good news!

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

Don't expect hefty payrise

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

Ministerial Pay Debate

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

Means Testing is back

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

When there is no honour...but MONEY

When there is no honour...but MONEY The public service is all about public service, a service to the public. Or at least that was what it used to be. Throughout history, great people have stood up to serve country and people in the name of honour above all else. Today, in a new world when such values, including honesty, integrity, magnanimity, compassion, or just to make a difference in the lives of less able people, are now as good as outdated. All these have been subsumed by a new motivator called money. I have left out sacrifice from the list as sacrifice is no longer a factor. In our context I cannot see any sacrifice in the real sense of the word. What we are seeing is a new morality, a self serving morality, a morality of greed. We have all turned to become very practical people, and always ask what's in it for me. And more, to have more. Are our ministers suffering from being underpaid? Can $1m a year plus other perks that can or cannot be quantified be called underpaid? Yes and no. No when $1 a year can buy all the niceties in life and with a lot more to spare. I will be the first to support a payrise if a minister cannot afford to buy his $2 million private property after a 5 year term. But yes because other people are getting more. The main reason why there is this urgent call to double the $1 million is simply because relatively they are paid less. There will not be any call for a pay revision at this level if the other top earners are earning less. And with a formula that is built with all the biases to shoot to the sky, the $2 mil or $10 mil will never be enough. The formula will demand that the salary must continue to go up. When we replace honour with money, all our values change. We should not continue to teach our children values that are best described as 'admirable sentiments.' Let's get real. The moral values we are teaching our children in schools are impractical and smack of hypocrisy. They can no longer survive in a new world where self interest and well being comes first. We must not bring them up into a world that is totally different from their textbooks. They will suffer a culture shock when they realise that all the goodness that the teachers are teaching them is but a farce. The real world is not like that. We need to teach them a new set of values that befits the survival of the fittest. And yes, a return to the laws of the jungle.