Kenneth Jeyaretnam joins Reform Party

This is about the best news to break the otherwise dull and mindless churning of stale political news. Finally we are seeing a very able young man standing up to carry on the job of his father. I hope no one is going to say that there is no political talents in Singapore and that Kenneth is a no talent. He has a double first like Hsien Loong. He may not have taken the ride in the bandwagon to earn tens of millions in this small pond. But he has worked overseas, depending only on his own talent and skills to earn his keep. I believe there must be many able young people like Kenneth who are waiting to step forward to serve the country and not waiting to be invited for tea. Would our political system be magnanimous enough to welcome these people as they step forward, or will they face the same sad stories of their predecessors in an unkind environment that has no room for talents in the opposition wing? We are watching and the world is also watching as the game is being played. The same old play or a new play with enlightened players sparring but without the viciousness of a medieval society? The entry of Kenneth into the political fray should raise the standard of politicking to a more sophisticated level. I dread that this is the beginning of another round of gutter politics in the making. We shall see and judge the truth from the tooth.

What’s wrong with disagreeing over issues or policies in cyberspace?

Siew Kum Hong commented that many people gripe or take pot shots at issues beneath the cloak of anonymity and that they should come out of their comfort zones to do something. I agree and disagree with parts of his comment. There is nothing wrong with being anonymous as long as the comments are fair and reasonablel. But agree, it will be better to let people know who is behind the comment in order to give a better feel and measure of what it was all about. The reasons why many are still speaking in anonymity can be found in the soul of the article by Wong Kim Hoh and reflected by Siew Kum Hong’s own sense of fear. He reminded and also made it clear that he disagreed with ‘the lawsuits and defamation schemes used to suppress dissenting views.’ There need no further explanation why people are not willing to come out into the open to state their views when the political climate is such. People who are comfortable in their lives will not want to get into an unlevel playing field and get hurt for the slightest indiscretion. And as for the challenge to come out and do something if people feel strongly about things, I think this is a bit idealistic in the context of our political culture. Stepping forward, be counted, getting the hands dirty may not lead to anything meaningful. Who really thinks that he/she can make a difference by coming out to get his/her hands dirtied except for a fortunate few? It is quite audacious to even think so. And what is so great about making a ‘political contribution’ if it is just to make a statement, a record on what the citizens feel when, ‘After all the debate…nothing’s changed…so what is the purpose?’ Or what is so different about making a point to be put on record in Parliament and making a point in the media, new and old, to express what some of the citizens are feeling? Maybe there is a big difference to some. But I don’t see or feel it that way. What are the contributions of NMP, NCMP, opposition MPs and the unelected but undying opposition politicians? I must say that each have contributed in their own ways to the political process and development of the country. On the other hand, the contributions of cyberspace and bloggers cannot be underestimated and are in no way lesser than these know politicians. In fact there are many things that cyberspace could do and did much better, like keeping issues alive and harping on them repeatedly in case people claimed that nothing said so no more an issue. Or worst, nothing heard, the people must have accepted them. The biggest contributions of cyberspace and bloggers are griping, kpkb and constantly and repeatedly not letting any issue die. This is an area that no politicians or the old media can compete with. The issues will be posted in cyberspace 24/7 and 365 days a year, for the world to see.

Corruption of the bonus system

The first thing that Obama did right was to curb the abuses of the compensation and bonus payout system in corporate America. No longer will the corporate big wigs be allowed to pay themselves crazy by abusing the trust of the minority shareholders and corruptly paying themselves with their so called bonus schemes. They design and decide how much to pay themselves, with approval of course. Actually I can't use the term corrupt as the bonus schemes were all approved by the board of directors. The payout is thus legitimate and above board, objective and according to an approved formula. The top management could even claimed that every cent they got from the bonus system is deserving. And some companies were paying their CEOs tens of millions even when the companies were bleeding, losing hundreds of millions. Superficially the bonus system appears sound. But as they said, the devil is in the details. Were the formula transparent and made known to the shareholders, and accepted by the shareholders? What were the factors in the formula and how relevant were they to the health of the companies? Could the formula pay out exorbitant amounts, unlimited amounts at the expense of the shareholder's interest? Could the factors be juggled and doctored by the accountants to reflect whatever they want to and to maximise the payout? The other problem with the bonus system is that it can be used to pull wool over the eyes of the shareholders. The top management can, for cosmetic reasons, adopt a pay freeze, smaller increases, or even a pay cut to appease the shareholders. But on the contrary they could boost up their bonus payouts from 3 mths to 6 mths, or 6 mths to 12 mths or 24 mths. No one is wiser except the people designing the scheme and managing the scheme. Transparency is important but not often practised. Obama did the right thing to freeze or cap the bonus payout. And now the American corporate wants to side step this by paying themselves upfront. The top management will scheme and scheme to pay themselves as much as they could as they don't own the companies. They were just employees. Grab as much as they can when in office.

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.