$46k for French cooking course

A top civil servant reportedly spent $46k for himself, wife and son to study fine French cooking. He took 5 weeks of annual leave, flew to France to learn this exquisite skill. Normally this is a thing that the rich and famous will do and will not raise an eyebrow. In this case, cyberspace is riled by such flaunting of wealth. Should it be? Why can't a man who earns an honest living spend his money the way he wants it? Put it in the proper Singaporean context, here is a case of someone that is overpaid, paid too well, that he could spend big money on niceties. The best part is that he is a public servant and his money is paid from the taxpayers' money. It is a good example of a very well paid civil service and that the people is ired by it and any flaunting of wealth by this group of public servants will definitely invite criticism. The top civil servants and politicians are increasingly being viewed as being overpaid, and not ending. More pay rises will be on the way as there is now no cap to how much they should be paid given an unique formula that could literally pay them hundreds of millions when the condition is right. This case proves that they have more money than they need and are finding creative ways to spend them. Any justification for more pay rise at the top level is going to get rotten tomatoes and rotten eggs. It is difficult to be frugal when you have too much money.

Cannot afford to be frugal

How could it be that people cannot afford to be frugal? Frugality used to be a fad in the era of the hippies. Scions of wealthy families went around in torn and tattered jackets and jeans and looked scruffily poor, like children of working class. It was not that they had to be frugal. They were just making a statement. They were dissociating themselves from their wealthy background as if it was a shameful thing, They were denouncing the decadence lifestyle of the bourgeoisie. Then there was the legendary Tan Kah Kee, probably the richest man in the island whose daily meals were plain porridge, salted peanuts and vegetables. He died penniless after giving away his wealth. He was frugal to a fault. The financial crisis has made some of the affected rich to cut down on a holiday or two, drink cheaper wine etc. There is no need to be frugal but a little less lavish living. For those who were living quite comfortably or just getting by may need to be frugal to save a little. Life will go on practically unchanged. But for those who have been making ends meet, whose income are stagnant or falling, the rising cost in everything will make frugality a meaningless word. They cannot afford to be frugal. There is nothing left to be frugal. To them, living frugally is not about making a statement. It is poverty in a rich oasis.

Time to be credited.

Many of the bloggers here are still using anonymous to post. Increasingly there are more who are using a nick to represent themselves. This is year 2009 and we have seen how the internet has evolved over the last few years. The quality of the postings are getting better compare to the early years when it was a lot of battering just for the sake of battering one another. We are seeing many respectable people in the cyberspace using their own names to express their views and make their points, not necessarily anti establishment or to bring down the establishment. The discourse in the internet is far ranging, very informative and challenging. Many views are expressed ingeniously and artfully. It is time that bloggers should be credited with what they post. It is not necessary that they should use their real name or identity. A pen name, like many authors or even journalists did will be good enough. It will be a cyberspace identity that will grow with the author and may become part of the author. I strongly encourage all the bloggers to use a nick of whatever that they fancy to post. It will be more meaningful for everyone. Cheers.

Peanut spitting monkeys

I went mountain climbing, or hill climbing, at Bukit Timah one weekend. As we drove into the car park we could see the monkeys lining up at the car park fringe waiting for us. When we alighted they came dashing towards us, anticipating some peanuts from visitors. We gladly obliged and threw a few in the air and they went jumping all over the place. Hungry monkeys. There was a weekend that we went to the zoo. We brought along packets of peanuts for the monkeys as well. We went from one beautifully landscaped confine to another watching the monkeys. One thing we noticed was that the monkeys were not as energetic as those at Bukit Timah. Even when we threw the peanuts at them some even refused to move. Over fed monkeys! Then we heard the zoo keeper telling the visitors to be careful not to disturb the monkeys. When angry they would spit out peanuts at them. They were so well fed that they stored the nuts on both sides of their cheeks. It is not easy to get them excited over a few peanuts anymore.

Paying less to workers to pay more to management

How is that possible? One of the ways is like what Wall Street was doing. The top management just pays themselves crazy. But this is not serious then as the financial institutions were churning up big profits and the workers were small in numbers. Put this into the context of manufacturing companies or any large organizations with a big worker base. The amount paid to the top management must come from the general pool of money available for payout. The more being paid to top management, the lesser will be available for the workers. Yes, it is a zero sum game. In the same way any organization that pays big bucks to the top must get the money from somewhere. Normally it comes from paying less to the workforce in general. Organisations that pay their top executives big salaries must find ways to boost up the kitty every month. It either comes from higher cost to their products or services, or from paying the workers less. As simple as that, unless money can appear in mid air. The consumers pay for everything. The workers indirectly pay for the top dollars of their management. True or not?