Think COE and how CCE can be applied to benefit the citizens and the govt. The govt has been selling COEs to the car owners at a price that is determined by supply and demand. At a time it was as high as $100k and currently around $50k+. It is a costly piece of paper just to buy and own a car for 10 years. The benefits of this scheme go mainly to the govt’s coffer.
A car is a very precious temporary asset. How could this be more valuable than a Citizenship Certificate Entitlement? Many are queuing to enter this prosperous city state where the roads are laid with gold. Many have come and return home rich. Many remain here and get richer. Many have paid a heavy price just to earn a right to be here to work, even as maids and manual workers, with the hope of a better life later.
A Singapore Citizenship is very valuable not just to earn a good living, but also a passport to the West, US and Europe. There is no need to give the citizenship to anyone on a silver platter. Foreigners should be willing to pay for it, to buy the right to make it rich, to a better life in a well developed city country.
How could this piece of paper be turned into an asset, like a COE, and with greater value? A simple way is for the govt to sell it in market like the COEs. But this will only benefit the govt alone. My suggestion is to issue a certificate to every senior citizen on reaching 60 years of age. This is like giving some cash to the citizens without the govt having to pay for it, a kind of retirement benefit. The certificate can then be sold to a foreigner who wants to be a citizen, and after meeting all the criteria of citizenship.
The state shall also benefit by a levy from the seller when a CCE is disposed. So the state is also getting something in return.
Why would a new citizen want to buy a CCE? Well, if the citizenship is attractive enough to him. And the value is retained as the CCE can still be resold when he decides to give up his citizenship, or when he kicks the bucket. There is thus no loss, but could be a long term investment like a stock, can appreciate in value. His below 21 years children will get one each when they reach 60. This means he could double or triple his investment and could stay fully invested here.
Yes, the CCE can also be listed in the Stock Exchange for trading if not converted to a citizenship. By doing so, its economic value will be so much higher. There are also many other benefits that can be derived from listing it as a stock. It also allows the govt to buy and sell the CCEs to control its supply and demand. It also prevents all the CCEs from being converted to new citizenships.
The govt thus does not need to throw away citizenships freely and the senior citizens will be pleased with the windfall. The Stock Exchange too will be pleased with another instrument for trading.
This is just a preliminary concept and many details can be worked out to make it workable. It is creating wealth from selling a piece of paper, for the senior citizens and paid by new citizens, like COEs. The oldies will have another source of cash for their twilight years. But the benefits of being a citizen, rights to reproduction etc must be tweaked. It will definitely help to increase reproduction as each CCE is worth quite sum money.
PS. I declare that I own the intellectual property right to this concept or other similar instruments that could be introduced in the future serving similar objectives.
6/09/2011
Abandoned
A few tweaks needed in the Salary Review Committee
One clearly needed change is the presence of a truly independent member that has little association with the people whose salary are affected, and be able to look at the whole issue objectively from a distance. Such a person will then be in a position to provide an impartial view of the remuneration package.
The inputs of HR professionals is definitely useful, but must be from an independent source, not from the ministries.
Though Gerard is talking about starting from a clean slate, his comments are still tainted with the present system of discount and paying high. A discount is only necessary when the package is not right to begin with, a kind of over paying. If the package is correctly or reasonably conceived, there is no need for any further discount. The pricing of public housing is a glaring example of what discount or subsidy is not what it is meant to be.
The paying high is something that reasonable Singaporeans are willing to concede. But what is high and what contributed to the high should be carefully considered. There is no need to pay high to compensate for corruptibility. Anyone who is tempted to be corrupt, let the law deals with him. And there is no need to pay obscene salary just because it has yet to break the treasury.
Then there is the issue of compensating for loss of potential income. Any honourable man/woman coming forward to serve the country at the highest office the country can offer is an honourable calling. If he/she is asking to be compensated for loss of potential earnings then such people should be left to earn their money in their profession. There is no need to make people sacrifice unnecessarily to serve the country when they are unwilling to do so. A political calling or any calling cannot be measured in monetary rewards. An excellent surgeon or lawyer or any professional, does not simply turn into an excellent national leader. There is no direct correlation in what they are doing in their profession to political appointment. To compensate in such terms is irrational thinking.
From the above, the most important tweak needed is the mindset of the Review Committee. If they are still thinking in the same wavelength as those who conceived the current package, the statement of a new slate is a myth. They need to free their mindset from the flawed reasoning of the past.
The inputs of HR professionals is definitely useful, but must be from an independent source, not from the ministries.
Though Gerard is talking about starting from a clean slate, his comments are still tainted with the present system of discount and paying high. A discount is only necessary when the package is not right to begin with, a kind of over paying. If the package is correctly or reasonably conceived, there is no need for any further discount. The pricing of public housing is a glaring example of what discount or subsidy is not what it is meant to be.
The paying high is something that reasonable Singaporeans are willing to concede. But what is high and what contributed to the high should be carefully considered. There is no need to pay high to compensate for corruptibility. Anyone who is tempted to be corrupt, let the law deals with him. And there is no need to pay obscene salary just because it has yet to break the treasury.
