Myth 171 - Who is more talented

Today, talents are measured by the salary or income they get. So we have a $10m talent, $1m talent, a $100k so so talent and a $10k not so talent. It is very easy to spot a talent, just by the things that he can afford, his home, his cars, his accessories and his ability to afford holidays, fine dinings and the theatres. When monetary reward is the accepted means of comparing talents, our local talents will have difficulty matching up to those in the developed and rich west. How could we pay someone in our GLCs the equivalent of Citibank, Microsoft, Shell, Yahoo, or the Stock Exchange of New York? What we can afford to pay is simply peanuts to them. So they are more talented than all our talents. Even a small MNCs will be able to pay much more than our best GLCs. Or a senior executive, not even a CEO, will be paid more than our top talents, more than our ministers. So what else can we do to tell people our top talents are as good as these western talents of large international corporations? Shall we pay our top talents as high as them so that we can also be recognised as billion dollar talents? Or shall we hire billion dollar talents to boost up our pool of average million dollar talents? A top talent in public service in China will probably be earning 10% of our average talent in civil service. So our average talent must be more talented. In this way we can tell the world that our talents are the best in the whole of Asia, in monetary terms. But our best will be third or fourth best in the west. For that is likely the amount they are paying to their third or fourth rate talents. The suggested road for Singaporean talents is to go west, get a reasonably high paying jobs and come back to be better than our local talents as they will command a higher pay package. Otherwise don't come back.

Celebrating the unsung heroes

It is easy to notice the great achievers and share their successes. The fame of entrepreneurs, statesmen, professionals etc are well documented, acknowledged and published in the media. These people are generally those who have acquired fame and wealth. We spoke in awe at the doctor or lawyer who earned several hundred thousands for each case executed. The higher the fees, the more respectable they become. He is good and that is why he can charge more. Looking at another corner, there are great people who have done great things for the people by making their lives liveable at very low cost. They do not pursue high profit margin for themselves. They produce goods and services at the cheapest possible price and at reasonable quality to benefit the masses. The first name that came to my mind is the instant noodle manufacturers. At a few cents, they pack a decent meal for those who cannot afford to be lavished. Millions in the world are living on instant noodles daily, 3 or 4 meals a day, 365 days a year, and for several years. Not only the lonely and the unemployed or retirees are doing it, many students from not too well off families are doing eat, eating instant noodles to get by, saving every cent they could to get their education. For the good that these manufacturers have done and served humankind, their contributions are mostly taken for granted. Then there are the hawkers in some hawker stalls that are selling quality and excellent meals at $2 in this expensive city called Singapore. And they are continuing to do it, happily serving their grateful customers, not raising prices despite all other costs being up. How could they do it? Or why are they so stupid to continue to do it and not ripping off their customers by claiming that costs are up and they need to raise their prices? Or would people be looking down at them for not earning the millions they should be and to claim that they are also talents in their own fields? The answer, i think, is that these people are happy with what they are doing, and they are happy seeing their customers happy. They are happy with the profits they are getting and do not seek to maximise profits at all costs. Basically they are not greedy people. But we should not be too happy about this state of affair. Soon the greedy people will come into the picture to force them out of business, raise their rentals and whatever costs. Then they will have no choice but to raise prices or go out of business. Then people will all claim to be innocent and blame somebody else for the high cost of living. The BSE disease is a very good excuse to fall back on.

Cash prizes to improve govt efficiency

'Give the Govt an innovative, impactful idea to cut red tape for businesses and win $1000.' This is a new drive by the Pro Enterprise Panel(PEP), an agency to help cut unnecessary bureaucracy in regulations, to create a more pro business environment. My first suggestion, and I want to claim my $1000 prize, is to remove this agency and this award. You do not need an award like this to solicit suggestions from the ignorant and no talent public to improve govt efficiency. If the public can do that, then they should be running the govt agencies. And we are having the top talents, paying top salaries running these agencies. Why are they incapable of looking into the problem, cutting red tapes and improve their proceduces and efficiency? Who create the red tapes and inefficiency? What is happening? Million dollar talents asking the peasants to teach them to suck eggs? Let me rethink over the issue again. We pay top talents millions of dollars, in turn they are asking the no talents to teach them how to improve and willing to pay the no talents a miserable $1000 for it....

Money everywhere

With ERPs as another great source of revenue, there is money everywhere. And motorists are also 'encouraged' to use public transports, the bus companies and SMRT are going to laugh all the way to the banks. They may be crying, that they can't cope with the volume of people traffic. They would not cry because of the revenue they are collecting. Now, where are these money from the ERPs and the commuters taking public transport going to? The shareholders of transport companies must be the great beneficiaries with the govt helping to promote their services. Shouldn't some of these profits be ploughed back to the people in some ways? The increase revenue is due to govt effort and policies, not because of the effort of the transport companies. What kind of private business can get this kind of booster from the govt? Is it too much to ask for some kickbacks to benefit the commuters in reducing fares? Or are we expecting fares to go higher because of increasing demand?

Two pet projects

The two hottest pet projects today, no guessing, must be Mean Testing and Longevity Insurance. I do not know how they came about or who were the great thinkers behind them, they sure come across as two pet projects that must die die be implemented at all cost. And despite the obvious, that both are no gos, the tenacity and furiousity to get them accepted are unbelieveable. With so much effort and resources put into them, no matter, an inadequate idea is still an inadequate idea. Yes I am harping, I am belabouring my point. Take mean testing for instance. What does it hope to achieve? Peanuts. And what are the costs? Financial, manpower and political costs are high, very high. Worst, it is all about a little principle that people are whinning about? We need bigger hearts to overlook the little idiosyncracies of man, of those who choose to live frugally and save every cent they can. These are not sinful or criminal ways and need not be hit so hard with the full machinery of a state. Then the longevity scheme. It is a good scheme like any insurance scheme. But how useful is it? How many will need it that the whole population will now have to bear the cost of someone's pet idea? Which god is so sure that 50% of the people will live past 85 years? And how many of these will need monetary help? You mean all these people who live till these ages could not think for themselves to make some kinds of provision for their old age? The joke is that many of those who can afford to live past that age are people who can afford to live on and on, even hooking on to expensive machines. Those who cannot are happier to let nature takes its course. There is no reason to prolong life in misery when the people cannot afford to even feed or house themselves. Once we accept that everyone must die, the natural way, let it be and the problem will solve itself. There is very little need to have longevity insurance. But for those who want it and can afford it, by all means. The little remnants that survive to those ages and could not feed themselves do not cost a bomb to the govt unless the govt wants to treat them like little Suhartos, hooked to machines and attended by an army of medical professionals. The scheme is but a red herring at best. LKY has publicly said that the 6.5m population, another pet idea, may not be what he is comfortable with. I am sure the planners will be scrambling for cover now. Do we need LKY to raise some doubts about these two pet projects before they are abandoned? Maybe it is too late. The rice isw almost cooked. Maybe LKY also agrees to it.