the malaysian nightmare

We have a reputation of having a lot of talented men in govt. And these men are well honed in negotiation skills and always get the best deal for us and make the other party looks stupid. And this reputation is going to haunt us and undermine our relations with Malaysia. They really fear us. What ever deal we propose or agree or accept will make them worry. They fear that they will get lesser benefits from the deal and we will get more. They fear that we will take them for a ride. Above all, they fear that the truth will be out for all to see, their incompetence when negotiating a deal with Singaporeans. How they have become so paranoid and frighten of Singaporeans and their own lack of ability to negotiate a deal that is favourable to themselves is quite startling. Don't they have any faith or confidence in themselves? Abdullah and Hsien Loong have just agreed on a few things to do together and you can see their immediate reactions of horrors!

NKF Story - A kinder Singapore

Whatever had happened or caused to have happened, the NKF has turned Singapore into a kinder society. Richard Yong and Loo Say San both got a slap on the wrist after being found guilty of the charge for failing in their duties as directors. Each was fined $5000 for allowing a $1.3 million deal to go to waste. Though the $5000 fine was the maximum allowable other than jail terms, the judge said it reflected the 'gravity of the matter'. For a grave matter like the loss of $1.3 million, a $5000 fine is grave and appropriate. This is one step forward towards a kinder Singapore. If the punishment is too severe, we may not have any good men coming forward to serve in public service. There must be incentives to attract good people and talented people to serve the people. And from the judge's comment that Richard Yong was only an 'ornament' without any real understanding of what was going on when he went along to Chennai to negotiate the deal, it tells a lot about the talents in NKF. And even Loo Say San 'was not aware of NKF's right under the agreement'. Both instances said that they are not competent and thus should not be made to feel too guilty about not doing a good job. Their intention were good. They volunteered to serve the people in a charity. They are not aware that they were not competent to do the job. They were not party to a collusion or acquaintance to a crime. They did not benefit from the deal. The $5000 fine was thus very appropriate and we shall just move on. Case close. And NKF may want to offer higher pay to recruit better talents to run the show. Paying peanuts is what they get. If they want talents, they need to pay in the millions.

Laws to maintain fair recruitment.

A letter by Sangeetha Bysheim in the Today paper described her experience in applying for a job. She said that all her interviews were by expatriates. This, she concluded, could be that most of the top jobs are occupied by expatriates or two, expatriates are likely to be less discriminatory. She had a point. And she suggested that we must have laws to prevent discrimination at work places, and in employment, especially when we are inviting more talented foreigners to take the place of less talented locals in the job market. I have a better idea and easier to implement. Appoint all the expatriates to the top jobs of organisations, or at least as the HR Managers. This will ensure that there will be fair play and foreigners will be given a fairer chance of getting employment here.

Can you afford to plan for retirement?

Professional people find it astonishing that 50% of Singaporeans did not plan for their retirement. The point is that how many Singaporeans can afford to plan for their retirement? Take the example of a two paycheck average $5k income family with two children. I believe this is representative of an average Singaporean family. With 30% CPF contribution over a period of 30 years, his CPF savings should be $1500 x 14 x 30, using 14 mths pay and all things remaining unchanged. This will give $630k. The remaining will be his take home pay at $1.68 mil. I f household expenses plus personal expenses for the two parents is $3k pm, total is $1.08 mil. The cost of raising two children to university level at $200k each is $400k. Presumably he owns a car for 20 years and monthly expenditure, including instalment etc is $800. This will cost him $192k. Then we have $1.68m less all these expenses the balance is $8000! Nothing left really. And all the holidays, social commitments, hospital bills etc are not even considered. His only savings is in the CPF. And the full amount would probably be used to pay for a 5 rm HDB flat and a little left in the Medisave. Can he afford to plan and save? Even if he is a thrifty person, thriftyness is frown upon in this island, he may put aside $100k. And all he needs is a major hospitalisation of one member of his family and it will be wiped out. In order to be meaningful, two old folks need to have about $200k in their CPF on retirement. This is based on the minimum sum and Medisave expectation of the CPF Board. If these average Singaporeans have no spare cash to save, what is there to plan? Just work and work is the best plan, really.

Cooking a Prime Minister

Taking on what Balji had said about the recruitment process of Singapore's future Prime Minister and his view that the current process may not be able to find one that meets our future needs, he presumed that there are other better methods for this. Now, what's wrong with the current process? It is a meticulous and systematic process, done in a methodical manner. It is just like a recipe. You decide on what you want to cook, find the material, go through the whole cooking process and pop, the perfect roast lamb or suckling pig is ready to be served. The academics would have a lot to pick from such a system. The choice of the final product, whether it is best to have a roast lamb or curry chicken or sucking pig, is very subjective. Then the quality of the ingredients will also be questioned. Can we pick or cook a national leader the way we cook a general or top civil servant? Historically a national leader, an exceptional leader, was thrown up by events and circumstances. They used to say that history makes a leader, or is it a leader makes history? Compare our system to the Western model and the Chinese model I think ours is closer to the latter. The American model chooses leaders based more on public appeal, a good looker, a smooth talker, and a lot of marketing and packaging. Not much intelligence needed. The Chinese model churns out a national leader through the many levels of screening and sieving. And the leader must prove himself all the way up. He needs to fight all the way, and that needs quite a bit of intelligence, real leadership and perseverence. Ours is a handpick system that looks at the quality of the candidate based on a known recipe. The leaders of today or yesterday will describe what they think the future leader should be like, and they go around looking for one that fits the mould. It is a cook leader. Is there a better system, or which is the best? Very subjective indeed.