It’s the wrong formula

Giving worker’s a pay rise is like a nightmare to many, the employers are thinking of folding up, the govt is worried that the tripartite relationship will be affected, and the workers are unhappy of the pay increase coming their way. The problem, I think, is because of Prof Lim Chong Yah’s unsolicited recommendation. Would it make any difference if he was commissioned to come out with a recommendation?

This is perhaps the most controversial and unhappy recommendation coming out from someone who was and still is, I think, part of the establishment. Obviously he forgot what needs to be done to have his recommendation accepted in the first place and be received without any furore. Look at all the govt’s recommendations, from affordable housing, retention of CPF money, higher COEs, higher fees of this and that, the unending pursuit to raise the insurance coverage of the people with more and more premiums to be paid, none of them has received this kind of hesitation and rejection. Every govt recommendation is very well received by the people, with very little criticism and objections.

To me, it is good not to play to the gallery. Find a good formula that is acceptable by the tripartite. There is one proven formula that I think the govt will support for raising the income of workers. And the employers would not have the gumption to criticize or reject its logic and goodness.

Why don’t someone suggest using the same formula for the ministers and apply it to the workers, with the same kind of reasonings albeit a little modifications here and there? There are very few changes needed except for the choice of top earners. Instead of the top income earners of a few top professions, use the income of the top few select workers that is representative of the workforce, and peg it at a certain percentage. Need not be pegged right at the top, say 25% off would look reasonable. And the govt can tell the workers, see, whatever we do, we do the same for the workers, fair, fair. It is like leading by examples. And the employers, being a willing partner, will definitely agree with the govt’s reasons behind the thinking. Not agreeing would be a slap to the govt’s position and that is politically incorrect.

Where are the champions of worker’s interest? How about it? Swee boh?

Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai hero

He was deposed by a military coup after being elected a second term as the PM of Thailand. He was a self made man, amassed a fortune through his business enterprises. Some accused him of corruption and abuse of power in his business dealings.

How many rich and successful people were not entangled in some form of legal and illegal activities in their quest for wealth? How many achieved fame and fortune through honest business transactions or through unscrupulous means?

But not many can measure up to Thaksin in sharing his fortune with his people, particularly the Thai farmers. His low interest lending schemes helped many farmers to start and grow their businesses and live a better life. His 30 baht health scheme brought medical care to within the reach of the poor of Thailand. A thyroid gland operation cost US$1 is unbeatable.

His sin was his populist policies to help the poor Thai people who adore him as their hero. This was the main cause of his downfall. His govt fought to break down the drug cartel only to be accused of breaching human rights and of course corruption. How many politicians are not corrupt? How many could hold a candle to Thaksin for sharing his wealth with the people, not only in Thailand but across the world?

Many amassed huge fortunes only for themselves, their families and their clansmen. Thaksin gave and still giving his wealth to his people. He could give more if the bulk of his wealth is not confiscated by the govt. For all the wrong accusations, nothing can beat his generosity for making life better for this Thai people.

He was and still is the hero of the poorer Thai people. He could do more if given a chance but denied. The Thai people and Thailand ended poorer for not letting their hero do what he pledged to do for them.  What is the point of amassing fortunes, legally or illegally, scrupulously or unscrupulously, if the wealth is not share to make life better for the general good of the people? The Sinkies are daft, but in this sense, the Thais are dafter, for what they had done, to depose and exile Thaksin.

Bill Gates does not need a pay rise

After the shocking therapy of Prof Lim Chong Yah and the expected knee jerk defensive mechanism and reaction from you know who, the labour chief said today that the high cost of inflation and high cost of living mean that there is a need to raise the income of workers. It is good that he finally came to know of the problem. He also added that the high income gap must be closed.

Now that the dust has settled down, the good sense and propriety of the real pain are sinking in. The retort against raising salary of the lower income group and the need for a closing of the widening income is indeed a problem that cannot be allowed to run away without a leash.

Rhetoric and political expediency aside, some of the elite truly believe that the bread of the rich should be buttered 3 or 4 times over as they are deserving of the buttering because of their supreme talent. On the downside, the losers deserve to be losers and they should count themselves lucky that their bread is even buttered at all. Count the blessing that they still have bread to eat.

