.
This is democracy at its peak. The rule of the majority in Parliament, by the people, of the people, and for the people. Maybe this definition of democracy needs a little tweaking.
1/29/2012
Sinners not allowed in paradise
The gate of paradise is heavily guarded by no nonsense and morally upright prudes. No sinners are allowed to pass through that gate with no exceptions. The moral high ground is zealously protected. Everyone walking around in paradise has a halo above his head, a sign of being above temptations.
Paradise is only for the holiest of the holy. And they wear white, laundered many times a day to make sure their attires are really spotless. When dirty, just launder again and again. Incidentally laundering is good business in paradise. Many citizens need laundering services to stay clean and white.
Clinton and his Lewinsky friend will be a no no in paradise. Sinners, they will scream. Obama, getting richer and richer despite his paltry salary, is also a suspect. He must be a man of low repute, dipping his fingers in the cookie jar. Money must have come from less clean sources and no amount of laundering would make it clean. So are the leaders of the world, all suspects of recipients of unclean money. No wonder they are seen as leaders with low dignities. The angels have been instructed to keep these sinners out. And the citizens of paradise are happily playing with their fiddlers.
Be clean, so said the holy of the holiest, and the equally clean citizens roared with approval. And they walk around carry stones to throw at the unclean.
Jesus frowned. ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast his stone.’ And they cast their stones at the sinners. The citizens and the holies of paradise are clean and have not sinned.
Amen.
Paradise is only for the holiest of the holy. And they wear white, laundered many times a day to make sure their attires are really spotless. When dirty, just launder again and again. Incidentally laundering is good business in paradise. Many citizens need laundering services to stay clean and white.
Clinton and his Lewinsky friend will be a no no in paradise. Sinners, they will scream. Obama, getting richer and richer despite his paltry salary, is also a suspect. He must be a man of low repute, dipping his fingers in the cookie jar. Money must have come from less clean sources and no amount of laundering would make it clean. So are the leaders of the world, all suspects of recipients of unclean money. No wonder they are seen as leaders with low dignities. The angels have been instructed to keep these sinners out. And the citizens of paradise are happily playing with their fiddlers.
Be clean, so said the holy of the holiest, and the equally clean citizens roared with approval. And they walk around carry stones to throw at the unclean.
Jesus frowned. ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast his stone.’ And they cast their stones at the sinners. The citizens and the holies of paradise are clean and have not sinned.
Amen.
The primacy of state or the people?
The state and its people are two sides of a palm. The first impression is that what is good for the state must be good for the people and vice versa. Can it be that what is good for state is not good for people and vice versa as well? There is this disquiet about the primacy of state versus its citizens. Should there be a test on which should come first, what would the govt do? There is a dichotomy between the perpetuation of the existence of the state and the well being of the people. Could there be a situation when putting one above the other could lead to the other’s demise?
There is a school of thought that the continued existence of the state is primary, that the state should go on as a continuous entity, a legacy, and the interest of the people can be compromised if necessary. And there will be a time when the citizen’s interest has to give way to the interest of the state. One good example is the importation of great numbers of foreigners to replace or reinforce the locals in the name of good for the citizens. Depending on how many were brought in, the original citizens could be diluted.
This to some is a necessary evil when the original citizens are no longer competitive, their DNAs and genetic codes have degenerated and a new set of DNAs and genetics are needed to replace them. Putting it simply, the people are dispensable and can be traded or discarded for better stocks to keep the state alive into the future and for economic growth.
Such thinking or approach may not be acceptable to those who see the primacy of the citizens, the people over that of the state. The state exists because of the people. It is not necessary to compromise or endanger the existence of the state just for the sake of its citizens. It is just a case of citizens first and their interests must not be adversely affected for the good of an inanimate construct, an artificiality called the state.
This brings back the conflict between state and people. The state exists for the people or the people for the state? For a state to exist for its people, then our policy of bringing in foreigners at the expense of the locals, to become locals, is not agreeable to the citizens. The policy makers may argue otherwise, claiming that the imports are necessary and really for the good of the people. To the believers of state primacy, the people or citizens are dispensable. Bad people or poor quality people can go and be replaced. Bring in foreigners, give them citizenship and make them instant citizens, no difference.
The above argument is not similar to a stateless situation where there is no state and no citizens, a to each his own, to make the best of his own according to his talent status.
The people, particularly the PMETs and top professionals, are feeling the heat. There is an angry perception with many case examples to show that many locals have to make way, becoming redundant or by passed for the top jobs, to foreigners who were not better than them. Many were judgement calls or for more flirtatious reasons. Is it really the case that no locals are found better than foreigners at the senior positions and at the lower levels, locals could end up jobless in favour of foreigners because the latter are better skilled, qualified or simply cheaper, or because of political reasons, office politics or whatever?
The bad bards pointed to the primacy of the state and if needed, the whole original local population can be replaced by more vibrant and cheaper foreigners just to keep the state vibrant. The assumption here is that the locals without the foreigners would not be able to keep the economy vibrant for the good of everyone. They are daft, too complacent and not willing to work. There are two sides to the argument or selective arguments that can be self serving. Some see it as a sell out of the original citizens.
There are now some indications of a change in direction, to be more local focused whether in form or in substance. This is a serious matter as it affects the well being of the original citizens and the viability of the state. Which wisdom shall triumph?
There is a school of thought that the continued existence of the state is primary, that the state should go on as a continuous entity, a legacy, and the interest of the people can be compromised if necessary. And there will be a time when the citizen’s interest has to give way to the interest of the state. One good example is the importation of great numbers of foreigners to replace or reinforce the locals in the name of good for the citizens. Depending on how many were brought in, the original citizens could be diluted.
This to some is a necessary evil when the original citizens are no longer competitive, their DNAs and genetic codes have degenerated and a new set of DNAs and genetics are needed to replace them. Putting it simply, the people are dispensable and can be traded or discarded for better stocks to keep the state alive into the future and for economic growth.
Such thinking or approach may not be acceptable to those who see the primacy of the citizens, the people over that of the state. The state exists because of the people. It is not necessary to compromise or endanger the existence of the state just for the sake of its citizens. It is just a case of citizens first and their interests must not be adversely affected for the good of an inanimate construct, an artificiality called the state.
