We have heard it and everyone is talking about it. Great formulas and reasons given to support the recommendations, but it is still not right. The principles and concepts are all wrong, and as such the recommendations are still stuck in the mud, with basically the same old ideas with a little cosmetic changes here and there. There is nothing innovative or new about the recommendations.
The big mental trap is that everyone is still treating political appointments as an employment. So you have things like AWS, bonuses, performance evaluation, reward for good performance etc etc, and money, money and money.
In the first place we are dealing with responsible adults who stepped forward to serve the people and country in the highest office. There is no issue of performance. Every one of them is expected to be highly motivated and committed. And they cannot afford to slack or skive as they are under the spotlight 24/7. Absence and sleeping in parliament are all being watched. Hey, we are not dealing with 20 year old kids who applied and got employed but not really interested in what they are doing. Political office is a public commitment.
Politicians are elected by the people to serve for a fixed term of office. And the last thing that they should be concerned with is money, how much they could get as extras, how much bonuses to hope for if they work harder or the economy is doing better or worst. The money as a motivation factor should be removed from their thinking altogether. This will free them from the money halo that hangs over their heads, and allow them to do their jobs objectively, without having to weigh the odds of how it would affect their income.
A simple fixed sum should be paid to them annually for the duration of their office. The salary can input all the extra perks, AWS or bonuses etc just a simple package. Period. No complicating and confusing formulas, no worries of more variable bonuses, and no money thoughts in their minds. Remove the money equation and political leaders would not be burdened with the money fixation. It is so pathetic to imagine politicians nervously waiting to know how much they will be getting as bonuses at the end of the year. Stop that.
The remuneration system must build in dignity in public office. Pay them well and do not let them be embroiled like employees begging management for more year end bonuses. Political leaders must be above this and carry themselves with dignified confidence.
Forget about performance appraisal. The assessment of their performance must be by the people, the voters. And the reward and approval for a job well done is to be re elected, no extra money from performance related formulas. They are expected to perform, nothing less.
There is no need for the PM to appraise other ministers or MPs to reward them using public funds. It only introduces subjectivity and biases as there are ruling party MPs as well as opposition MPs. Who is to reward opposition MPs with public money? Without this appraisal by the PM, the ministers and MPs have no obsession to please him instead of pleasing the people by doing a good job.
The PM may want to assess his own ministers/MPs for his own reasons, but who cares? Corporations use appraisal for other purposes, promotion, training, career development, monetary rewards etc. These are irrelevant to political appointments which are elected by the people on a fixed term. After each term, if not elected, out he goes. What career development, training and development and more monetary perks? Now, did I hear some politicians are being trained in office and paid by public money?
Performance evaluation is a party matter, maybe to gauge whether to field the candidate again or to slot him into a minister post. Don’t drag public money into it as in principle it is difficult when OPM is involved. They can pay with their own party funds if they like, then no one will mind.
The idea of employment and terms of employment, of monetary rewards, must be erased totally and be replaced by a simple fixed income for simplicity, transparency and minimal complications. No one needs to double guess what the politicians are getting or what they are up to. The politicians should just do their jobs when elected to office, with dignity, and to seek re election and the people’s approval as their rewards, not more bonuses.
Politicians are elected by the people and accountable to the people for a fixed term of office. The people will evaluate them and decide to elect or drop them. Their evaluation comes once in 5 years, not annually like employees of an organisation.
1/04/2012
Aiyo, why cut so much?
Now you people got to go and sayang the ministers. Sakit lah.
I hope this cut will not affect the political system of recruiting the best to stand for election. The good guys who still want to serve should still step forward despite the lower salary. And the concern of corruption if pay not enough, may it not happen to prove that the old belief is right.
Someone please tell them their dignity will not be affected adversely at all. In fact their dignity will get a boost, and a bigger boost if the cut is bigger. And the record of the world’s top 30 highest paid politicians will still stay and unlikely to be broken for another donkey years to come.
I hope this cut will not affect the political system of recruiting the best to stand for election. The good guys who still want to serve should still step forward despite the lower salary. And the concern of corruption if pay not enough, may it not happen to prove that the old belief is right.
Someone please tell them their dignity will not be affected adversely at all. In fact their dignity will get a boost, and a bigger boost if the cut is bigger. And the record of the world’s top 30 highest paid politicians will still stay and unlikely to be broken for another donkey years to come.
