The shock therapy of Lim Chong Yah is facing immediate resistance. It is flawed in many ways. In the first place it was not a sought after advice. Nobody asks for it. So it looks like a ‘keh khian’ or smart alec type of proposal. The saying in paradise is to be smart but don’t act too smart. And do not give advice if not asked for.
The second problem with the therapy is that it is free. There is no need to pay a million or two to consult a foreign expert to work on it. Things that are free are not good. And there is no angmoh element to give it some weight?
The third flaw, it seems, is that it is from a different camp type of thing. It is like everything from the opposition is bad. Only the super talents can come up with good solutions. I can bet the next salvo of questions will be something like, how is he going to pay for this therapy? Chen Show Mao already kenna from this kind of questioning. And Tan Jee Say also got it for his $6o billion restructuring programme. Both failed because there is no money to pay for them.
Come to think of it, giving 50% increment to the pay of workers is too far fetch a dream to come true. The workers will not accept it. The workers will prefer to go for CBF, cheap, better and faster solution. That is a sustainable solution in the long term. It has been in practice with full support from the tripartite arrangement or the holy trinity. Our workers only believe in the trinity and will not want the proposed 50%. They are happy as they are.
And the audacity to freeze the salary of top talents for 3 years is unthinkable. You want them to suffer, you want their life style to be painfully affected, you want them to be quitters?
The shock therapy is a no go from the word go. Now everyone will be asking for the blood of the good old professor. He should have done the politically correct thing, freeze the worker’s and raise the super talent’s salary by 50% over the next 3 years and receive all the praises and recognition.
Meanwhile someone may be thinking of lining up a team of super foreign talents with super consultancy fee to go with to counter this outrageous therapy. It must be done as the non economists and the layman politicians would not have the credentials or ability to shaft this recommendation down the longkangs in the usual way. This therapy must be exposed and every point rebutted to show that it cannot work.
4/15/2012
4/14/2012
A new ministry to look after PRs and foreign talents
With the govt starting to place emphasis on the goodness of being citizens and cutting down on the privileges of PRs and foreign talents, these people will start to feel what it is like for being neglected by govt policies. Lam Pin Min is quite pro active in seeing the plight and suffering of these saviours of Sinkies and would like to see more assistance to help them. Setting up some funds to help the lower income PRs and foreign talents is a good start but definitely will not be enough. There are more than a million of them here and the problems they are facing cannot be solved by piece meal solutions.
The interests and well being of 2 million PRs and foreigners, just my guess, would need a ministry and a minister, plus minister of state and parliamentary committees to do a proper job. 2m is a big number when the locals, ie citizens, only make up 3m of the population. And for the 3m of citizens, there is a whole govt with all the ministers and MPs looking after and caring for them. It is time that a proper ministry be created to do a good job. And don’t forget, our benefactors are not here to sponge on the economy, but to help us. They need to be well looked after. If not they will move on.
As for the new ministry, the work is already cut out for it. One of the key missions is to make sure that govt policies are favourable to the PRs and foreigners and any changes must take into account their interests. Can’t imagine what the economy will be like if they vote with their legs. They can’t vote with their hands yet. Scary.
Don’t ask me where the money is going to come from to start another ministry, to pay for minister, minister of state, parliamentary secretary, permanent secretary and the whole works. One possibility is to make the PRs and foreigners to pay some kind of welfare levy to support such a ministry created specially to look after them. Singaporeans could help by subsidizing a part of the cost too, to show appreciation and gratefulness for their contributions to Singapore and Singaporeans’ good.
The interests and well being of 2 million PRs and foreigners, just my guess, would need a ministry and a minister, plus minister of state and parliamentary committees to do a proper job. 2m is a big number when the locals, ie citizens, only make up 3m of the population. And for the 3m of citizens, there is a whole govt with all the ministers and MPs looking after and caring for them. It is time that a proper ministry be created to do a good job. And don’t forget, our benefactors are not here to sponge on the economy, but to help us. They need to be well looked after. If not they will move on.
As for the new ministry, the work is already cut out for it. One of the key missions is to make sure that govt policies are favourable to the PRs and foreigners and any changes must take into account their interests. Can’t imagine what the economy will be like if they vote with their legs. They can’t vote with their hands yet. Scary.
Don’t ask me where the money is going to come from to start another ministry, to pay for minister, minister of state, parliamentary secretary, permanent secretary and the whole works. One possibility is to make the PRs and foreigners to pay some kind of welfare levy to support such a ministry created specially to look after them. Singaporeans could help by subsidizing a part of the cost too, to show appreciation and gratefulness for their contributions to Singapore and Singaporeans’ good.
4/13/2012
Lim Chong Yah’s shock therapy timely
The remisiers in the stock broking industry are thrilled by the recommendations of Lim Chong Yah’s shock therapy. Those remisiers earning less than $1,500 pm can look forward to a 50% increment in their income in three years time. That should make them quite comfortable to buy a 2 rm HDB flat with money to spare. It is like a timely intervention from heaven to this dying trade. For the time being they can shelf their plans to become taxi drivers. Just wondering if they will try to upgrade the skills of taxi drivers, or improve their knowledge in driving and be tested on driving buses, coaches and lorries, or even cranes.