This brings back the conflict between state and people. The state exists for the people or the people for the state? For a state to exist for its people, then our policy of bringing in foreigners at the expense of the locals, to become locals, is not agreeable to the citizens. The policy makers may argue otherwise, claiming that the imports are necessary and really for the good of the people. To the believers of state primacy, the people or citizens are dispensable. Bad people or poor quality people can go and be replaced. Bring in foreigners, give them citizenship and make them instant citizens, no difference.
The above argument is not similar to a stateless situation where there is no state and no citizens, a to each his own, to make the best of his own according to his talent status.
The people, particularly the PMETs and top professionals, are feeling the heat. There is an angry perception with many case examples to show that many locals have to make way, becoming redundant or by passed for the top jobs, to foreigners who were not better than them. Many were judgement calls or for more flirtatious reasons. Is it really the case that no locals are found better than foreigners at the senior positions and at the lower levels, locals could end up jobless in favour of foreigners because the latter are better skilled, qualified or simply cheaper, or because of political reasons, office politics or whatever?
The bad bards pointed to the primacy of the state and if needed, the whole original local population can be replaced by more vibrant and cheaper foreigners just to keep the state vibrant. The assumption here is that the locals without the foreigners would not be able to keep the economy vibrant for the good of everyone. They are daft, too complacent and not willing to work. There are two sides to the argument or selective arguments that can be self serving. Some see it as a sell out of the original citizens.
There are now some indications of a change in direction, to be more local focused whether in form or in substance. This is a serious matter as it affects the well being of the original citizens and the viability of the state. Which wisdom shall triumph?
1/28/2012
How to justify high pay
My human resource experience apparently has gone out of date as far as justification for pay or higher pay is concerned. Let me just recall some of the basic premises in designing the compensation package for employees. HR will normally look at the job specs, the qualifications needed, the skill, risk involved if applicable, health hazard, even look at environment. Then HR will mix these with the incumbent’s qualifications and skill, add in market comparables, stir them thoroughly in a pot, remove the flotsams, and there we have it, a pay package for the various jobs.
Today it is more complicated and complex and a totally new dimension. I am told that corruption is now a factor to be added in the pay package. There are a few variations to this. One is if other people are corrupt and the total income is more than their actual, this must be taken into account, eg the opportunities to receive bribe or under table money, to gain from issuing of licences or approvals. The other aspect is the infamous notion that since people are likely to be corrupt, let’s pay them upfront so that they need not be corrupt anymore.
Revolving door? I just heard of this new phenomenon. In short it is like jobs laying in waiting for top people who left their offices. The most common quoted examples are the American political leaders who have high paying jobs waiting for them after their terms in office. Actually in my time, or even today, this is nothing new. The top dogs are in demand when they quit their jobs. Many offers will come in from organizations or job hunters waiting in queue. Why should this be a factor to use to mark up pay of incumbents, I really dunno.
I am also told that if other people can go on lecturing circuits and collect millions, this is also a factor to consider. Also, along the same line of argument, people who can write books and sell because their country’s readership is big, and people like to read what they write, this can also be a factor to consider in working out a pay package. The reference point is always some American Presidents. I am just wondering what kind of conceitedness and arrogance would dare one to compare with American Presidents.
Oh, another thing, when one engages an employee, one must make provision for his retirement or his opportunity cost for coming on board. If he will lose out in terms of skill, seniority or contacts, this must also be compensated in the whole pay package.
The golden handshake is also quite a norm now for senior employees. Now this is fair as no one would want to move from their comfort zone to try out something new. This could be another substitute for the above. There have been many instances of great talents receiving a big payout for doing badly on the job or not even starting on it.
The most troublesome one is sacrifice especially in public service. How much to measure sacrifice? This is very tricky, trickier than trying to compensate for the temptation to corrupt. How to value what a person is sacrificing, family time, quality time with children or grandparents etc etc. Everyone it so family oriented. Another quality time which is ominously absent is time with mistresses or girl friends. But this is noted I am sure. And being ridicule in public forums and cyberspace surely command quite a price too.
Another thing to consider is to motivate the top management with a carrot dangling in their face. Do good work boy and the carrot will be yours. Blimey, top management needs additional carrot to do their very best. If not, even with out of this world salary, they will slack and not do their best. Is this motivation thing going a bit too far? In all my HR time, I have never doubt that the top management, with or without the carrot, will be there to do their very best, to lead by example. If their leadership example is to do mediocre work unless the carrot is big enough, they should not be hired in the first place.
I think I will be quite lost if ask to do the job again. I am already feeling inadequate. This will require new skills and mindset from the HR profession to be equipped to do a proper job in view of the new challenges and new social norms. Luckily I am no longer in the profession. I am sure I have missed out quite a lot of the new factors that I don’t even know.
During my time, HR’s job was much easier. You interview the candidate, lay down the package without having to worry what happens if the candidate decides to quit later. The responsibility is to offer the candidate a suitable package, agreeable by both parties there and then. If there is a separation for whatever reason, the candidate would have to look for a new job on his own merit. And that is a non issue as the candidate should be good enough to do that with his qualification and experience. The candidate is always a top dog or else he would not even be considered. Don’t they have any confidence in themselves to land another equally big paying job?
Today it is more complicated and complex and a totally new dimension. I am told that corruption is now a factor to be added in the pay package. There are a few variations to this. One is if other people are corrupt and the total income is more than their actual, this must be taken into account, eg the opportunities to receive bribe or under table money, to gain from issuing of licences or approvals. The other aspect is the infamous notion that since people are likely to be corrupt, let’s pay them upfront so that they need not be corrupt anymore.
Revolving door? I just heard of this new phenomenon. In short it is like jobs laying in waiting for top people who left their offices. The most common quoted examples are the American political leaders who have high paying jobs waiting for them after their terms in office. Actually in my time, or even today, this is nothing new. The top dogs are in demand when they quit their jobs. Many offers will come in from organizations or job hunters waiting in queue. Why should this be a factor to use to mark up pay of incumbents, I really dunno.