Then there is the issue of compensating for loss of potential income. Any honourable man/woman coming forward to serve the country at the highest office the country can offer is an honourable calling. If he/she is asking to be compensated for loss of potential earnings then such people should be left to earn their money in their profession. There is no need to make people sacrifice unnecessarily to serve the country when they are unwilling to do so. A political calling or any calling cannot be measured in monetary rewards. An excellent surgeon or lawyer or any professional, does not simply turn into an excellent national leader. There is no direct correlation in what they are doing in their profession to political appointment. To compensate in such terms is irrational thinking.
From the above, the most important tweak needed is the mindset of the Review Committee. If they are still thinking in the same wavelength as those who conceived the current package, the statement of a new slate is a myth. They need to free their mindset from the flawed reasoning of the past.
Timothy Geithner was rebutted by Singapore and Hongkong
Tim Geithner, the American Secretary of Treasury, was calling for more stringent controls of dubious derivative tradings conducted by dubious operators with dubious modus operandi. He cautioned other regulators not to compromise their regulatory systems to accommodate the rogues of the finance industry that the US is trying to regulate more closely with more stringent rules and regulations. His fear is that while the US was tightening the screws, other regulations are playing easy to take in the rogues and their business. The danger the rogues and their malpractices were thrown into the wind at their own risks.
Singapore and Hongkong have stood up to defend their regulatory systems as much more stringent than the Americans and told the Americans to look elsewhere. Our systems are in good hands. No problems.
I also think so. Hope there is no outcry like the minibond crisis in the future. The next one or two years could be telling if we are doing the right thing. As things are going, my prediction is that some operators will start to retrench staff and cut cost as the business is not generating the returns to cover their overheads, that is, if things do not improve. That will be the test of whether we are doing the right thing or the wrong stuff. The rest are just rhetorics. Let’s wait for the real stuff to unfold.
Singapore and Hongkong have stood up to defend their regulatory systems as much more stringent than the Americans and told the Americans to look elsewhere. Our systems are in good hands. No problems.
I also think so. Hope there is no outcry like the minibond crisis in the future. The next one or two years could be telling if we are doing the right thing. As things are going, my prediction is that some operators will start to retrench staff and cut cost as the business is not generating the returns to cover their overheads, that is, if things do not improve. That will be the test of whether we are doing the right thing or the wrong stuff. The rest are just rhetorics. Let’s wait for the real stuff to unfold.
Forcing round pegs into square holes
Just a month after the GE and Singaporeans are greeted with some refreshing changes in the way some ministries are working. Boon Wan is throwing out a whole basket of waste policies in one go. Tuck Yew is going down to the ground to understand the problems of the people and to explore solutions that will make life more pleasant to the citizens.
In short, they are trying to change the holes so that all shapes and sizes of pegs can fit in. This is a big deviation from past attitude and policies when every peg must be shaped to fit the square holes. Those that could not fit in, just too bad, it is their fault.
The thinking or mindset then was that I am calling the shot, I decide what is good for the people, and the people must fit into my criteria to benefit from my policies. A glaring example is how housing policies were shafted down the people’s throat. Singles, single mothers, under achievers, over achievers, people who messed up their lives for good or bad reasons, not my problem, you created your own problems. Singles go and get married, single mothers, go and get married, under achievers, downgrade to your station in life, over achievers, go to the private market. Ha, ha, ha. There is no need to sweat the little thing to worry about the people’s concern and their angst.
And it was a case of, I only build at my own convenience, at my terms, at my pleasure. You wait, ok? And you know how my policies worked, you plan your life and finances to suit my policies. Don’t muck around with me. What I am doing is the best you can ever get, with affordably priced housing that you can afford, to pay and to wait. Yes, you can afford, I say so. You can wait, I say so.
The way MND works and how it treated the people is about the best example of what it was like then. Now they are trying to listen to the people, wanting to know how to serve the people better. At least it is a big step forward, a departure from the high and mighty and arrogant style of the past.
In short, they are trying to change the holes so that all shapes and sizes of pegs can fit in. This is a big deviation from past attitude and policies when every peg must be shaped to fit the square holes. Those that could not fit in, just too bad, it is their fault.
The thinking or mindset then was that I am calling the shot, I decide what is good for the people, and the people must fit into my criteria to benefit from my policies. A glaring example is how housing policies were shafted down the people’s throat. Singles, single mothers, under achievers, over achievers, people who messed up their lives for good or bad reasons, not my problem, you created your own problems. Singles go and get married, single mothers, go and get married, under achievers, downgrade to your station in life, over achievers, go to the private market. Ha, ha, ha. There is no need to sweat the little thing to worry about the people’s concern and their angst.
And it was a case of, I only build at my own convenience, at my terms, at my pleasure. You wait, ok? And you know how my policies worked, you plan your life and finances to suit my policies. Don’t muck around with me. What I am doing is the best you can ever get, with affordably priced housing that you can afford, to pay and to wait. Yes, you can afford, I say so. You can wait, I say so.
The way MND works and how it treated the people is about the best example of what it was like then. Now they are trying to listen to the people, wanting to know how to serve the people better. At least it is a big step forward, a departure from the high and mighty and arrogant style of the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)