How much is your IQ?

How much is your IQ? The intelligence or ability of Singaporeans is measured by how much the person earns. The more he earns the higher is his intelligence and the more qualified he is to run the country. At least that is about what it means during the discussion on ministerial salary over the last few days and in Parliament. We need to pay competitive salary, actually means very high salary, to attract good people, which means people earning very high salary, to be in the govt. People like Wee Cho Yaw, Ng Teng Fong, Ong Beng Seng and Quek Leng Beng, or Sim Wong Hoo, or our Popiah King, or the former Remisier King, will be excellent candidates for the next election. Unfortunately the salary for ministers is still too low to attract them. Mahamat Gandhi, the pauper, will not qualify as a talent in our context. So will Deng Xiao Ping. Or for that matter, all the Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world who earn less than a peanut, will not be good enough for us. Our talents can now briefly be classified under $300,000 a month Top Super Talent or TST. The next level is $30,000 a month Super Talent or ST. The $3000 a month talent should be familiar to all, the FT or Foreign Talent. At the lowest level, the $300 a month NT, No Talent. And one group that I have left out or best forgotten, the ULT, Unwanted Local Talent, found only in overseas market. Some can be found hiding behind the wheels of taxis.

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.