I am also told that if other people can go on lecturing circuits and collect millions, this is also a factor to consider. Also, along the same line of argument, people who can write books and sell because their country’s readership is big, and people like to read what they write, this can also be a factor to consider in working out a pay package. The reference point is always some American Presidents. I am just wondering what kind of conceitedness and arrogance would dare one to compare with American Presidents.
Oh, another thing, when one engages an employee, one must make provision for his retirement or his opportunity cost for coming on board. If he will lose out in terms of skill, seniority or contacts, this must also be compensated in the whole pay package.
The golden handshake is also quite a norm now for senior employees. Now this is fair as no one would want to move from their comfort zone to try out something new. This could be another substitute for the above. There have been many instances of great talents receiving a big payout for doing badly on the job or not even starting on it.
The most troublesome one is sacrifice especially in public service. How much to measure sacrifice? This is very tricky, trickier than trying to compensate for the temptation to corrupt. How to value what a person is sacrificing, family time, quality time with children or grandparents etc etc. Everyone it so family oriented. Another quality time which is ominously absent is time with mistresses or girl friends. But this is noted I am sure. And being ridicule in public forums and cyberspace surely command quite a price too.
Another thing to consider is to motivate the top management with a carrot dangling in their face. Do good work boy and the carrot will be yours. Blimey, top management needs additional carrot to do their very best. If not, even with out of this world salary, they will slack and not do their best. Is this motivation thing going a bit too far? In all my HR time, I have never doubt that the top management, with or without the carrot, will be there to do their very best, to lead by example. If their leadership example is to do mediocre work unless the carrot is big enough, they should not be hired in the first place.
I think I will be quite lost if ask to do the job again. I am already feeling inadequate. This will require new skills and mindset from the HR profession to be equipped to do a proper job in view of the new challenges and new social norms. Luckily I am no longer in the profession. I am sure I have missed out quite a lot of the new factors that I don’t even know.
During my time, HR’s job was much easier. You interview the candidate, lay down the package without having to worry what happens if the candidate decides to quit later. The responsibility is to offer the candidate a suitable package, agreeable by both parties there and then. If there is a separation for whatever reason, the candidate would have to look for a new job on his own merit. And that is a non issue as the candidate should be good enough to do that with his qualification and experience. The candidate is always a top dog or else he would not even be considered. Don’t they have any confidence in themselves to land another equally big paying job?
1/27/2012
Disband all govt service organizations if….
Medical services, housing, education, public transportation, etc, are normally provided by the govt as institutions to serve the people. These organizations were set up using public funds to provide a cheaper alternative to their private counterparts. They have to be cheaper and decent enough to be of any use to benefit the people. They are the reasons why there is a govt and why people have to pay taxes.
Can the people accept the services of public institutions like hospitals, transportation, housing and education to be more expensive than private institutions when the former is fully paid by the public while the latter were established by private funds? The people should scream foul even if they are priced the same or slightly cheaper. It must be much cheaper as they are built using the people’s money. A large part of the cost is already paid by the people themselves. Bad or poor quality service of such institutions is not acceptable and might as well save the money if they are meant to be that way.
Can you believe it if such services are charged the same or similar as the private sector? If they do, they should be disbanded or sold to the private sector and the money be returned to the people. The govt should not be allowed to set up public service institutions with public money if they cannot charge cheaper than the private sector with privately sourced money.
It is simple economic reasoning and justification. It is common sense. Using public money to set up public institutions is like having them for free. And to charge near the same rate or more than the private sector is nonsense and unacceptable.
It is time that the govt reviews all the public institutions that are not competitive vis a vis the private operators, stop providing them and lower the taxes on the people. Let the private sector run them using private money. Public institutions that cannot compete with private institutions on better and cheaper services have no economic reason to exist. It is actually a waste of public fund and tax payers’ money.
Can the people accept the services of public institutions like hospitals, transportation, housing and education to be more expensive than private institutions when the former is fully paid by the public while the latter were established by private funds? The people should scream foul even if they are priced the same or slightly cheaper. It must be much cheaper as they are built using the people’s money. A large part of the cost is already paid by the people themselves. Bad or poor quality service of such institutions is not acceptable and might as well save the money if they are meant to be that way.
Can you believe it if such services are charged the same or similar as the private sector? If they do, they should be disbanded or sold to the private sector and the money be returned to the people. The govt should not be allowed to set up public service institutions with public money if they cannot charge cheaper than the private sector with privately sourced money.
It is simple economic reasoning and justification. It is common sense. Using public money to set up public institutions is like having them for free. And to charge near the same rate or more than the private sector is nonsense and unacceptable.
It is time that the govt reviews all the public institutions that are not competitive vis a vis the private operators, stop providing them and lower the taxes on the people. Let the private sector run them using private money. Public institutions that cannot compete with private institutions on better and cheaper services have no economic reason to exist. It is actually a waste of public fund and tax payers’ money.
Is sexual misconduct a seizable offence?
The two senior civil servants were reported to have been arrested and released on bail. So far most of the reports are highlighting their sexual indiscretions with the same woman and with some inkling on the awards of contracts through tenders. As far as I know, sexual misconduct is not a seizable offence. Correct me if I am wrong. It may be conduct prejudicial to the good image of an organization and may lead to a dismissal or demotion, definitely no arrest is warranted.
Why were the two men arrested? I think the more serious offence is money related, some kind of corruption. Can’t imagine anyone being arrested for sexual misconduct. I think Changi would not be big enough to accommodate them all.
Why were the two men arrested? I think the more serious offence is money related, some kind of corruption. Can’t imagine anyone being arrested for sexual misconduct. I think Changi would not be big enough to accommodate them all.
Poll on new minister’s salary
The poll has ended and 180 participants cast their votes. 3 said yes, 173 said no and 4 were unsure. The final result is that 96% was against the salary package despite it being supported and approved by PAP.
What to make out of this little survey? One thing, the participants are serious and thinking individuals and probably reflective of what the educated and informed Singaporean’s thinking. It is beyond any doubt that the people do not agree with the huge pay for ministers after all the reasons given. I think they are not against paying the ministers well, but what is being paid is still incomprehensible and apprehensible.
Did the PAP really have the blessing of the people by voting for their pay package in Parliament? It is obvious that the people and the PAP are having different dreams, one a frolicking wet dream and the other a nightmare.
