Why the President’s salary is pegged higher

This is a reply from Chen Hwai Liang, Press Secretary to the Prime Minister in the ST forum page. I am wondering why is it a letter in the forum page and not an official statement, say in the front page of the ST. The kpkb in cyberspace about the more than 20% increase in the President’s salary must be making people uncomfortable. So here is the official explanation. The salary is pegged to the private sector benchmarks. ‘The principle and benchmarks have been extensively debated in Parliament, most recently in 2007.’ He forgot to add that this was also approved by Parliament. Who and how many MPs voted in favour of this formula? Let me guess, 82 for and 2 against? I am not sure, forgotten already. The vote in favour was almost unanimous. Do the citizens agree with it? Sorry the latter is a non issue since the people voted the MPs as their representatives in Parliament and are indirectly saying that the MPs represented them and voted on their behalf. The other reasons given by Chen Hwai Liang, ‘The President occupies the highest office in Singapore. He exercises custodial powers to protect our past reserves and over the appointment of key public officers to protect the integrity of the public service. As head of state, he represents the country and advances our interests internationally. This is why it is appropriate to peg the President’s salary higher than ministers’ and just above the Prime Minister’s.’ I think the first sentence should be sufficient. It is the highest office in Singapore. Period. But the explanation added that the President’s job carries a higher responsibility, though the ministers may be running their ministries and their thousands of staff. The people may agree or disagree, but this is the official position. Now that the people understand the rationale, let’s move on.

Quotes from Japan after the tsunami

‘What the hell is going on?’ PM Naoto Kan ‘This govt is useless’ Masako Kitajima, Tokyo office worker. ‘I’m not sure if what they’re saying is true or not, and that makes me nervous. I want to know why they won’t provide answers. Tokyo resident Tetsu Ichiura.

Nuclear energy – expert opinion

If a govt is exploring plans to build a nuclear plant and engages nuclear experts to provide expertise advice, what would be the likely recommendations? If the experts say, no go. Finish, his job ends there. If the recommendation is that it is ok, nuclear energy is the way to go, all precautions can be taken to reduce risk to zero, ha, his expertise will be needed much longer, at least till the completion of the nuclear plant and possibly longer. Now, why would a nuclear expert tell a govt that nuclear energy is too dangerous and too high a risk to take and to risk his usefulness, and his paycheck? Many experts will say, don’t worry, there are risks, but manageable. We have the technology, the knowledge and the knowhow to make sure that it is safe. Go ahead and have your cake and eat it as well. And such soothing and confident words are what many govts would want to hear and will feel very assured. I read in the paper that some countries in Europe are putting on hold their nuclear ambition. I also read this comment from a third world leader, ‘Our reactors will be third generation and they will be able to withstand even the most powerful earthquake.,’ Bangladesh Atomic energy Commission chairman Farid Uddin Ahmed told AFP. He must be rightly advised by the experts and believed everything they said. I believe when the Japanese built their nuclear plants in Fukushima, they must also have been told that the biggest earthquake will not shake the nuclear plants. Absolutely safe! Fear not. Whatever sophisticated and bestest technology and equipment, there must be accompanied by the bestest talents and workforce to operate them. Third world mentality, third world attitude, third world ability, third grade work force, are themselves the greatest risk to a potential nuclear disaster. Just like buying sophisticated military aircraft, without the skill technicians to maintain them, without the skill pilots to fly them, they will all ended up grounded. In a nuclear plant, the ending is tragedy of mass termination.

Trading madness or irresponsibility?

Matthew Lynn, a Bloomberg News columnist, wrote an article in the Today paper about high speed trading to the fine tune of picoseconds, just to take advantage of the next guy who does not have technology as an aid. Now what is a picosecond? This is Matthew’s definition, ‘a picosecond is one trillionth of a second, or …a picosecond is to one second what one second is to 31,700 years.’ This is the direction the stock market trading is heading to. Hey, wait a minute, what is a stock market, a jackpot machine, a casino or a game of chance? ‘A stock market has two core functions. It exists for companies to raise capital needed to invest in their business. And it should help ordinary people to make a decent return on their savings by investing in those enterprises.’ I quote Matthew. And this is nothing new. Why are the regulators allowing themselves to be led by the nose by the big funds to change the nature of stock trading from investment to one of pure gambling, by odds and speed? Mathew added that ‘at a certain point, you have to step back and ask whether this is a road we really want to go down, and whether it performs any useful function.’ He concluded by saying that ‘The stock exchanges should call a halt – and tell the traders that if they only want to hold their investments for a picoseconds, they might be better off going somewhere else. Like a racetrack.’ I would like to add that it is highly irresponsible for stock exchanges to allow this to happen as it not only gives the hedge fund an unfair advantage over other traders, which is a fundamental principle it must uphold, such trading methodology will eventually lead to the destruction of the stock market itself. High speed trading and many other variable methodologies are undermining all the cardinal principles of stock markets, eg churning, creating a false market, uneven playing field, buying and selling without change of ownership etc etc. The rot has started and its natural ending is the demise of the stockbroking industry if this deceptive trend is not stopped.

Relying on cheap labour unsustainable

Eureka! Eureka! Singapore has finally discovered that relying on cheap foreign labour for economic growth is unsustainable. The govt is now advising the companies to change their business model to raise real productivity instead of just employing more and more cheap labour. The govt is doing the thinking again, to help the unthinking Singaporeans, this time to increase their productivity by other means. This is good news or bad news? If companies are not going to import more foreign workers, will it affect our economic growth? What about the businesses that are dependent on foreign workers, like those in Geylang? I think it will also affect property prices and rentals. Maybe not. I don’t think the spending power of cheap labour really help much to generate economic activities and growth. The only businesses they provide, other than in Geylang, will be public transport and loitering in the casinos and all the public parks. They would also provide more jobs for themselves as cleaners, to clean up the litters they left behind. If lesser cheap workers are imported, the casino operators will be most happy, the local commuters will also be happy. Not sure if the public transport providers will be happy as the trains and buses will be less crowded and their revenue will be affected. Singaporeans and Singaporean businesses will have to make adjustment to live with the presence of lesser cheap foreign workers.