George Yeo may have misread the message from Him and was in despair at his lost in Aljunid. He probably would be asking, why did He do it to him? He forgot that He may have better plans for him. By pulling him out from the bandwagon, George is now a free man, free from the taint of the gravy train. He must have found some goodness in George to lift him up from darkness and cleanse him from his past.
And shall the gravy train crash, George would only have Him to thank for. For when the ship sinks, he will not go down together. Lucky chap.
1/26/2012
A fair shot for all
‘We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.’ Hussein Obama
This is fruit for thought. Is it applicable to our city state? Is the number of people doing extremely well shrinking and a growing number barely getting by? Is everyone playing by the same set of rules? Is everyone getting a fair shot and doing his fair share?
This is fruit for thought. Is it applicable to our city state? Is the number of people doing extremely well shrinking and a growing number barely getting by? Is everyone playing by the same set of rules? Is everyone getting a fair shot and doing his fair share?
The MSM should know when to shut up
Over the last few days when news of the two senior civil servants were being questioned for corruption and now officially confirmed that they have been arrested and on bail, there are still many articles in the msm crowing about how incorruptible this island is and how the high pay to prevent corruption is necessary and effective.
I think this is the time that everyone should just shut up about high pay to fight corruption. Well, some may still think it is working. Some say the evidence is all there to show that it is failing. Isn’t it embarrassing to show the two contrasting sides at the same time? But if that is the intent, then well, good. How many rungs has the country dropped in the ranking for incorruptibility?
By now there will be at least 10 countries ranked higher or cleaner than this island and without the need to pay out of this world salary. I got a suggestion, send a team to go and understudy them and learn from them. We should not simply rule them out as irrelevant, not suitable for comparison, we are different, Asian culture has corruption in their blood. Just like not comparing our ministerial salary with political leaders of the world. We are unique mah.
I think this is the time that everyone should just shut up about high pay to fight corruption. Well, some may still think it is working. Some say the evidence is all there to show that it is failing. Isn’t it embarrassing to show the two contrasting sides at the same time? But if that is the intent, then well, good. How many rungs has the country dropped in the ranking for incorruptibility?
By now there will be at least 10 countries ranked higher or cleaner than this island and without the need to pay out of this world salary. I got a suggestion, send a team to go and understudy them and learn from them. We should not simply rule them out as irrelevant, not suitable for comparison, we are different, Asian culture has corruption in their blood. Just like not comparing our ministerial salary with political leaders of the world. We are unique mah.
Netizens, hold your horses
The netizens are in flame. Practically every netizen is saying, ‘see, I told you, more pay does not mean no corruption.’ Just because two senior civil servants were arrested by CPIB, it does not mean that they are guilty. It also does not mean that all the civil servants are equally bad. Two swallows do not make a summer.
My view is that there is no such thing as no corruption, Only lesser. And the high pay no corruption policy has worked. That is why after so long, we are only hit by a handful of them. The high pay no corruption policy works.
The task now is how to fine tune it to make it work better. One area to look at is their salary. Maybe they are not paid high enough. If that is so, then it means that their pay was not managed correctly. It is important for their superior to monitor these super talents. If they have hinted that their pay is not enough, or perhaps hinting that they would resign, or that their lifestyle is affected, call them up and ask them how much they need to stay incorruptible. This is a pragmatic way to tackle such problems. They have a price and it is only to meet their expectation. There must be a meeting of minds of what is enough. Everyone’s enough is different. Now I am getting worried if ministerial salary is enough for every minister.
Another area to watch out for is what these super talents are saying. Did they complain that they are sacrificing too much? It can be a dangerous sign of trouble brewing.
Look at it this way. There are thousands of super talents in the civil service. If two failed the test, it could be only 0.1% failure rate, which is pretty good. While everyone is getting emotional about this, do not be hasty and throw out the baby with the water. High pay policy is an uniquely Singaporean solution to prevent corruption in high places. Every state leader is secretly admiring our policy and wish they could also be paid this kind of money to keep their hands from the cookie jar.
Form a committee to review the two cases and come up with a recommendation to improve the high pay policy. If it is not broken, don’t throw it away. It has stood the test of time, so far. All it needs is likely to increase their pay a bit more and things will be fine again.
My view is that there is no such thing as no corruption, Only lesser. And the high pay no corruption policy has worked. That is why after so long, we are only hit by a handful of them. The high pay no corruption policy works.