I doubt the PAP will do anything to change what has been approved by them in Parliament and will continue with the new pay. They will take it as legally approved and thus there is nothing wrong to it. If the series of misfortunes, corruptions, flaws, flaks, faults, mistakes and acts of God continue to befall this little piece of rock, the big salary will weigh down heavily on their neck comes next GE.
The political price for going it alone without the blessing of the people is high and may be critical the next time round. This time the people is not with the PAP on this salary package. Perhaps, or maybe this little poll is not really representative of the feeling of all Singaporeans. Well, why don’t the authoritative ST with its wider reach, conduct a bigger poll to assess the pulse of the people on this same issue and give a more meaningful feedback to the PAP? Maybe it is better not to know the truth, just bury the head in the sand and all is well.
What to make out of this little survey? One thing, the participants are serious and thinking individuals and probably reflective of what the educated and informed Singaporean’s thinking. It is beyond any doubt that the people do not agree with the huge pay for ministers after all the reasons given. I think they are not against paying the ministers well, but what is being paid is still incomprehensible and apprehensible.
Did the PAP really have the blessing of the people by voting for their pay package in Parliament? It is obvious that the people and the PAP are having different dreams, one a frolicking wet dream and the other a nightmare.
I doubt the PAP will do anything to change what has been approved by them in Parliament and will continue with the new pay. They will take it as legally approved and thus there is nothing wrong to it. If the series of misfortunes, corruptions, flaws, flaks, faults, mistakes and acts of God continue to befall this little piece of rock, the big salary will weigh down heavily on their neck comes next GE.
The political price for going it alone without the blessing of the people is high and may be critical the next time round. This time the people is not with the PAP on this salary package. Perhaps, or maybe this little poll is not really representative of the feeling of all Singaporeans. Well, why don’t the authoritative ST with its wider reach, conduct a bigger poll to assess the pulse of the people on this same issue and give a more meaningful feedback to the PAP? Maybe it is better not to know the truth, just bury the head in the sand and all is well.
An intelligent way to fight corruption
Every country is faced with the disease of corruption and finds their own ways to deal with them. The easiest and quite effective way, in case the problem is too big, is to simply behead them when caught. For a big country like China, they have yet to find a better way to deal with corruption. India, an equally big country with equally big corruption problem chose a diametrically opposite way, to live with corruption. And this is a method that many third world countries have adopted. It also suits the power of the day, to share in the corruption and get rich as well.
In between these two, there are many different models, with law enforcement and anti corruption agencies playing their part. But all are destined to fail as they go against the grain of being human, human nature and human greed. As such, even the anti corruption agencies ended with corruption in their own ranks.
Human greed is just another desire like sex, hunger and thirst. It is part of human nature. Once this is acknowledged and accepted, it is easier to deal with in a more effective, efficient and humane way. Don’t treat it like a disease or a crime. Treat it like a business, in economic terms, a human want, a desire to be satisfied at a price.
This approach is the essence of the Singapore way to manage corruption. Accept that every bean is corruptible at some time, at some place, at some price. Satisfy this want, this desire, and the urge will be smothered. After a hearty meal, after an orgasm, the desire to eat or to have sex is gone. But prepare to feed the desire again when it arises.
The high pay to manage corruption is a brilliant and humane approach to tackling the problem of greed. Oops, shouldn’t call it a problem, it is just a human trait. Feeding the greed does not go against the grain of nature. It is living with nature, living with the weaknesses of being human. No need to put people behind bars, or behead anyone. And by paying to quench the thirst, everyone is happy, the payer and the recipient. And with more money in circulation, it is also good for the economy too. It lubricates and makes the country more prosperous, can buy big cars and big houses, making the GDP number better looking. It also creates jobs, especially services.
It is a unique way to deal with the oldest disease of human beans. And it works, and is good for everyone. Actually many countries are also doing it, except illegally. By making it legal, crime rate also goes down. People who are corrupt are just succumbing to the temptation of the flesh. Send them to a half way house for rehabilitation.
It requires exceptional talent and intelligence to see the brilliance of this approach to managing the human desire of greed. And it requires exceptional intelligence to truly appreciate it beauty.
I think I may submit this paper to the UN for consideration. May even get a Nobel Prize for championing human rights. But I am only stealing the credit. This is definitely not my idea. I am just plagiarizing.
In between these two, there are many different models, with law enforcement and anti corruption agencies playing their part. But all are destined to fail as they go against the grain of being human, human nature and human greed. As such, even the anti corruption agencies ended with corruption in their own ranks.
Human greed is just another desire like sex, hunger and thirst. It is part of human nature. Once this is acknowledged and accepted, it is easier to deal with in a more effective, efficient and humane way. Don’t treat it like a disease or a crime. Treat it like a business, in economic terms, a human want, a desire to be satisfied at a price.
This approach is the essence of the Singapore way to manage corruption. Accept that every bean is corruptible at some time, at some place, at some price. Satisfy this want, this desire, and the urge will be smothered. After a hearty meal, after an orgasm, the desire to eat or to have sex is gone. But prepare to feed the desire again when it arises.
The high pay to manage corruption is a brilliant and humane approach to tackling the problem of greed. Oops, shouldn’t call it a problem, it is just a human trait. Feeding the greed does not go against the grain of nature. It is living with nature, living with the weaknesses of being human. No need to put people behind bars, or behead anyone. And by paying to quench the thirst, everyone is happy, the payer and the recipient. And with more money in circulation, it is also good for the economy too. It lubricates and makes the country more prosperous, can buy big cars and big houses, making the GDP number better looking. It also creates jobs, especially services.
It is a unique way to deal with the oldest disease of human beans. And it works, and is good for everyone. Actually many countries are also doing it, except illegally. By making it legal, crime rate also goes down. People who are corrupt are just succumbing to the temptation of the flesh. Send them to a half way house for rehabilitation.
It requires exceptional talent and intelligence to see the brilliance of this approach to managing the human desire of greed. And it requires exceptional intelligence to truly appreciate it beauty.
I think I may submit this paper to the UN for consideration. May even get a Nobel Prize for championing human rights. But I am only stealing the credit. This is definitely not my idea. I am just plagiarizing.
