NKF story - Is Durai a nice man?

I have to address this issue after Matilah got so worked up by my posts. Would anyone say that Durai is not a nice man? He has good look, charm, he is charismatic, intelligent, position and power and a maverick. How many supertalents in Singapore can stand near him and look good? And physically he is simply tall, dark and handsome. He could be a movie star. He must have a lot of secret admirers too. But his being nice must be matched by the company he keeps. He has friends everywhere who admire and worship him. And his friends are not the ordinary illiterate and ignorant Ah Kow or Muthu or Ahmad. His friends are all the who's who in Singapore. Anyone who is not nice and attractive and celebrated will not have such luminaries as friends. And not that he has no friends at the lower levels. All his staff and colleagues were mesmerised by him. They regarded him like god. Then the beneficiaries of his organisation, they will kiss his feet. Now, is that enough to convince anyone that Durai is a nice man?

Just another thought

If I were to buy a few properties, I will definitely have to rely on the expertise and professional knowledge of my property agents, bank officers and conveyancing lawyers to make sure that the deal will get through without any complications. Will I be buying a property from someone having trouble with the law and on the verge of being made a bankrupt? I may, without all the knowledge of how such a situation could affect my purchase. But my property agent, or my conveyancing lawyer will definitely do their due diligence and advise me to stay clear of such properties. That is the least I will expect for the money I am going to pay. And if I will to go to the bank to arrange for a loan for the purchase, the bank officer will very likely not approve of such a loan. And the approval may also take quite some time for such a big loan. There will be a lot of checks and approvals along the way. Buying several properties will probably take several months for all the professional people to do their checks. Would my conveyancing lawyer encourage me to buy such properties even at dirt cheap prices?

myth 144

Multi tasking I have written about this before. I am prompted to write about it again after reading a letter by a Rick Lim Say Kiong in the Today paper. Rick's position is that employers are using the excuse of job enlargement and multitasking to exploit their employees with additional work but not additional pay. I am always sceptical about the concept of multi tasking. Up to a point, multi tasking works. The underlying assumptions is that the person is able to take on more jobs, can be trained to acquire more skills, and the jobs are easy to do within the limits of the employee doing it. And there is no compromise in quality and details. The problem is that everyone has a limited number of hours to work. Training someone to do 20 tasks does not mean that he can do twenty tasks. His 8 hours or 10 hours a day will mean that he can just do that much. The rest of the training and skills are wasted. Also, in highly specialised jobs where a lot of skills, knowledge and expertise are required, it is ridiculous to think that a person can be equally proficient in all the specialised jobs and skills and mastering them and executing them like an expert at all times. Even supertalents cannot do it without compromising on the quality. Maybe one, god.

Real wage increases by 3.5% last year

This is according to a Duke University/CFO Magazine survey. The increase, after correcting for inflation is only 3.5%. Whose salary is the survey using? A driver or a sweeper? Another problem is that productivity increases by only 1.2%. Such a huge discrepancy is a sign of trouble. This is untenable. How can wage increase outstrips productivity by 200%? It is like someone spending $3.50 but earning $1.20. Something must give.

First Nets, then Starhub

Both have long standing contracts with their customers, more or less tying them down in a way. Then comes the increases. And according to Starhub, this is market practice and the contract allows them to change the terms and conditions. Sure. Can such a practice continue to be allowed to go on? An equitable contract should be one that ties the parties to terms that both agree to at the moment of signing the contract. How can another party conveniently include all the empowering clause to allow it to change the terms of the agreement to his advantage and the other party cannot walk away with it? We have a lot of such contracts being signed. Some may be justifiable, eg long term housing loan that are affected by changes in interest rates. But all these short term contracts, when the variables are quite predictable and can be built into the contract, should not be allowed to have all the freedom to change according to their whims and fancy. This will put the other party at the mercy of the one sided contract. Yes, Case is right this time to step into the fray. Rip Van Winkle has awaken after all the years of sleeping. I mean Singaporeans in general, to their rights and start thinking.