I read that it will cost a student about $600k to study Medicine in Australia or more in the US or UK. This is a princely sum of money to acquire a skill to earn a living. I can presume that the cost of training a doctor locally is just as much, though it may cost less to a student after govt subsidies. The full cost could be as much as a million to produce a locally trained doctor to practice as a GP. For the specialists, the cost will be much more.
In my view this is just not cost effective. When we can get fully trained doctors overseas, including specialists, without paying a cent for their training, why do we need to spend so much of our resources on training doctors locally? All the infrastructure, the manpower, resources, etc can be put to better use elsewhere. In a way, we can outsource our medical training overseas by recruiting foreign talents. And we can pay them cheaper than our locals with their unjustly high expectations.
Boon Wan is talking about cutting cost in the medical profession by increasing productivity. I think he should consider this option. The cost will definitely come down, without the costly investment and with cheaper doctors readily available.
In the name of efficiency, cost effectiveness, we can put this kind of thinking further by closing all our universities and recruit foreign talents and graduates to work in the professions and industries as well. Definitely cheaper, hungrier, and more dynamic and with cost advantage, will make our economy more competitive and vibrant.
As for the Singaporeans, they are quite expensive to train locally. If they can afford it, they can join the army of locals in their march to foreign universities which are deemed to be more valuable and better, and come back as foreign talents. They can foot their own training without the state having to fund the local universities and to provide subsidies on their tuition fees.
The net effect is that we will have cheaper doctors who are better trained by overseas universities to serve our people. It is a win win situation.
1/30/2012
A jaw dropping act
The big salary cut for ministers and politicians is a jaw dropping act of sort. It is a very significant admission that the salary paid to politicians was way way excessive in all counts and that finally it came to the open, and no one in his right mind would dare to defend it. It is also a confirmation that it was wrong in the private thoughts of many people, maybe even among the recipients of the huge salaries, but all just buat bodoh and makes hay while the sun shines.
And now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is pointless and helpless to put it back. The ugliness of the high pay cannot face the light of moral justice, not even political correctness. It is just indefensible. It has to be dumped into the darkness and be forgotten.
The troublesome part is that, how could something that is so wrong be upheld and perpetuated for so long as something that is right? It can only happen in a country with unthinking people or absolute power.
So what is the new mantra? Greed is good, greed is normal, greed is the way to go, unstoppable. It has to be that way if we are to progress. Feed the greed and the greedy will be more motivated and will excel in what they are doing.
Actually one can be damn greedy without being productive at all. And one can spend all his energy trying to grab the money by all kinds of schemes instead of working for it.
I wrote the above before the Parliamentary debate. And I was completely wrong. There were still people staunchly believing in it and defending it with tooth and nail. We know who they are now. We also know who kept quiet throughout the debate, either they were against it or too embarrass to defend it, or wanting to enjoy it without being caught defending it.
The biggest sin in this issue is that the people who are benefitting from it are defending and justifying it. And the people who are against it have no avenue to fight it except for 6 opposition members. And if my poll is anything to go by, the majority of the people are against it.
Can the ministers walk around with heads held high, that the people approved their high salary? Did they ask the people about it. Or there is no need to ask at all? And some were very angry at those who spoke against it. They have decided how much they want to pay themselves and they will vote for it in a Parliament where they have absolute majority, with the Whip in force. They will have their way, all 81 of them, not the majority of the people who did not agree with them.
This is democracy at its peak. The rule of the majority in Parliament, by the people, of the people, and for the people. Maybe this definition of democracy needs a little tweaking.
And now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is pointless and helpless to put it back. The ugliness of the high pay cannot face the light of moral justice, not even political correctness. It is just indefensible. It has to be dumped into the darkness and be forgotten.
The troublesome part is that, how could something that is so wrong be upheld and perpetuated for so long as something that is right? It can only happen in a country with unthinking people or absolute power.