Another good thing is that the remisiers can think of submitting their claims to the Skills Development Fund for upgrading courses, for course fees and examination fees. The first batch of remisiers taking the Module 6A are busily calling the SDF to enquire on their applications.
Remisiers cannot ask for more with additional training and upgrading of their skills. They will be better equipped to engage in more sophisticated products with the new knowledge they have acquired. Or they can become FTs in other countries that need their sophisticated skills.
Though it is not sure how the 50% increment will apply to remisiers whose income is from commission and not salary, it is still something to hope for, to look forward to. The only thing that they may be worried about is the possibility of more reductions in commission due to competition and lowering of business cost. If that were to happen, after 3 years and 50% increment, they may still end up making $1,500 or less.
And they have no control over the commission rate as it is now freely negotiable and freely cut when necessary to beat the competition.
Fear not, there is hope for a better tomorrow. Every remisier can still become another Peter Lim. But don’t bet on it that commission rate will be raised or business will pick up with the machine taking over.
Another good thing is that the remisiers can think of submitting their claims to the Skills Development Fund for upgrading courses, for course fees and examination fees. The first batch of remisiers taking the Module 6A are busily calling the SDF to enquire on their applications.
Remisiers cannot ask for more with additional training and upgrading of their skills. They will be better equipped to engage in more sophisticated products with the new knowledge they have acquired. Or they can become FTs in other countries that need their sophisticated skills.
Though it is not sure how the 50% increment will apply to remisiers whose income is from commission and not salary, it is still something to hope for, to look forward to. The only thing that they may be worried about is the possibility of more reductions in commission due to competition and lowering of business cost. If that were to happen, after 3 years and 50% increment, they may still end up making $1,500 or less.
And they have no control over the commission rate as it is now freely negotiable and freely cut when necessary to beat the competition.
Fear not, there is hope for a better tomorrow. Every remisier can still become another Peter Lim. But don’t bet on it that commission rate will be raised or business will pick up with the machine taking over.
Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24
Parliamentary Elections Act, Section 24, under the Writ of election.
Writ of election
24. —(1) For the purposes of every general election of Members of Parliament, and for the purposes of the election of Members to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise, the President shall issue writs under the public seal, addressed to the Returning Officer.
(2) Every such writ shall be in Form 1 in the First Schedule and shall specify the date or dates (referred to in this Act as the day of nomination) not being less than 5 days nor more than one month after the date of the writ and the place or places of nomination (referred to in this Act as the place of nomination).
(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection
(1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.
The above is a part of our election law which many are now familiar with, especially 2A(1) which states that the President will not issue any writ for a by election in a GRC ‘unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament’. What is in this Act is very clear, no by election unless all the MPs have vacated their seats in a GRC, all resigned, sacked or mati. If one is left, no need for by election.
The legal minded and the critics have pointed out this section as a violation of Section 49 (1) of the Elections Act which provided for a seat to be filled.
The question is who drafted Section 24(2A) and what was the intent, or what was the reason behind the law?
The next question, who were the MPs who voted to pass this Act and what were their intentions? Do they believe that this is what the law should be, that in a 5 or 6 member GRC, if only one MP is left, it is perfectly ok for the single MP to look after a whole GRC? And is this a reasonable thing to do or to believe, and to pass as a law? And if not, why is this happening?
For those who believe this is a reasonable law, a good law, a practical law, a law that they themselves would support and vote for it, case closed. For those who think this is not right, that one MP cannot possibly look after a GRC and it is only fair and proper to have a by election quickly under normal circumstances, they may want to think back and ask why such a law can be written and can be passed in Parliament.
Even if a Prime Minister calls for a by election, the President can say no under this Act if one MP in a GRC is still in office. Even if a Prime Minister wants a by election, there shall be no by election in a GRC under Section 24(2A). The President cannot issue a writ for a by election. But I am not a learned legal counsel so I must be misreading or misinterpreting the law, or the reason behind the law. Mine is a layman’s unlearned and blur reading of the law. Sure wrong one. I better admit first before kenna bokok by the honourable learned counsels.
Why would an MP support and voted for such a law?
Writ of election
24. —(1) For the purposes of every general election of Members of Parliament, and for the purposes of the election of Members to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation or otherwise, the President shall issue writs under the public seal, addressed to the Returning Officer.
(2) Every such writ shall be in Form 1 in the First Schedule and shall specify the date or dates (referred to in this Act as the day of nomination) not being less than 5 days nor more than one month after the date of the writ and the place or places of nomination (referred to in this Act as the place of nomination).
(2A) In respect of any group representation constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection
(1) for an election to fill any vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.
