An arbitrary salary package based on judgement call

The ministerial salary recommendation was passed after three days of debate. Though there were some attempts to take issues with the recommendation on grounds of principles and methodology, eventually all was convinced that there was really nothing to discuss as it was a judgement call. And there was elation when a common number was found and a hurry to move on with no regards to how it is derived. The only agreement was that there is a need to pay well to attract the right calibre of candidates for the important position of ministers.

Though I have been away from the human resource industry for a while, I cannot help but to see a reluctance to really do a thorough proposal based on what should be the relevant factors and inputs to come out with a less subjective recommendation. The main flaws in the recommendation are the insistence on the use of top income earners and the refusal to use comparative salary of politicians of other countries. The latter was pooh pooh away by raising a few strawmen as justifications, that because of these flimsy excuses, comparing them would be unsatisfactory. I will come back to this later.

Why the preoccupation with the top 1000 income earners and how relevant is this? The perceived intrinsic bias to use these high numbers is that the salary will have a higher base to start with and thus self serving. The cynics would not be happy for many obvious reasons. The PAP’s argument to favour this selective pick of the top 1000 is that the potential candidates should come from this pool of people, apparently logical but not really.

I will just point out two fallacies from this assumption. One, top money earners are not necessary top political leadership material. Political leadership means many more important things than just about ability to make money from any means or profession. The second point is that top income earners are likely to be so wealthy that they would not be distracted by a few million dollars, plus or minus. Money is not really an issue to attract them as they have plenty of them. And this is well pointed out earlier by another MP.

Money is only important to the talents that are not making that kind of money, and wanted to earn more, or near to what these people are making. The disconnect between this logic and the target group is pretty obvious. It is a flawed argument, a flawed basis to work on.

The second point I want to make is the quick dismissal of using foreign political leaders for comparison. Why? The often quoted reasons are related to corruption and tangible and intangible perks or benefits. As far as benefits are concerned, it is easy to find out and easy to quantified. For people who shoot freely about Air Force One or about trying to pay peanuts, these are foolish arguments that should not be entertained as quoting them showed that they are not serious. Second home allowance or travelling allowances of UK politicians are only relevant to them as the country is big and it is costly to travel from Scotland to London for Parliament sittings. Armoured plated cars for Obama is not a benefit but a necessity as his head has a big price. When mentioning benefits, one must be serious and not spurious just to win an argument.

All the perks can be tabled and the compensation specialists can review them for their relevance. This is something very lacking in the whole process. The dismissal of inputs from the compensation experts and every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks that designing compensation packages is about commonsense and anyone can do it. Maybe they are right if it all boils down to judgement call. The taxi driver too can come up with a set of numbers.

Some benefits are specific and unique in nature and are simply inappropriate for consideration. Whatever perks that are official are obtainable and can be monetised in some ways. Intangible perks may be a problem if relevant. Getting a proper list of all the perks for consideration cannot be a difficult task for such an important matter.

The corruption part is more tricky but not unsurmountable either. We are talking about developed countries and not lawless dictatorships which should not even be part of the equation. Under table payouts cannot be considered as morally they are wrong and illegal. No sensible govt will dare to quote corruption as something that must be paid in a country that is incorruptible and makes corruption illegal.

Then again there are ways to by pass such issues of morality by creating a corruption index to help the incumbents from being corrupt. Of course this kind of thinking would not be tolerable to many. Assuming that it can be bulldozed through, then make a provision for it by calling it under whatever terms, or make a judgement call.

What I find disturbing is that there was no serious attempt to use the salary and perks of foreign political leaders for comparison when this is the most logical thing to do. All the exceptions and differences, in terms of size, economy, population, land mass, uniqueness etc can be moderated or massaged, with different weightages attached, to make them meaningful.

By brushing aside the most appropriate source of comparison and plunging into something that is really of no relevance to political leadership makes the recommendation and approval by Parliament a bit rancid and distasteful. Quite disappointing really, when the top and bestest talents were involved to challenge the recommendation or supporting it. At the end of three days, hook, line and sinkers were all swallowed in one big gulp and everyone seems so please, and with a sense of great achievement.

Where are the inputs from the human resource and compensation specialists?