So what is the new mantra? Greed is good, greed is normal, greed is the way to go, unstoppable. It has to be that way if we are to progress. Feed the greed and the greedy will be more motivated and will excel in what they are doing.
Actually one can be damn greedy without being productive at all. And one can spend all his energy trying to grab the money by all kinds of schemes instead of working for it.
I wrote the above before the Parliamentary debate. And I was completely wrong. There were still people staunchly believing in it and defending it with tooth and nail. We know who they are now. We also know who kept quiet throughout the debate, either they were against it or too embarrass to defend it, or wanting to enjoy it without being caught defending it.
The biggest sin in this issue is that the people who are benefitting from it are defending and justifying it. And the people who are against it have no avenue to fight it except for 6 opposition members. And if my poll is anything to go by, the majority of the people are against it.
Can the ministers walk around with heads held high, that the people approved their high salary? Did they ask the people about it. Or there is no need to ask at all? And some were very angry at those who spoke against it. They have decided how much they want to pay themselves and they will vote for it in a Parliament where they have absolute majority, with the Whip in force. They will have their way, all 81 of them, not the majority of the people who did not agree with them.
This is democracy at its peak. The rule of the majority in Parliament, by the people, of the people, and for the people. Maybe this definition of democracy needs a little tweaking.
1/29/2012
Sinners not allowed in paradise
The gate of paradise is heavily guarded by no nonsense and morally upright prudes. No sinners are allowed to pass through that gate with no exceptions. The moral high ground is zealously protected. Everyone walking around in paradise has a halo above his head, a sign of being above temptations.
Paradise is only for the holiest of the holy. And they wear white, laundered many times a day to make sure their attires are really spotless. When dirty, just launder again and again. Incidentally laundering is good business in paradise. Many citizens need laundering services to stay clean and white.
Clinton and his Lewinsky friend will be a no no in paradise. Sinners, they will scream. Obama, getting richer and richer despite his paltry salary, is also a suspect. He must be a man of low repute, dipping his fingers in the cookie jar. Money must have come from less clean sources and no amount of laundering would make it clean. So are the leaders of the world, all suspects of recipients of unclean money. No wonder they are seen as leaders with low dignities. The angels have been instructed to keep these sinners out. And the citizens of paradise are happily playing with their fiddlers.
Be clean, so said the holy of the holiest, and the equally clean citizens roared with approval. And they walk around carry stones to throw at the unclean.
Jesus frowned. ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast his stone.’ And they cast their stones at the sinners. The citizens and the holies of paradise are clean and have not sinned.
Amen.
Paradise is only for the holiest of the holy. And they wear white, laundered many times a day to make sure their attires are really spotless. When dirty, just launder again and again. Incidentally laundering is good business in paradise. Many citizens need laundering services to stay clean and white.
Clinton and his Lewinsky friend will be a no no in paradise. Sinners, they will scream. Obama, getting richer and richer despite his paltry salary, is also a suspect. He must be a man of low repute, dipping his fingers in the cookie jar. Money must have come from less clean sources and no amount of laundering would make it clean. So are the leaders of the world, all suspects of recipients of unclean money. No wonder they are seen as leaders with low dignities. The angels have been instructed to keep these sinners out. And the citizens of paradise are happily playing with their fiddlers.
Be clean, so said the holy of the holiest, and the equally clean citizens roared with approval. And they walk around carry stones to throw at the unclean.
Jesus frowned. ‘Let the one who has not sinned be the first to cast his stone.’ And they cast their stones at the sinners. The citizens and the holies of paradise are clean and have not sinned.
Amen.
The primacy of state or the people?
The state and its people are two sides of a palm. The first impression is that what is good for the state must be good for the people and vice versa. Can it be that what is good for state is not good for people and vice versa as well? There is this disquiet about the primacy of state versus its citizens. Should there be a test on which should come first, what would the govt do? There is a dichotomy between the perpetuation of the existence of the state and the well being of the people. Could there be a situation when putting one above the other could lead to the other’s demise?