Latest on Ministerial Salary cut
This is not confirmed but came out from the wire. The recommendations could see a 28% cut for Hsien Loong, 31% cut for junior ministers and 51% cut for the President. MPs will get a 3% cut.
And this will be back dated to 21 May 2011.
And this will be back dated to 21 May 2011.
Waking up Rip Van Winkles
After reading the article on Piyush Gupta, I have to take back my words on foreign talents running local enterprises. He went in and found a rotten apple that still looked good from the outside. ‘He was aghast that a bank of the standing of DBS lacked the very basic and fundamental processes required of it.’ And DBS head hunted some of the best finance talents across the world to be in such a state. Don’t they have any talents working in the bank to avoid the mess? ‘…a lot of processes and systems which you would expect a large, professional organization like DBS to already have established and ingrained were not in place, said Mr Gupta…’
The bank did not know which customers were profitable, which branch were profitable, and the operations in every country, the platform and processes, were different and many many more things needed to be straightened up. You need to read the full text in the article in today’s ST to appreciate the problems he inherited. Does it mean the bank was sleeping all these years?
Two years on the job, ‘the bank’s management now understands the credit risk and market risk better,(unbelievable)…and also has much more standardized processes across all its markets.’ And he had done more, and the bank is now more confident of the stability of the overall banking operation at this stage.
Thank God that they brought in Gupta in time. Wonder what would be the state of health of the bank if it continues with the status quo. This is a foreign talent that came in to shake everybody up, wake up, wake up. No wonder they could not find a local to fill the top post.
They had a few foreign talents before, and I think all with credentials from the Ivy leagues of American fame. What is different about Gupta is that he needed not be from the American cohorts. He graduated from Delhi University and got a MBA from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Now I understand why the Americans are forming a beeline to India to recruit their banking talents. And our mistake is obvious.
Instead of going to India, we went to America. DBS is fortunate to go to America through Citibank to find its talent from India. It was quite like an accidental discovery of America by Columbus.
Hope the Singapore govt knows where to get their foreign financial talents from to achieve its ambitious plan of turning the island into a premier financial hub. Wall Street talents and those from American Ivy League are no longer in vogue. They actually messed up the American financial system and nearly brought the down the rest of the world with them.
The bank did not know which customers were profitable, which branch were profitable, and the operations in every country, the platform and processes, were different and many many more things needed to be straightened up. You need to read the full text in the article in today’s ST to appreciate the problems he inherited. Does it mean the bank was sleeping all these years?
Two years on the job, ‘the bank’s management now understands the credit risk and market risk better,(unbelievable)…and also has much more standardized processes across all its markets.’ And he had done more, and the bank is now more confident of the stability of the overall banking operation at this stage.
Thank God that they brought in Gupta in time. Wonder what would be the state of health of the bank if it continues with the status quo. This is a foreign talent that came in to shake everybody up, wake up, wake up. No wonder they could not find a local to fill the top post.
They had a few foreign talents before, and I think all with credentials from the Ivy leagues of American fame. What is different about Gupta is that he needed not be from the American cohorts. He graduated from Delhi University and got a MBA from the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. Now I understand why the Americans are forming a beeline to India to recruit their banking talents. And our mistake is obvious.
Instead of going to India, we went to America. DBS is fortunate to go to America through Citibank to find its talent from India. It was quite like an accidental discovery of America by Columbus.
Hope the Singapore govt knows where to get their foreign financial talents from to achieve its ambitious plan of turning the island into a premier financial hub. Wall Street talents and those from American Ivy League are no longer in vogue. They actually messed up the American financial system and nearly brought the down the rest of the world with them.
Turning Pareto upside down
The recent tightening of regulations on trading high risk instruments and products through the SGX is ruffling some feathers, of the investors and brokerages. It is quite a complicated exercise to safeguard the interests of naïve and ignorant investors in sophisticated, highly geared derivatives and foreign shares. The new regulations have made monitoring, administration and its execution quite a formidable exercise, and with many loose ends yet to be tested.
What has Pareto got to do with this change? The bread and butter business of the remisiers is trading local stocks and other legitimate and well established instruments. This is the forte of most remisiers. They know the business, the stocks, the companies and the happenings in the industry.
