More than just MONEY

More than just MONEY Balaji Sadasivan finds more value in being a Minister of State, earning lesser money, than being a practising neurosurgeon. The position of a Minister or Minister of State is a position of a national leader and cannot be measured simply in monetary terms. So what if someone is making several millions more? A minister, the appointment as a minister, the role or function of a minister is much much more. A minister is a much respected and honoured member of our society. He is someone to be looked up to, a leader, a guardian of the people and nation. Let us not degrade the value of a minister and the respect and honour due to such a position and compare them to money. Money is just money, to be earned and spent. It is not recognised as anything worthy except as as a commodity. We should accord more respect to our political office just like in developed countries. Why would so many successful people want to take up political offices and assume the role of Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers, and getting lesser income? Do they take up public office because they can take more under table money? Obviously not. These positions are positions of authority, of fame, of recognition, of being part of history. How can we equate them with cheap money? We should cease comparing the value of political office with money. For all the money that a person may earn, he is never in the same standing as the political leaders of a nation. Balaji knows when he chose to remain as a Minister of State. It is a greater honour. Money cannot buy such positions. Can it? And I am not even talking about the power that comes with it. Why is it that historically many leaders will just cling on to the seat of power and refused to let go?

a gaffe, to correct or not to correct

Singapore Press Club gets it right the second time 'It has been an embarrassing start for the new management of the Singapore Press Club. The first order of business was to correct a gaffe.... A news report in the ST, based on the circular, triggered a flurry of email among club members and office bearers, with one describing the circular as "misleading and inaccurate" and urging that it be withdrawn immediately. Another member wrote "the record does need to be set straight" but added that it would be a "shame if issuing a correction to members is at the ocst of any embarrassment to..." A third member who said he was uncomfortable with the circular wrote "we need to quickly control the damage".' The above was reported in the Today paper on the mistake made regarding the appointment of Patrick Daniel as the 'new First Vice President" of the Press Club but there was no such position. The mistake was later corrected by Leslie Fong.

Appropriate sense of proportion

Appropriate sense of proportion I worked up this morning with a few old songs ringing in my head. The first one goes like this, 'If you want it, here it is come and get it. But you gotta hurry costs it may not last.' The second one was by the rock group the Monkeys, and it goes like this, 'Money, money, money. Must be money. It's a mad, mad world.' How could one explain why people can correlate the same thing to different things? For instance you point to a dog and a child will scream 'dog.' You point it to a teenager, and he will shout 'pet.' And you point it to a foreign worker, he will shout 'food.' So don't be surprised when you show someone a $600,000 bill and the person shouts 'peanut.' It is all about circumstances and experience in life. Some people count the number of zeros behind the number and some count the zeros in front of it. Once they get use to them, it becomes second nature. $30 is huge to someone who is used to get by with $260 a month. That is more than 10%. A few million is small change to those who are used to the numerous zeros behind the number. So the recipient of the $30 will be very grateful. But the recipient of the millions may not. For $1, I have been worshipped like a god by a bicycle cab peddlar. The ride was $1 but I gave him $2 instead. He immediately dropped on his knees and prayed to me like he was praying to Buddha. That extra $1 was a windfall to him. This story only tells the right sense of proportion at different level of society. It is a different world to different people. It is a mad mad world.

PAP's most severe test in 40 years

PAP's most severe test in 40 years Shall I or shouldn't I put my frank assessment of this current crisis facing the PAP after the controversial decision to raise ministerial pay? I emphasise, the issue is ministerial pay and not the increment for the civil servants. Though the main stream media is trying to do its best to present a picture that the people are mostly in support of this decision, the truth is far from it. And they have bungled badly. I know that no one would be happy with the messenger of bad news. But the situation has deteriorated so far that only the blind would fail to see the true picture. Until today, I have yet to hear an honest person telling me that all is well and the ministerial pay is a good thing and a welcome thing. So I will try to be as diplomatic as possible to tenderly touch on the unpleasant truth. Actually, the whole ugly episode can be akin to the severance of a strong bond between the government and the governed, painstaking built over a period of 40 years. With this bad decision, the Red Sea was parted. This is truly a very bad judgement call of unbelievable proportion. The debate in parliament was clearly divisive with many MPs trying very hard to express their disagreement without breaking rank. It's negative impact is like the NKF but at a national scale. For those who spoke out in favour of this move they would have to live with the consequences of their misjudgement in times to come. Hsien Loong must have sensed the seriousness of the temper on the ground and is trying to do some damage control by announcing that he will freeze his own pay, to gain some moral authority on this issue. Unfortunately the damage is quite devastating if one really and honestly try to feel the ground. It was a tough decision and a tough call. The worst thing is that it was seen as self serving. The people find it hard to see how this is to benefit them and not the ministers. The obvious is just too obvious. The cardinal rule that one must not decide to benefit one's self interest has been broken. The objective and honourable justifications become irrelevant. Would any minister or the President have the temerity to hang on to the pay increase and still think that the people will see them the same way as before? Like it or not, it is the people and their perception that matters, not the clever arguments in parliament. It is right to say that it is an emotional issue. But the logic and reasoning also failed miserably to convince the people that it is the right and necessary thing to do. People are free to disagree with my assessment. But the question now is how the PAP is going to turn this around and regain the confidence and trust of the people? The moral ground, the moral authority has been severely undermined. It is not a right or wrong thing to do. It may sound logical on paper. But if the government cannot sell it and the people refuse to buy it, it becomes a disaster. It is politics and a political decision, and the reaction of the people is political and yes, emotional.

White House official floored by our Ministerial Pay

White House official floored by our Ministerial Pay He shouldn't be. It takes tremendous skills and ability to be able to push through such a motion without the people protesting. The White House official should also deserve a huge payrise if he can get it pass Congress for a similar motion.