There is a school of thought that the continued existence of the state is primary, that the state should go on as a continuous entity, a legacy, and the interest of the people can be compromised if necessary. And there will be a time when the citizen’s interest has to give way to the interest of the state. One good example is the importation of great numbers of foreigners to replace or reinforce the locals in the name of good for the citizens. Depending on how many were brought in, the original citizens could be diluted.
This to some is a necessary evil when the original citizens are no longer competitive, their DNAs and genetic codes have degenerated and a new set of DNAs and genetics are needed to replace them. Putting it simply, the people are dispensable and can be traded or discarded for better stocks to keep the state alive into the future and for economic growth.
Such thinking or approach may not be acceptable to those who see the primacy of the citizens, the people over that of the state. The state exists because of the people. It is not necessary to compromise or endanger the existence of the state just for the sake of its citizens. It is just a case of citizens first and their interests must not be adversely affected for the good of an inanimate construct, an artificiality called the state.
This brings back the conflict between state and people. The state exists for the people or the people for the state? For a state to exist for its people, then our policy of bringing in foreigners at the expense of the locals, to become locals, is not agreeable to the citizens. The policy makers may argue otherwise, claiming that the imports are necessary and really for the good of the people. To the believers of state primacy, the people or citizens are dispensable. Bad people or poor quality people can go and be replaced. Bring in foreigners, give them citizenship and make them instant citizens, no difference.
The above argument is not similar to a stateless situation where there is no state and no citizens, a to each his own, to make the best of his own according to his talent status.
The people, particularly the PMETs and top professionals, are feeling the heat. There is an angry perception with many case examples to show that many locals have to make way, becoming redundant or by passed for the top jobs, to foreigners who were not better than them. Many were judgement calls or for more flirtatious reasons. Is it really the case that no locals are found better than foreigners at the senior positions and at the lower levels, locals could end up jobless in favour of foreigners because the latter are better skilled, qualified or simply cheaper, or because of political reasons, office politics or whatever?
The bad bards pointed to the primacy of the state and if needed, the whole original local population can be replaced by more vibrant and cheaper foreigners just to keep the state vibrant. The assumption here is that the locals without the foreigners would not be able to keep the economy vibrant for the good of everyone. They are daft, too complacent and not willing to work. There are two sides to the argument or selective arguments that can be self serving. Some see it as a sell out of the original citizens.
There are now some indications of a change in direction, to be more local focused whether in form or in substance. This is a serious matter as it affects the well being of the original citizens and the viability of the state. Which wisdom shall triumph?
There is a school of thought that the continued existence of the state is primary, that the state should go on as a continuous entity, a legacy, and the interest of the people can be compromised if necessary. And there will be a time when the citizen’s interest has to give way to the interest of the state. One good example is the importation of great numbers of foreigners to replace or reinforce the locals in the name of good for the citizens. Depending on how many were brought in, the original citizens could be diluted.
This to some is a necessary evil when the original citizens are no longer competitive, their DNAs and genetic codes have degenerated and a new set of DNAs and genetics are needed to replace them. Putting it simply, the people are dispensable and can be traded or discarded for better stocks to keep the state alive into the future and for economic growth.
Such thinking or approach may not be acceptable to those who see the primacy of the citizens, the people over that of the state. The state exists because of the people. It is not necessary to compromise or endanger the existence of the state just for the sake of its citizens. It is just a case of citizens first and their interests must not be adversely affected for the good of an inanimate construct, an artificiality called the state.
This brings back the conflict between state and people. The state exists for the people or the people for the state? For a state to exist for its people, then our policy of bringing in foreigners at the expense of the locals, to become locals, is not agreeable to the citizens. The policy makers may argue otherwise, claiming that the imports are necessary and really for the good of the people. To the believers of state primacy, the people or citizens are dispensable. Bad people or poor quality people can go and be replaced. Bring in foreigners, give them citizenship and make them instant citizens, no difference.
The above argument is not similar to a stateless situation where there is no state and no citizens, a to each his own, to make the best of his own according to his talent status.