As for high risk and highly geared derivatives and other queer instruments, including foreign shares, they are a totally different kettle of fish. Not many of their clients are sophisticated enough to want to dabble in them regularly. Occasionally there will be a few never say die commandoes who may have heard something or given a tip by someone and wanted to go in for a quick punt. The business generated by these unfamiliar stuff is pretty small and in between. It may not be more than 5% of their business, or not at all.
And when foreign shares are concerned, it is sheer impossible to know what they are. Clients could technically ask to trade stocks from Australia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hongkong, Shanghai, all the other countries of Asean, Europe and the US. The number and spread of stocks are simply insane to know. Even the big funds or brokerage would not have enough specialist staff to know what they are dealing with or even claim to know the stocks of a particular market. There is just no superman to know any one market or all the markets even if he is full time on it.
Get the picture? The local remisiers who are pretty familiar with the local companies and stocks are not allowed to advise their clients in the trading of these stocks. They are supposed to be order takers, dumb key board operators in a way.
In the case of foreign stocks and derivatives, which most remisiers would hardly have a clue or only superficial knowledge, they are expected to advise their clients on how to trade these alienand unfamiliar stocks and queer derivatives. Get me now?
There is no excuse for any remisier to not know about these Specified Investment Products or SIPs, when they are expected to give advice to their clients. Now, how can one be an expert in the stocks and derivatives around the world? I don’t think any brokerage or international funds have such an expertise and definitely not in one particular trader. It is simply an impossible requirement.
Even if the remisiers are willing to attend all the training needed, to gear themselves on these foreign shares, it will be at least 10 years by the time he gets to attend all the training sessions. Here comes Pareto. Why spend so much time on an activity that is hardly 5% or less of one’s business, so as to be qualified professionally to give advice to clients? Or can one simply give advice on something he does not know?
Can there be such an animal in existence that is capable of providing professional advice to clients on all the overseas stocks and all the highly sophisticated instruments at the same time, and still spend 90% of his time managing his clients trading on local stocks, even as an order taker?
I doubt a super computer can do a proper job.
What has Pareto got to do with this change? The bread and butter business of the remisiers is trading local stocks and other legitimate and well established instruments. This is the forte of most remisiers. They know the business, the stocks, the companies and the happenings in the industry.
As for high risk and highly geared derivatives and other queer instruments, including foreign shares, they are a totally different kettle of fish. Not many of their clients are sophisticated enough to want to dabble in them regularly. Occasionally there will be a few never say die commandoes who may have heard something or given a tip by someone and wanted to go in for a quick punt. The business generated by these unfamiliar stuff is pretty small and in between. It may not be more than 5% of their business, or not at all.
And when foreign shares are concerned, it is sheer impossible to know what they are. Clients could technically ask to trade stocks from Australia, Indonesia, Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Hongkong, Shanghai, all the other countries of Asean, Europe and the US. The number and spread of stocks are simply insane to know. Even the big funds or brokerage would not have enough specialist staff to know what they are dealing with or even claim to know the stocks of a particular market. There is just no superman to know any one market or all the markets even if he is full time on it.
Get the picture? The local remisiers who are pretty familiar with the local companies and stocks are not allowed to advise their clients in the trading of these stocks. They are supposed to be order takers, dumb key board operators in a way.
In the case of foreign stocks and derivatives, which most remisiers would hardly have a clue or only superficial knowledge, they are expected to advise their clients on how to trade these alienand unfamiliar stocks and queer derivatives. Get me now?
There is no excuse for any remisier to not know about these Specified Investment Products or SIPs, when they are expected to give advice to their clients. Now, how can one be an expert in the stocks and derivatives around the world? I don’t think any brokerage or international funds have such an expertise and definitely not in one particular trader. It is simply an impossible requirement.
Even if the remisiers are willing to attend all the training needed, to gear themselves on these foreign shares, it will be at least 10 years by the time he gets to attend all the training sessions. Here comes Pareto. Why spend so much time on an activity that is hardly 5% or less of one’s business, so as to be qualified professionally to give advice to clients? Or can one simply give advice on something he does not know?
Can there be such an animal in existence that is capable of providing professional advice to clients on all the overseas stocks and all the highly sophisticated instruments at the same time, and still spend 90% of his time managing his clients trading on local stocks, even as an order taker?
I doubt a super computer can do a proper job.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)