1/26/2012
George Yeo a blessed man
George Yeo may have misread the message from Him and was in despair at his lost in Aljunid. He probably would be asking, why did He do it to him? He forgot that He may have better plans for him. By pulling him out from the bandwagon, George is now a free man, free from the taint of the gravy train. He must have found some goodness in George to lift him up from darkness and cleanse him from his past.
And shall the gravy train crash, George would only have Him to thank for. For when the ship sinks, he will not go down together. Lucky chap.
And shall the gravy train crash, George would only have Him to thank for. For when the ship sinks, he will not go down together. Lucky chap.
A fair shot for all
‘We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.’ Hussein Obama
This is fruit for thought. Is it applicable to our city state? Is the number of people doing extremely well shrinking and a growing number barely getting by? Is everyone playing by the same set of rules? Is everyone getting a fair shot and doing his fair share?
This is fruit for thought. Is it applicable to our city state? Is the number of people doing extremely well shrinking and a growing number barely getting by? Is everyone playing by the same set of rules? Is everyone getting a fair shot and doing his fair share?
The MSM should know when to shut up
Over the last few days when news of the two senior civil servants were being questioned for corruption and now officially confirmed that they have been arrested and on bail, there are still many articles in the msm crowing about how incorruptible this island is and how the high pay to prevent corruption is necessary and effective.
I think this is the time that everyone should just shut up about high pay to fight corruption. Well, some may still think it is working. Some say the evidence is all there to show that it is failing. Isn’t it embarrassing to show the two contrasting sides at the same time? But if that is the intent, then well, good. How many rungs has the country dropped in the ranking for incorruptibility?
By now there will be at least 10 countries ranked higher or cleaner than this island and without the need to pay out of this world salary. I got a suggestion, send a team to go and understudy them and learn from them. We should not simply rule them out as irrelevant, not suitable for comparison, we are different, Asian culture has corruption in their blood. Just like not comparing our ministerial salary with political leaders of the world. We are unique mah.
I think this is the time that everyone should just shut up about high pay to fight corruption. Well, some may still think it is working. Some say the evidence is all there to show that it is failing. Isn’t it embarrassing to show the two contrasting sides at the same time? But if that is the intent, then well, good. How many rungs has the country dropped in the ranking for incorruptibility?
By now there will be at least 10 countries ranked higher or cleaner than this island and without the need to pay out of this world salary. I got a suggestion, send a team to go and understudy them and learn from them. We should not simply rule them out as irrelevant, not suitable for comparison, we are different, Asian culture has corruption in their blood. Just like not comparing our ministerial salary with political leaders of the world. We are unique mah.
Netizens, hold your horses
The netizens are in flame. Practically every netizen is saying, ‘see, I told you, more pay does not mean no corruption.’ Just because two senior civil servants were arrested by CPIB, it does not mean that they are guilty. It also does not mean that all the civil servants are equally bad. Two swallows do not make a summer.
My view is that there is no such thing as no corruption, Only lesser. And the high pay no corruption policy has worked. That is why after so long, we are only hit by a handful of them. The high pay no corruption policy works.
The task now is how to fine tune it to make it work better. One area to look at is their salary. Maybe they are not paid high enough. If that is so, then it means that their pay was not managed correctly. It is important for their superior to monitor these super talents. If they have hinted that their pay is not enough, or perhaps hinting that they would resign, or that their lifestyle is affected, call them up and ask them how much they need to stay incorruptible. This is a pragmatic way to tackle such problems. They have a price and it is only to meet their expectation. There must be a meeting of minds of what is enough. Everyone’s enough is different. Now I am getting worried if ministerial salary is enough for every minister.
Another area to watch out for is what these super talents are saying. Did they complain that they are sacrificing too much? It can be a dangerous sign of trouble brewing.
Look at it this way. There are thousands of super talents in the civil service. If two failed the test, it could be only 0.1% failure rate, which is pretty good. While everyone is getting emotional about this, do not be hasty and throw out the baby with the water. High pay policy is an uniquely Singaporean solution to prevent corruption in high places. Every state leader is secretly admiring our policy and wish they could also be paid this kind of money to keep their hands from the cookie jar.
Form a committee to review the two cases and come up with a recommendation to improve the high pay policy. If it is not broken, don’t throw it away. It has stood the test of time, so far. All it needs is likely to increase their pay a bit more and things will be fine again.
My view is that there is no such thing as no corruption, Only lesser. And the high pay no corruption policy has worked. That is why after so long, we are only hit by a handful of them. The high pay no corruption policy works.
The task now is how to fine tune it to make it work better. One area to look at is their salary. Maybe they are not paid high enough. If that is so, then it means that their pay was not managed correctly. It is important for their superior to monitor these super talents. If they have hinted that their pay is not enough, or perhaps hinting that they would resign, or that their lifestyle is affected, call them up and ask them how much they need to stay incorruptible. This is a pragmatic way to tackle such problems. They have a price and it is only to meet their expectation. There must be a meeting of minds of what is enough. Everyone’s enough is different. Now I am getting worried if ministerial salary is enough for every minister.
Another area to watch out for is what these super talents are saying. Did they complain that they are sacrificing too much? It can be a dangerous sign of trouble brewing.
Look at it this way. There are thousands of super talents in the civil service. If two failed the test, it could be only 0.1% failure rate, which is pretty good. While everyone is getting emotional about this, do not be hasty and throw out the baby with the water. High pay policy is an uniquely Singaporean solution to prevent corruption in high places. Every state leader is secretly admiring our policy and wish they could also be paid this kind of money to keep their hands from the cookie jar.
Form a committee to review the two cases and come up with a recommendation to improve the high pay policy. If it is not broken, don’t throw it away. It has stood the test of time, so far. All it needs is likely to increase their pay a bit more and things will be fine again.
1/25/2012
Some riddles
Who is the biggest maid employment agency?
Who is the biggest employer of foreign workers?
Who is the biggest reseller of cars?
Who is the biggest insurance agent?
Who is the biggest property developer?
Who is the biggest toll collector?
Who is the biggest employer of cheap labour?
Who owns the biggest piggy bank?
PS. One more day for the poll on Ministerial Salary on top right of page.
