They trusted him

In the Shi Ming Yi case in court yesterday it was reported that they trusted him and let him determine his own salary. And they have good reasons to do so. Ren Ci is so successful today because of one man, I mean monk. Shi Ming Yi is so talented and has a lot of followers and is able to raise the profile of Ren Ci and the multi million dollar donations that it received over the years. So, shouldn't people be grateful to his great contribution and talent and let him continue to run the organisation the way he knows best?

How we pay multi million dollar politicians

Now that the world is standing up to take notice of this extraordinary feat maybe we should enlighten them on the hows and whys. The rest of the world, especially politicians, must be wondering how we could pay politicians this kind of salary and the people are happy and supportive of it. They may think that if they were to propose it in their own countries there will be immediate mass demonstrations and riotings in the streets. But we did it, and for so many years, it has become part of our system of good governance. For the likes of Obama, Brown or Sarkozy, who may want to think about how to go about convincing their electorates to pay them a few million dollars in salary, the following could be a useful guide. In the first place the country must be rich enough to be able to afford the million dollar salaries. And for America and the rich European countries, this is a given and not an issue. If the people were to quibble about it, just tell them that it would cost them each a hot dog a year. Very reasonable and affordable. The next point or the most important point is to convince the electorate that they must have the best talents to lead the country. And the only way is to pay them well. Otherwise they will want to become bankers and lawyers or be in Wall Street making hundreds of millions. Our slogan is pay peanuts and you get monkeys. Surely they would not want their parliaments and congresses to be filled with monkeys. This is a very powerful argument. The other important argument is human nature. People in position of power will by nature become corrupt. To stop them from becoming corrupt, pay them up front, and pay them well so that there will be no incentive to become corrupt. This is understanding nature and human weaknesses. Once these arguments are out of the way, work out a formula to make it objective. Peg the salary of the politicians to the 100 highest paid employee's salary in the private sector. But don't peg it to the top dog. That would be too excessive. Say pick the 49th person or 50th person's salary as the bench mark. That will look very reasonable. Now debate the formula in parliament and passed it into law. Then the salary package will become legal and legitimate. See, QED. Oh, there are some other conditions to make this formula successful. The ruling party must have an absolute majority to ensure its safe passage in parliament. As for street protest in case the ignorant electorate could not understand the brilliance of such a formula, ban them. Actually, the successful implementation of this million dollar salary package for politicians requires supertalents. Only supertalents have the ability to pull this through and be able to convince the people that it is good for them and the country. Actually no, you need exceptional supertalents. Better still if they are demigods and immortals.

Highest paid politicians - the numbers are wrong!

Yes, the numbers quoted for the world's highest top 30 politicians are wrong, way off the mark. Too conservative. What were quoted in the article were only the basic 12 months' salary of the politicians. There is another element that forms part of the package. Oh actually there were two elements, another bonus payment that can go as high as 12 months of the monthly salary. Some have quoted a figure of 16 months. And there is also pension. To quote Hsien Loong during his answer to Steve Chia, a NCMP, this was what he said. 'Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take a lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have your CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount. The Member's implicit question is: are the Ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.' It is an entire package, ....it all adds up to a finite amount. So, when we said that a minister or Prime Minister is getting say $3m, he could possibly get $6m, plus or minus a little depending on his bonuses. Then on top of that, if he has reached 55 years of age and has served 8 years as a minister, he is entitled to another 2/3 of his basic salary. There is a formula and definition of the basic salary in the Parliamentary Pensions Act. So if a Prime Minister is getting $3.9m, he could be getting another $3.9m in bonuses and another 2/3 of an X salary. This could easily be another $2m. That will come to around $9.8m. This $9.8m is the entire package, excluding other perks. Thus, all the figures quoted are way off their marks. They should be multiplied by 2 or 2.67 times. Would these numbers drive the political leaders of the world, especially the rich western nations, insane? They must be kicking themselves for being so underpaid.

This blog is quoted in the London Times!

Thank you Green Peas. Your article is not only quoted in the London Times online and in many other blogs and forums around the world, it also enlightens the world on how well we are governed as a country. http://www.mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/ is now famous man! I have noticed that the readership these few days have shot up furiously. Here is the link: http://timesbusiness.typepad.com/money_weblog/2009/04/the-10-highest-paid-politicians-in-the-world.html#more

Citizens versus Netizens

Joel Gn from Mediacorp wrote an article on the merits of netizen views and how representatives they were in Today. His conclusion can be summarised into the following. 1. There is no face to face discussion and many netizens hide behind the veil of anonymity, especially with regard to policy matters. Thus their views were not credible. Ha, I choose to differ. It is exactly because of the culture of fear here that anonymous views are more real and representative of the truth. Many who spoke in public actually would not disclosed their true feeling and views for obvious reasons. 2. The views expressed in cyberspace are views of a few individuals. So, the views expressed in the old media are not the views of individuals? Even many of the crap surveys and pushed out as the people's views were views of individuals. Even national policies were views of individuals and not the views of the people. Agree? Remember, it is for your own good. Or shall we concede that the views expressed by the professional reporters and journalists were the views of the people, not their individual views? Joel Gn forgot that in cyberspace it is 'the message and not the platform' or the people articulating it that is important. Anyone, no matter how big his title is, if he talks nonsense in cyberspace, he will be declared a clown immediately by netizens. On the other hand, an unassuming person with no title or status but could articulate a sensible view, the view will be respected. It is the message, not who you are. And that is exactly what Joel Gn said. That is the strength of cyberspace. You can't fool anyone by virtue of your position of title. And currently, cyberspace provides the anonymity for truthful opinions and gut reactions to be aired. You can't do it in the old media. They will either be censored, or one will get himself into trouble for airing the truth.