The people, particularly the PMETs and top professionals, are feeling the heat. There is an angry perception with many case examples to show that many locals have to make way, becoming redundant or by passed for the top jobs, to foreigners who were not better than them. Many were judgement calls or for more flirtatious reasons. Is it really the case that no locals are found better than foreigners at the senior positions and at the lower levels, locals could end up jobless in favour of foreigners because the latter are better skilled, qualified or simply cheaper, or because of political reasons, office politics or whatever?
The bad bards pointed to the primacy of the state and if needed, the whole original local population can be replaced by more vibrant and cheaper foreigners just to keep the state vibrant. The assumption here is that the locals without the foreigners would not be able to keep the economy vibrant for the good of everyone. They are daft, too complacent and not willing to work. There are two sides to the argument or selective arguments that can be self serving. Some see it as a sell out of the original citizens.
There are now some indications of a change in direction, to be more local focused whether in form or in substance. This is a serious matter as it affects the well being of the original citizens and the viability of the state. Which wisdom shall triumph?
1/28/2012
How to justify high pay
My human resource experience apparently has gone out of date as far as justification for pay or higher pay is concerned. Let me just recall some of the basic premises in designing the compensation package for employees. HR will normally look at the job specs, the qualifications needed, the skill, risk involved if applicable, health hazard, even look at environment. Then HR will mix these with the incumbent’s qualifications and skill, add in market comparables, stir them thoroughly in a pot, remove the flotsams, and there we have it, a pay package for the various jobs.
Today it is more complicated and complex and a totally new dimension. I am told that corruption is now a factor to be added in the pay package. There are a few variations to this. One is if other people are corrupt and the total income is more than their actual, this must be taken into account, eg the opportunities to receive bribe or under table money, to gain from issuing of licences or approvals. The other aspect is the infamous notion that since people are likely to be corrupt, let’s pay them upfront so that they need not be corrupt anymore.
Revolving door? I just heard of this new phenomenon. In short it is like jobs laying in waiting for top people who left their offices. The most common quoted examples are the American political leaders who have high paying jobs waiting for them after their terms in office. Actually in my time, or even today, this is nothing new. The top dogs are in demand when they quit their jobs. Many offers will come in from organizations or job hunters waiting in queue. Why should this be a factor to use to mark up pay of incumbents, I really dunno.
I am also told that if other people can go on lecturing circuits and collect millions, this is also a factor to consider. Also, along the same line of argument, people who can write books and sell because their country’s readership is big, and people like to read what they write, this can also be a factor to consider in working out a pay package. The reference point is always some American Presidents. I am just wondering what kind of conceitedness and arrogance would dare one to compare with American Presidents.
Oh, another thing, when one engages an employee, one must make provision for his retirement or his opportunity cost for coming on board. If he will lose out in terms of skill, seniority or contacts, this must also be compensated in the whole pay package.
The golden handshake is also quite a norm now for senior employees. Now this is fair as no one would want to move from their comfort zone to try out something new. This could be another substitute for the above. There have been many instances of great talents receiving a big payout for doing badly on the job or not even starting on it.
The most troublesome one is sacrifice especially in public service. How much to measure sacrifice? This is very tricky, trickier than trying to compensate for the temptation to corrupt. How to value what a person is sacrificing, family time, quality time with children or grandparents etc etc. Everyone it so family oriented. Another quality time which is ominously absent is time with mistresses or girl friends. But this is noted I am sure. And being ridicule in public forums and cyberspace surely command quite a price too.
Another thing to consider is to motivate the top management with a carrot dangling in their face. Do good work boy and the carrot will be yours. Blimey, top management needs additional carrot to do their very best. If not, even with out of this world salary, they will slack and not do their best. Is this motivation thing going a bit too far? In all my HR time, I have never doubt that the top management, with or without the carrot, will be there to do their very best, to lead by example. If their leadership example is to do mediocre work unless the carrot is big enough, they should not be hired in the first place.