The above is a part of our election law which many are now familiar with, especially 2A(1) which states that the President will not issue any writ for a by election in a GRC ‘unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament’. What is in this Act is very clear, no by election unless all the MPs have vacated their seats in a GRC, all resigned, sacked or mati. If one is left, no need for by election.
The legal minded and the critics have pointed out this section as a violation of Section 49 (1) of the Elections Act which provided for a seat to be filled.
The question is who drafted Section 24(2A) and what was the intent, or what was the reason behind the law?
The next question, who were the MPs who voted to pass this Act and what were their intentions? Do they believe that this is what the law should be, that in a 5 or 6 member GRC, if only one MP is left, it is perfectly ok for the single MP to look after a whole GRC? And is this a reasonable thing to do or to believe, and to pass as a law? And if not, why is this happening?
For those who believe this is a reasonable law, a good law, a practical law, a law that they themselves would support and vote for it, case closed. For those who think this is not right, that one MP cannot possibly look after a GRC and it is only fair and proper to have a by election quickly under normal circumstances, they may want to think back and ask why such a law can be written and can be passed in Parliament.
Even if a Prime Minister calls for a by election, the President can say no under this Act if one MP in a GRC is still in office. Even if a Prime Minister wants a by election, there shall be no by election in a GRC under Section 24(2A). The President cannot issue a writ for a by election. But I am not a learned legal counsel so I must be misreading or misinterpreting the law, or the reason behind the law. Mine is a layman’s unlearned and blur reading of the law. Sure wrong one. I better admit first before kenna bokok by the honourable learned counsels.
Why would an MP support and voted for such a law?
My First Home
‘How can someone who can’t grasp simple and straightforward concepts be in a position to manage and lead a country? Look at Prime Minister Najib Razak's failed My First Home ownership scheme and the recent decision to scrap the controversial new civil servant remuneration scheme, apart from other flip-flops.
Launch a year ago, the house-ownership scheme for low-income earners failed because banks are unwilling to hand out 100 per cent financing applicants earning less than RM3,000 a month. How can Najib fail to grasp the fact that with a gross income of RM3,000 a month, a person simply cannot have any spare cash to pay the monthly installments for the house? Surely, Najib must know that a person has also to pay for essentials such as food, transport and other expenses….’
The above is an extract from an article by Nawawi Mohamad, Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle.
The comments were quite surprising given the similar situation in Singapore. Spending power of 3000 ringgits is roughly equivalent to $3000 in Singapore. And our govt has recently proved to Singaporeans that a $1000 income is enough to buy a 2 rm flat. And definitely our govt will also include the other essentials that the person would have to pay for, like food, transport etc. And considering the property prices in Malaysia are so much lower than Singapore even with subsidies, it just sounds not right. Maybe Najib should pay a visit to Tharman for some advice on how to make Malaysian public housing affordable to 1000 ringgit and 3000 ringgit Malaysians. I think the trick is that in Malaysia they don’t have market price subsidies to go with.
One thing right about Najib’s formula is to make sure that all Malaysians will be able to afford a first home. I think they don’t have such rulings like singles, income ceilings or whatever to mess around to prevent Malaysians from owning their first home. They care for their citizens, to have a roof over their heads. And they don’t have to give preference to new citizens over their old citizens as they don’t have a million new citizens to provide housing to.
Singaporeans are luckier, to be able to afford quality public housing marked to market with only $1000 monthly income. The subsidies really work.
Launch a year ago, the house-ownership scheme for low-income earners failed because banks are unwilling to hand out 100 per cent financing applicants earning less than RM3,000 a month. How can Najib fail to grasp the fact that with a gross income of RM3,000 a month, a person simply cannot have any spare cash to pay the monthly installments for the house? Surely, Najib must know that a person has also to pay for essentials such as food, transport and other expenses….’
The above is an extract from an article by Nawawi Mohamad, Wong Choon Mei, Malaysia Chronicle.
The comments were quite surprising given the similar situation in Singapore. Spending power of 3000 ringgits is roughly equivalent to $3000 in Singapore. And our govt has recently proved to Singaporeans that a $1000 income is enough to buy a 2 rm flat. And definitely our govt will also include the other essentials that the person would have to pay for, like food, transport etc. And considering the property prices in Malaysia are so much lower than Singapore even with subsidies, it just sounds not right. Maybe Najib should pay a visit to Tharman for some advice on how to make Malaysian public housing affordable to 1000 ringgit and 3000 ringgit Malaysians. I think the trick is that in Malaysia they don’t have market price subsidies to go with.
One thing right about Najib’s formula is to make sure that all Malaysians will be able to afford a first home. I think they don’t have such rulings like singles, income ceilings or whatever to mess around to prevent Malaysians from owning their first home. They care for their citizens, to have a roof over their heads. And they don’t have to give preference to new citizens over their old citizens as they don’t have a million new citizens to provide housing to.
Singaporeans are luckier, to be able to afford quality public housing marked to market with only $1000 monthly income. The subsidies really work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)