The days the world fought with China

Below are 7 short clips of WW2 films about the Japanese invasion of China and how this poor and unprepared nation was battered to pieces. It was only their human will and the spirit to live a life of freedom and the assistance of foreign forces from the West that helped the Chinese people defeated the overpowering and well equipped Japanese invaders.

All peace loving and anti war human beans should watch how destructive and painful war can be. The West, particularly the Americans, should view these short films produced by the Americans, to have a better understanding of what it was when Americans and the Chinese and people who suffered under the brutal Japanese war machines fought together, side by side, for freedom and for mankind.

It was a very painful history of China on film for every living Chinese to remember the times when they forgot to stand up as a people, as a nation.

Subject: Fw: Battle of China

This is excellent footage and archival material on the invasion of China by the Japanese. I sat through the 7 videos to see how our ancestors fought back the invaders despite overwhelming odds and unspeakable atrocities committed, particularly in Nanking in 1937. Now we know why China had to be what she is today, for never again will she suffer humiliation from foreign invaders. China has come of age, reminiscent of days of old, with a culture that goes back four thousand years. How true: “China may be invaded but never, never conquered†.

BATTLE OF CHINA

World War II Films about China - Produced by US Government

A very good history lesson. Worth viewing the whole 7 segments.

Every Chinese should watch this wonderful series of documentary films, to really learn about China and the true history.

The amazing adversities and abilities of our ancestors can inspire us to take it easy with any difficulties we may have in our life and become a winner.

The film is in English with very good CHINESE subtitles. Now go to:


WW-II 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQTWtokeF5Q

WW-II 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcjVWe3xgAo&feature=related

WW-II 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKTIylgLDHE&feature=related

WW-II 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6z-fZwpmME&feature=related

WW-II 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHk6eepm0E&feature=related

WW-II 6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_zntg-eFF0&feature=related

WW II 7 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hZiD5Uk5I&feature=related ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hZiD5Uk5I&feature=related

The Aussies celebrating ASX

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 Jan 2012

Had the ASX deal gone ahead, Bocker could have comfortably hidden the far deeper downturn in equities trading experienced by his group than ASX over the past six months (although many a local stockbroker suffering loss of hair, sleep and a job might contest that view).
Acquiring the ASX would also have reduced (although in some ways deepened because of Australia's weighting to resources) SGX's currently heavy reliance on equities trading for revenue generation because the ASX is, in spite of perceptions, less dependent on the cash volume in the equities market....by Ian McIlwraith

The above is the first para of McIlwraith's article about how lucky ASX was in not merging with SGX. Good reading the whole article.

Hsien Loong still thinking of career development

Hsien Loong is still thinking about promotion and career development of his employees. This kind of anomaly only exists in one country and no where else. No where in a democratically elected govt does a head of a political party has the privilege of career planning and development, and a salary scale for politicians as if they were employees of the state. In a normal healthy democracy every term of appointment could be the last term before the next general election.

Would Obama or Cameron be talking about career planning for their ministers with salary increment and promotion to come with it? What is happening here is a unique situation that could no longer exist in the next general election. It is not going to be the same anymore looking at how things are developing. Any political party that is elected to power should count themselves lucky. And to be reelected again, is not going to be a sure thing. In many countries, a two term party is a great achievement that many could only hope for.

What happens if a new govt is elected to power in 2016 and subsequently political offices change hand more regularly? It is something that can happen. To be elected again and again is no longer going to be a guarantee as the political system matures, as the people get wiser and more demanding and more selective.

Confirmed, Sinkies are not good banker/CEO material

David Conner is retiring from OCBC after 10 years. He took over from Alex Au, the previous CEO. Alex was a Hongkie. The successor to David Conner is none other than another Hongkie, Samuel Tsien. DBS too did not have a local bred CEO for nearly two decades. The only local bank that still has a local in charge is UOB, which surprisingly is out performing the foreign run local banks if the value of its share price is an indicator.

What should be done to get our local boys and girls to be good enough to be the top dog of local banks in the banking industry? Why is it that they are all found wanting? What is so lacking in the local talents. Maybe the real talents are all into politics, making sacrifices to serve the people.

One way to make this situation less embarrassing to the Sinkie bankers and Singaporeans in general, is to include a citizenship application form when a foreigner is offer a CEO position in any large Singapore corporation. And the appointment will only be confirmed on approval of citizenship. Then all can be happy that the CEOs are Singaporeans, that Singaporeans also got talent.