Who is the biggest employer of foreign workers?
Who is the biggest reseller of cars?
Who is the biggest insurance agent?
Who is the biggest property developer?
Who is the biggest toll collector?
Who is the biggest employer of cheap labour?
Who owns the biggest piggy bank?
PS. One more day for the poll on Ministerial Salary on top right of page.
The deception of basic salary
Just because someone used the basic salary for comparison, it does not mean that everyone must use the same for comparison and analysis. One must know what is the intent of the discussion, comparison or analysis. If it is just a theoretical exercise to compare for the sake of comparing or argument, then no matter. Just compare anything, everything or nothing. It is just a comparison for comparison sake without any specific objective.
What is the real intent of the comparison of the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation? Is it to compare how much our ministers are being paid with other leaders? Is it to compare how much they are getting now and before?
Using the basic salary as a reference point for comparison is a deception. Another committee can recommend a package with $30k pm basic salary but add on other allowances and bonuses to give a bigger gross salary and those using the basic will be saying it is so little, such a big cut, even less than Obama.
How foolish can daft Sinkies be if they can be led to see what people want them to see, and think what people want them to think? In the ministerial salary revision and recommendation, it is the gross amount that is material, not the basic salary.
I do not want to waste more time explaining why comparing the basic salary is misleading. If Sinkies are so daft and cannot tell the difference between the real and the deception, they deserve to be led by the nose and be blissfully delirious. They say ignorant is bliss. What is worst is unthinking but believing to be intelligent and spent so much time and effort on a wrong premise that will lead them to a wrong conclusion.
Pathetic.
PS. Own target, own time fire! Who sets the target?
What is the real intent of the comparison of the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation? Is it to compare how much our ministers are being paid with other leaders? Is it to compare how much they are getting now and before?
Using the basic salary as a reference point for comparison is a deception. Another committee can recommend a package with $30k pm basic salary but add on other allowances and bonuses to give a bigger gross salary and those using the basic will be saying it is so little, such a big cut, even less than Obama.
How foolish can daft Sinkies be if they can be led to see what people want them to see, and think what people want them to think? In the ministerial salary revision and recommendation, it is the gross amount that is material, not the basic salary.
I do not want to waste more time explaining why comparing the basic salary is misleading. If Sinkies are so daft and cannot tell the difference between the real and the deception, they deserve to be led by the nose and be blissfully delirious. They say ignorant is bliss. What is worst is unthinking but believing to be intelligent and spent so much time and effort on a wrong premise that will lead them to a wrong conclusion.
Pathetic.
PS. Own target, own time fire! Who sets the target?
How to survive in politics
Politics and politicians have received many bad names which is unfair. Politics is a very difficult art or skill to comprehend and to practise. It takes a lot of skill and talent to practise politics and to be successful. Many fell to disgrace at the end of their careers. Compare to engineering, medicine or even law, politics is perhaps the most difficult of the lot, or any discipline. Everything is right and everything is wrong in politics.
Don’t trust a salesman, an insurance agent and don’t trust a politician. That is how bad this profession has become, being compared with salesman and insurance agent. My apologies to the two professions mentioned. I am only quoting the wise cracks of the masses.
What is so difficult about politics is that one has to look honourable and morally right in everything one does. Personal conduct must be spotless, man of good character, honesty, incorruptible, no greed, always for the people, sacrifice etc etc when one is everything except these things. The contradiction and illusion are unmatched in any profession.
In a way, politics is an art of saying one thing and doing the opposite, being one thing but being another at the same time. Yes Jekyll and Hyde. It is about being principled but unprincipled, being dishonest but claiming to be honest, being corrupt but telling the masses otherwise. A religion will help. Some even hide behind gods and use gods to justify everything they do in politics. In the name of gods, in the name of people, in the name of country, but all for themselves. The list and examples of contradiction are inexhaustible to mention.
Politics is about hypocrisies and surviving it. It is about being dishonest and claiming to be morally righteous. It is about being corrupt and getting away with it, and standing on high pedestal lecturing people about the virtues of honesty.
How many good men can live, survive and be successful in politics and live to tell? Politics is an art of deception honed to perfection, to win/cheat the hearts and minds of the masses, ignorant or learned, for as long as one can. The masters of politics are those that can bluff some people some of the time, some people all the time and all the people all the time.
Don’t underestimate the skill and talent of politicians. They are superior to all the other disciplines and professions to be the master of all of them. They swear to everything that is a virtue to the daft masses but live by everything to the contrary. Politics is a master science according to Einstein. He could grasp all the complex theories of the universe, but could not comprehend politics.
Only the very best and craftiest of human beans can survive a political career.
Don’t trust a salesman, an insurance agent and don’t trust a politician. That is how bad this profession has become, being compared with salesman and insurance agent. My apologies to the two professions mentioned. I am only quoting the wise cracks of the masses.
What is so difficult about politics is that one has to look honourable and morally right in everything one does. Personal conduct must be spotless, man of good character, honesty, incorruptible, no greed, always for the people, sacrifice etc etc when one is everything except these things. The contradiction and illusion are unmatched in any profession.
In a way, politics is an art of saying one thing and doing the opposite, being one thing but being another at the same time. Yes Jekyll and Hyde. It is about being principled but unprincipled, being dishonest but claiming to be honest, being corrupt but telling the masses otherwise. A religion will help. Some even hide behind gods and use gods to justify everything they do in politics. In the name of gods, in the name of people, in the name of country, but all for themselves. The list and examples of contradiction are inexhaustible to mention.
Politics is about hypocrisies and surviving it. It is about being dishonest and claiming to be morally righteous. It is about being corrupt and getting away with it, and standing on high pedestal lecturing people about the virtues of honesty.
How many good men can live, survive and be successful in politics and live to tell? Politics is an art of deception honed to perfection, to win/cheat the hearts and minds of the masses, ignorant or learned, for as long as one can. The masters of politics are those that can bluff some people some of the time, some people all the time and all the people all the time.
Don’t underestimate the skill and talent of politicians. They are superior to all the other disciplines and professions to be the master of all of them. They swear to everything that is a virtue to the daft masses but live by everything to the contrary. Politics is a master science according to Einstein. He could grasp all the complex theories of the universe, but could not comprehend politics.