Such line of thinking coming from those who have no responsibility over the whole of the population is understandable. The private emterprises and developers would choose to maximise profits at all cost as they are not in the business of charity. But if they come from the political leaders, it is irresponsible and obnoxious. Political leaders is not there to look after self interest, to protect elitist interest but to spread the goodies, ensure a more equal distribution of wealth and social equality to the people, but not to the extent of all men are equal and all should receive one bowl of rice.

Bill Gates does not need another pay rise. He has so much money that he has to give them away. And so is his pal Warren Buffett. There is no need to reach such a position to distance oneself from the accumulation of wealth. No one is frowning against an entrepreneur or a businessman from acquiring his wealth forever. What is objectionable is to spread public wealth through public offices to those who are bursting at the seams with more wealth. A very good but disgusting example was to raise the President’s salary to $4m when the masses did not think it was justifiable, nor the office justifies that kind of pay. But the existing god in power is always right and would have the final say. It is right today but would be very wrong when the next god comes into power.

Distribution of public money must be measured to serve the majority, to benefit more people than a few yodas who have so much and do not have much time or the need to spend them. This sickness is infected across the industries in the private sector when the top few would grab the lion’s share while the rest, minority shareholders and workers were left with crumbs.

And it is this kind of unequal and unjust system of wealth distribution that is causing the runaway inflation. No amount of small increases at the bottom can catch up with this kind of distortion in the system. In a pure capitalist and elitist system this is cause for celebration, and eventually cause for destruction. Is this what we want, a system where a few elite could buy tens of private properties and tens of luxury cars and with plenty to buy more while living on public money or feeding on the minority shareholders’ money?

And once in a while, when it is politically opportune, to cry for the poor workers, to shout, pay rise for the workers? May Day is around the corner.  

Prof Lim Chong Yah is absolutely right. He must have seen the greed and the amassing of unjustifiable and unnecessary wealth by a few at the expense of the greater good. What is so painful for a few years without pay even if one is not Bill Gates or Warren Buffett when one can live a few life times without having the need to earn a single cent?

When the boss gets a wage freeze…

Fear is spreading like wild fire among the SMEs that the recommendation of Lim Chong Yah is going to raise the cost of doing business here. The 3 year 50% wage adjustment will be very costly. Sure. But can this be offset by the 3 year wage freeze of the top management? Lim Chong Yah’s proposal is like Robin Hood, robbing the rich to pay the poor. Not pay the poor and pay the rich more.

How much does the top management get for their pay rise, visible and invisible, ie cash, perks, bonuses, share options etc etc? Assuming a CEO gets $500k in pay hike, plus an unspeakable sum of shares which could be another few hundred thousand, or say $200k, these would give a total pay increase of $700k. This amount can easily be translated into a pay hike of $1000 pa for 700 workers without adding more cost to the company. And if one is to add the top 20 or so management’s pay hike, the total could easily be a million or two, which means more employees could benefit from this transferring of wealth.

I know that the numbers are very simplistic, but still reasonable and real. What is so wrong about it? It is wrong only when the increase at the lower half is not accompanied by freeze at the top. Sure, they will be very unhappy and want to quit and look for more well paying jobs with more increments.

The company can take the opportunity to cut cost at the top and bring in fresh blood that is younger and more energetic to fill the empty seats. Can or not?

No one wants to talk about it

We cannot let higher income Sinkies to buy HDB flats. It will add to the demand and deprive lower income Sinkies from the chance of getting one, or they compete with the lower income and lowering their chances for a public flat. It sounds so clever, so logical. How many higher income Sinkies would want to buy a HDB if they could afford the million dollar private properties? No, they must be kept out to protect the lower income Sinkies. No they must be made to spend all their savings on that private property. Prudent, spending within their means and make them spend everything?

And every year they add on something like 20,000 new Sinkies, give them a pink IC and called them citizens. The truth is that they are foreigners who were added into the housing queue and it is okay. While the Sinkie singles and other Sinkies who need a flat would have to give way as the queue is getting longer, bigger demand, because of the so called new Sinkies. And no one want to mention this.

Did they add up to our housing problems? At 4 per family, each year the demand for public housing is 5,000 and over 10 years it is 50,000 units which could have gone to Sinkies. But no. These new Sinkies have priorities over original Sinkies, and original Sinkies can be cut off from the queue for all the good reasons.

The Sinkies are so blessed to have such a caring and considerate govt to think of their housing needs. And want them to live a better quality of life by spending all their money on private properties.