I think I will be quite lost if ask to do the job again. I am already feeling inadequate. This will require new skills and mindset from the HR profession to be equipped to do a proper job in view of the new challenges and new social norms. Luckily I am no longer in the profession. I am sure I have missed out quite a lot of the new factors that I don’t even know.
During my time, HR’s job was much easier. You interview the candidate, lay down the package without having to worry what happens if the candidate decides to quit later. The responsibility is to offer the candidate a suitable package, agreeable by both parties there and then. If there is a separation for whatever reason, the candidate would have to look for a new job on his own merit. And that is a non issue as the candidate should be good enough to do that with his qualification and experience. The candidate is always a top dog or else he would not even be considered. Don’t they have any confidence in themselves to land another equally big paying job?
Today it is more complicated and complex and a totally new dimension. I am told that corruption is now a factor to be added in the pay package. There are a few variations to this. One is if other people are corrupt and the total income is more than their actual, this must be taken into account, eg the opportunities to receive bribe or under table money, to gain from issuing of licences or approvals. The other aspect is the infamous notion that since people are likely to be corrupt, let’s pay them upfront so that they need not be corrupt anymore.
Revolving door? I just heard of this new phenomenon. In short it is like jobs laying in waiting for top people who left their offices. The most common quoted examples are the American political leaders who have high paying jobs waiting for them after their terms in office. Actually in my time, or even today, this is nothing new. The top dogs are in demand when they quit their jobs. Many offers will come in from organizations or job hunters waiting in queue. Why should this be a factor to use to mark up pay of incumbents, I really dunno.
I am also told that if other people can go on lecturing circuits and collect millions, this is also a factor to consider. Also, along the same line of argument, people who can write books and sell because their country’s readership is big, and people like to read what they write, this can also be a factor to consider in working out a pay package. The reference point is always some American Presidents. I am just wondering what kind of conceitedness and arrogance would dare one to compare with American Presidents.
Oh, another thing, when one engages an employee, one must make provision for his retirement or his opportunity cost for coming on board. If he will lose out in terms of skill, seniority or contacts, this must also be compensated in the whole pay package.
The golden handshake is also quite a norm now for senior employees. Now this is fair as no one would want to move from their comfort zone to try out something new. This could be another substitute for the above. There have been many instances of great talents receiving a big payout for doing badly on the job or not even starting on it.
The most troublesome one is sacrifice especially in public service. How much to measure sacrifice? This is very tricky, trickier than trying to compensate for the temptation to corrupt. How to value what a person is sacrificing, family time, quality time with children or grandparents etc etc. Everyone it so family oriented. Another quality time which is ominously absent is time with mistresses or girl friends. But this is noted I am sure. And being ridicule in public forums and cyberspace surely command quite a price too.
Another thing to consider is to motivate the top management with a carrot dangling in their face. Do good work boy and the carrot will be yours. Blimey, top management needs additional carrot to do their very best. If not, even with out of this world salary, they will slack and not do their best. Is this motivation thing going a bit too far? In all my HR time, I have never doubt that the top management, with or without the carrot, will be there to do their very best, to lead by example. If their leadership example is to do mediocre work unless the carrot is big enough, they should not be hired in the first place.
I think I will be quite lost if ask to do the job again. I am already feeling inadequate. This will require new skills and mindset from the HR profession to be equipped to do a proper job in view of the new challenges and new social norms. Luckily I am no longer in the profession. I am sure I have missed out quite a lot of the new factors that I don’t even know.
During my time, HR’s job was much easier. You interview the candidate, lay down the package without having to worry what happens if the candidate decides to quit later. The responsibility is to offer the candidate a suitable package, agreeable by both parties there and then. If there is a separation for whatever reason, the candidate would have to look for a new job on his own merit. And that is a non issue as the candidate should be good enough to do that with his qualification and experience. The candidate is always a top dog or else he would not even be considered. Don’t they have any confidence in themselves to land another equally big paying job?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)