Only the very best and craftiest of human beans can survive a political career.
1/24/2012
Chiefs of SCDF and CNB under CPIB probe
One day after the Dragon came in with a big bang, the ST today reported that the Commissioner of SCDF Peter Lim Sin Pang and Head of CNB Ng Boon Gay were both under probe by CPIB. This is really startling news to start the new lunar year with a bang. Since the big hike in salary for politicians and civil servants, corruption is more or less a thing of the past. With the kind of salary that is being paid, who would need to be corrupt anymore?
But as the saying goes, greed knows no bound and no matter how much one is being paid, greed will triumph over human weaknesses. And the contrary is that a good man will never succumb to greed no matter how much he is paid, a lot or very little.
If these two cases proved to be true, then there is a lot of rethinking needed on the high salary no corruption policy. And for the CPIB to be involved and for the two men to be under questioning, it is likely that the CPIB would have enough evidence to make the move.
Not a good bang to have from the Dragon.
But as the saying goes, greed knows no bound and no matter how much one is being paid, greed will triumph over human weaknesses. And the contrary is that a good man will never succumb to greed no matter how much he is paid, a lot or very little.
If these two cases proved to be true, then there is a lot of rethinking needed on the high salary no corruption policy. And for the CPIB to be involved and for the two men to be under questioning, it is likely that the CPIB would have enough evidence to make the move.
Not a good bang to have from the Dragon.
Survivor kit for Parliament
Our parliament is still pretty tame compares to those in Taiwan or Japan or even India. But then again, it is always good to go fully prepared in case things get a bit rough. I have briefly listed down some items that MPs, particularly opposition MPs, should bring along as a survivor kit to Parliament. But before that, MPs must note that no firearms are allowed, not even firecrackers. No bottles containing liquid, no scissors or sharp objects.
Okay now for the list of survivor kit.
1. A comprehensive list of notes and research material on the subject in discussion. A dictionary will also be helpful, or an electronic translation machine in case they speak in another official language that one cannot understand. Important thing is to know the subject matter well even if it is a discussion on judgement call or an arbitrary recommendation. A slip can be fatal.
2. Related to the above, a mobile phone is essential and make sure that there are some well informed assistants waiting to assist on call, when one is cornered. Get them to sit beside a computer with access to Wikipedia and Wikileaks to pull out information asap to make a proper defence when under attack.
3. Tape recorders. I did mention this. I remember there is another gadget in the market that gives a loud and long laughter by simply pressing on it, and I think this can be a good substitute to pretend to laugh at the enemy. Those comedy clips in TVs use this very often and very effectively.
4. Mirrors or pak kwas to deflect hostile and evil stares. The pak kwas will boost once confidence against more superior enemy, psychologically or spiritually.
5. Protective body gears. Maybe not needed with the present friendly ethos of verbal debates. Hope our Parliament will never see the days of those in Japan and Taiwan.
6. Sleeping bag in case the speaker refuses to stop. Just a precaution. But probably not necessary as there is a time keeper to keep everyone to 15 mins, I think. An inflatable pillow will do as some speaker can be real boring, or if one had a late night.
7. A mask. I think this will be useful so that no one can recognize you outside of Parliament. Just in case. It would be helpful for those who needed to doze off for a few minutes as well.
8. I think a thick skin is also important so that one does not feel embarrass too easily for saying the wrong things. This one is hard to buy.
9. Acting skill is a great asset, to pretend to laugh or to be emotional and cry. Crying is very effective and used very frequently. A greater art is choking, the precise moment before breaking into tears. The pause, the veins popping out on the face, the voice breaking, a little trembling, will make be perfect to win the hearts of the audience. A show of passion and zeal. It will be a class act. Get some training from MediaCorp.
10. Oratory skill is a must. Debating skill will come in handy. The main aim is to win an argument. Pick up the little mistakes the enemy makes and bite into it, don’t let go. Keep chewing on it to make it hurt. Use a bit of body language to bolster the effect.
11. As physical fighting skill is not permissible, a steely stare can be very effective to kill the enemy or make him urinate in his pants. There is a whole art to this skill, penetrating, timing and how to squint the eyes to increase the damage.
12. Make use of technology like videos and put it on the net for the public to see, over and over again, on how good one’s debating skill is and how bad is the enemy. If this can be put on air in the main stream media the viewership will be bigger and the effect multiplied. But a word of caution. Do not over kill or it may backfire. A video clip of real combat serves to improve one’s position and to destroy the credibility of the enemy when one is on the upper hand.
13. Not to forget, Vitamin B Complex to stare calm and compose and not getting too stress up. Relax and enjoy the session. Don’t be too serious. A cool mind can think better and not to get carried away and comes out looking like a gangster in Parliament.
The above list is not exhaustive. Political parties often have their own secret moves, recipes and tactics to defeat the enemy. It will be good if political parties have the resources to send their MPs overseas to learn from them, learn new and untested tactics to surprise the enemy.
Attending Parliament is not attending a tea party and there are risks and hazards. If one can find an excuse, it is better not to attend. Apply for leave to attend company business and overseas trips will be a better excuse. Board meetings may also be important enough for not attending Parliament sessions. Correct me if I am wrong. I have never been to Parliament so my knowledge on the intricacies of Parliament is just guessing, an educated guess at most.
Okay now for the list of survivor kit.
1. A comprehensive list of notes and research material on the subject in discussion. A dictionary will also be helpful, or an electronic translation machine in case they speak in another official language that one cannot understand. Important thing is to know the subject matter well even if it is a discussion on judgement call or an arbitrary recommendation. A slip can be fatal.
2. Related to the above, a mobile phone is essential and make sure that there are some well informed assistants waiting to assist on call, when one is cornered. Get them to sit beside a computer with access to Wikipedia and Wikileaks to pull out information asap to make a proper defence when under attack.
3. Tape recorders. I did mention this. I remember there is another gadget in the market that gives a loud and long laughter by simply pressing on it, and I think this can be a good substitute to pretend to laugh at the enemy. Those comedy clips in TVs use this very often and very effectively.
4. Mirrors or pak kwas to deflect hostile and evil stares. The pak kwas will boost once confidence against more superior enemy, psychologically or spiritually.
