mindboggling pension scheme

The pension scheme is an accepted practice in the govt service introduced by the British. Now this scheme is also extended to politicians, people who are elected by the people on a 5 year term basis. And it is not even an employment. Then all one needs to be entitled to the lifelong pension is to be in office for two terms or a max of 10 years. Invariably it is lesser, between 8 to 9 years. Compare this to the original concept of pension when a person has to work practically all his life, 25 to 35 years before he is entitled to it and may lose it along the way if he fumbles. And the number is mindboggling. A person can be in office for 10 years and will be paid around $.5 to $1 million for the rest of his life. If he lives for another 25 years, the state could have to pay him $12.5 mil to $25 mil. Not sure if he is still entitled to all the medical perks. I am not saying that the scheme is right or wrong, good or bad. It is just mindboggling.

to inform or to expose?

Loh Chee Kong was thinking aloud on the role of journalists after Vivian said that one of the media's role is to expose Govt's wrongdoings. This is a major shift, if for real, in the role of the media. But Chee Kong was sensible enough to ask whether it is just a red herring. And everyone in the media too did not think it wise or worth more reading into it. It was spoken and forgotten. Silence follows on this issue. The role of the media is simply to inform, educate and entertain. I will just stick to this sacred formula to be safe.

what is enough?

What is enough? $290 a month is enough. $1 million a year is not enough. Depending on who you are and how one tries to justify one's position, it is all relative. $5 million or $10 million is also not enough given the present formula. What if the top eight performers of each group worked exceptionally hard, did exceptionally well, and luck was all on their side, and they made $10 or $20 million each, the formula would say $2 mil is not enough and not because of the effort or the spectacular performance of the people expecting the windfall. Performance is not really in the formula. One gets, all gets, big portfolio, no portfolio, great performance or mediocre performance, no difference. As the ministers are going around persuading the people to accept their payrise, and as Swee Say said, 'Progressively, more and more union leaders and workers will come to accept and realise that it's actually in (their) interest to ensure that the Govt will do whatever is necessary to attract a fair share of the talent.' Since it is in the interest of the people, there is no reason why they should not be a payrise. An easier approach would be to name how much is enough and get it over with. Trying to apply a formula that many do not agree only make things more incomprehensible. Perhaps during a GE the party shall let the electorate know that for the elected term the ministers shall be paid so much and no one need to be apologetic about it later. 'What we need are political leaders and civil servants who really care a lot about the ground, who understand their anxiety, who understand their aspirations, to take the necessary measure to help them realise their aspirations.' Swee Say said. I believe the people all have a simple aspiration and share the same anxiety. While the ministers are going to have their big big payrise, the people will be very happy, and their anxiety removed, and their aspirations taken care of, if everyone is given a $10k handout. This is the simple aspirations of the people, or at least what I think it is.

big bucks!

Big Bucks That is the headline in the Sunday Times in an article asking who are the people in Singapore earning top dollar. 'Last year's income tax assessments showed that, in 2005, $4.29 million was the median pay for the eight top earning lawyers, $3.72 million for accountants, $3.33 million for bankers, $2.7 million for MNC executives, $2.3 million for local manufacturing head honchos and $0.62 million for engineers.' What would be interesting would be the median pay for the top eight civil servants and the top eight politicians. They are somewhere there, probably better than the engineers but how far from the rest is not known. The only figure that I am uncomfortable is the median pay of bankers. There are only 3 local banks and published figures showed that the top 6 got paid more than $5 million. And this did not include the top earners of foreign banks here. The $3.3 million definitely appeared pretty low from my guess. I am just guessing. From the figures given, it seems that the top five lucrative jobs that are paying big bucks are lawyers, accountants, bankers, heads of MNCs or local manufacturing and not forgetting civil servants or politicians. Engineering is out and should be forgotten. A little about comparison. Why lawyers and accountants? These are professionals like doctors and architects or professional gamblers. Their jobs are not in the management of a huge corporation like running a bank or a MNC. The latter two are more similar in nature to running a ministry. Is there any flaw in comparing individual skills or flairs against management skills, the management of large number of people and making decisions that affect a large number of people? I cannot see the rationale from a job evaluation perspective. Logically speaking, all the head honchos should be paid more than the lawyers and accountants as the skills of these professionals only affect a very limited number of people and have lesser widespread consequences. The head honchos should be demanding for higher pay.

It is cultural differences!

It is cultural differences! Why Singaporean employers feed their maids with a bowl of plain porridge or a piece of bread a day? Don't blame them. It is cultural differences. The Singaporeans believe that Indonesians needed only that to live. Another reason, which is more compelling, is that the Singaporean employers do not understand what the maid needs or what is a proper meal for a maid. Poor thing, all these first world people! These are the reasons given by maid agencies to justify why maids were fed with a piece of bread or a bowl of porridge a day and expected to work for 24 hours. I strongly recommend that we should introduce public lynching in Singapore. At least it will teach the world class Singaporeans a little about human decency or what a human being needs to eat to be kept alive.