5. Protective body gears. Maybe not needed with the present friendly ethos of verbal debates. Hope our Parliament will never see the days of those in Japan and Taiwan.
6. Sleeping bag in case the speaker refuses to stop. Just a precaution. But probably not necessary as there is a time keeper to keep everyone to 15 mins, I think. An inflatable pillow will do as some speaker can be real boring, or if one had a late night.
7. A mask. I think this will be useful so that no one can recognize you outside of Parliament. Just in case. It would be helpful for those who needed to doze off for a few minutes as well.
8. I think a thick skin is also important so that one does not feel embarrass too easily for saying the wrong things. This one is hard to buy.
9. Acting skill is a great asset, to pretend to laugh or to be emotional and cry. Crying is very effective and used very frequently. A greater art is choking, the precise moment before breaking into tears. The pause, the veins popping out on the face, the voice breaking, a little trembling, will make be perfect to win the hearts of the audience. A show of passion and zeal. It will be a class act. Get some training from MediaCorp.
10. Oratory skill is a must. Debating skill will come in handy. The main aim is to win an argument. Pick up the little mistakes the enemy makes and bite into it, don’t let go. Keep chewing on it to make it hurt. Use a bit of body language to bolster the effect.
11. As physical fighting skill is not permissible, a steely stare can be very effective to kill the enemy or make him urinate in his pants. There is a whole art to this skill, penetrating, timing and how to squint the eyes to increase the damage.
12. Make use of technology like videos and put it on the net for the public to see, over and over again, on how good one’s debating skill is and how bad is the enemy. If this can be put on air in the main stream media the viewership will be bigger and the effect multiplied. But a word of caution. Do not over kill or it may backfire. A video clip of real combat serves to improve one’s position and to destroy the credibility of the enemy when one is on the upper hand.
13. Not to forget, Vitamin B Complex to stare calm and compose and not getting too stress up. Relax and enjoy the session. Don’t be too serious. A cool mind can think better and not to get carried away and comes out looking like a gangster in Parliament.
The above list is not exhaustive. Political parties often have their own secret moves, recipes and tactics to defeat the enemy. It will be good if political parties have the resources to send their MPs overseas to learn from them, learn new and untested tactics to surprise the enemy.
Attending Parliament is not attending a tea party and there are risks and hazards. If one can find an excuse, it is better not to attend. Apply for leave to attend company business and overseas trips will be a better excuse. Board meetings may also be important enough for not attending Parliament sessions. Correct me if I am wrong. I have never been to Parliament so my knowledge on the intricacies of Parliament is just guessing, an educated guess at most.
1/23/2012
Ministerial Salary -'Shen Guan Fa Cai'
Ministerial Salary Review – Look at both sides now(Shen Guan Fa Cai means getting rich on promotion as court official)
One of the key factors of the Review Committee’s recommendation is to peg minister’s salary to the top 1000 income earners, using the median with a 40% discount. Depending on the actual income, the salary could be near to the 501 of 1000 top income earners. Could it be above the 501 if the bonuses are added up? It should be rare for it to fall out of the top 1000 income earners. And this is the group of people that the PAP is targeting the future political leaders. They are probably looking at people who are able to earn this kind of income to be of ministerial material. The pool is going to be very small. But nonetheless it is a good area to look at and a good aspiration.
Turn it around and look at it from another angle. By pegging the salary to the top 1000 income earners and the 40% discount, it is very likely that the ministers will all be among the top 1000 income earners. Not bad at all. The only thing that is bad is that the PM may not be at the top of the 1000 income earners though holding the top job in the country. Then again I am being presumptious. As to whether the PM’s salary would be at the top it would depend on the actual income of the top 500 earners and if the PM is paid anything else from his other appointments. Hypothetically, if the 500 incomes were marginally higher than the median income earner, then the PM’s salary could go right to the top of the 1000. This should look more proper.
This new salary will be a good incentive for those aspiring for political office. If they can make it to become ministers, they could be among the top 1000 income earners in the country. There is a Chinese saying, I translated, ‘Beneath one man but above a million’ to describe the Prime Ministers of the dynastic era. Here our ministers can be thankful that their income is beneath 500 and above 5 million. Not bad at all I shall say. As for the PM’s salary, could it be near to the top or at the top of the heap? This is like returning to the imperial dynastic days when ‘shen guan fa cai’ was the aspiration of the elite and the poor scholars.
‘Shen guan fa cai’ is a good new year greetings for all Singaporeans.
One of the key factors of the Review Committee’s recommendation is to peg minister’s salary to the top 1000 income earners, using the median with a 40% discount. Depending on the actual income, the salary could be near to the 501 of 1000 top income earners. Could it be above the 501 if the bonuses are added up? It should be rare for it to fall out of the top 1000 income earners. And this is the group of people that the PAP is targeting the future political leaders. They are probably looking at people who are able to earn this kind of income to be of ministerial material. The pool is going to be very small. But nonetheless it is a good area to look at and a good aspiration.
Turn it around and look at it from another angle. By pegging the salary to the top 1000 income earners and the 40% discount, it is very likely that the ministers will all be among the top 1000 income earners. Not bad at all. The only thing that is bad is that the PM may not be at the top of the 1000 income earners though holding the top job in the country. Then again I am being presumptious. As to whether the PM’s salary would be at the top it would depend on the actual income of the top 500 earners and if the PM is paid anything else from his other appointments. Hypothetically, if the 500 incomes were marginally higher than the median income earner, then the PM’s salary could go right to the top of the 1000. This should look more proper.
This new salary will be a good incentive for those aspiring for political office. If they can make it to become ministers, they could be among the top 1000 income earners in the country. There is a Chinese saying, I translated, ‘Beneath one man but above a million’ to describe the Prime Ministers of the dynastic era. Here our ministers can be thankful that their income is beneath 500 and above 5 million. Not bad at all I shall say. As for the PM’s salary, could it be near to the top or at the top of the heap? This is like returning to the imperial dynastic days when ‘shen guan fa cai’ was the aspiration of the elite and the poor scholars.
‘Shen guan fa cai’ is a good new year greetings for all Singaporeans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)