The task now is how to fine tune it to make it work better. One area to look at is their salary. Maybe they are not paid high enough. If that is so, then it means that their pay was not managed correctly. It is important for their superior to monitor these super talents. If they have hinted that their pay is not enough, or perhaps hinting that they would resign, or that their lifestyle is affected, call them up and ask them how much they need to stay incorruptible. This is a pragmatic way to tackle such problems. They have a price and it is only to meet their expectation. There must be a meeting of minds of what is enough. Everyone’s enough is different. Now I am getting worried if ministerial salary is enough for every minister.
Another area to watch out for is what these super talents are saying. Did they complain that they are sacrificing too much? It can be a dangerous sign of trouble brewing.
Look at it this way. There are thousands of super talents in the civil service. If two failed the test, it could be only 0.1% failure rate, which is pretty good. While everyone is getting emotional about this, do not be hasty and throw out the baby with the water. High pay policy is an uniquely Singaporean solution to prevent corruption in high places. Every state leader is secretly admiring our policy and wish they could also be paid this kind of money to keep their hands from the cookie jar.
Form a committee to review the two cases and come up with a recommendation to improve the high pay policy. If it is not broken, don’t throw it away. It has stood the test of time, so far. All it needs is likely to increase their pay a bit more and things will be fine again.
1/25/2012
Some riddles
Who is the biggest maid employment agency?
Who is the biggest employer of foreign workers?
Who is the biggest reseller of cars?
Who is the biggest insurance agent?
Who is the biggest property developer?
Who is the biggest toll collector?
Who is the biggest employer of cheap labour?
Who owns the biggest piggy bank?
PS. One more day for the poll on Ministerial Salary on top right of page.
Who is the biggest employer of foreign workers?
Who is the biggest reseller of cars?
Who is the biggest insurance agent?
Who is the biggest property developer?
Who is the biggest toll collector?
Who is the biggest employer of cheap labour?
Who owns the biggest piggy bank?
PS. One more day for the poll on Ministerial Salary on top right of page.
The deception of basic salary
Just because someone used the basic salary for comparison, it does not mean that everyone must use the same for comparison and analysis. One must know what is the intent of the discussion, comparison or analysis. If it is just a theoretical exercise to compare for the sake of comparing or argument, then no matter. Just compare anything, everything or nothing. It is just a comparison for comparison sake without any specific objective.
What is the real intent of the comparison of the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation? Is it to compare how much our ministers are being paid with other leaders? Is it to compare how much they are getting now and before?
Using the basic salary as a reference point for comparison is a deception. Another committee can recommend a package with $30k pm basic salary but add on other allowances and bonuses to give a bigger gross salary and those using the basic will be saying it is so little, such a big cut, even less than Obama.
How foolish can daft Sinkies be if they can be led to see what people want them to see, and think what people want them to think? In the ministerial salary revision and recommendation, it is the gross amount that is material, not the basic salary.
I do not want to waste more time explaining why comparing the basic salary is misleading. If Sinkies are so daft and cannot tell the difference between the real and the deception, they deserve to be led by the nose and be blissfully delirious. They say ignorant is bliss. What is worst is unthinking but believing to be intelligent and spent so much time and effort on a wrong premise that will lead them to a wrong conclusion.
Pathetic.
PS. Own target, own time fire! Who sets the target?
What is the real intent of the comparison of the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation? Is it to compare how much our ministers are being paid with other leaders? Is it to compare how much they are getting now and before?
Using the basic salary as a reference point for comparison is a deception. Another committee can recommend a package with $30k pm basic salary but add on other allowances and bonuses to give a bigger gross salary and those using the basic will be saying it is so little, such a big cut, even less than Obama.
How foolish can daft Sinkies be if they can be led to see what people want them to see, and think what people want them to think? In the ministerial salary revision and recommendation, it is the gross amount that is material, not the basic salary.
I do not want to waste more time explaining why comparing the basic salary is misleading. If Sinkies are so daft and cannot tell the difference between the real and the deception, they deserve to be led by the nose and be blissfully delirious. They say ignorant is bliss. What is worst is unthinking but believing to be intelligent and spent so much time and effort on a wrong premise that will lead them to a wrong conclusion.
Pathetic.
PS. Own target, own time fire! Who sets the target?
How to survive in politics
Politics and politicians have received many bad names which is unfair. Politics is a very difficult art or skill to comprehend and to practise. It takes a lot of skill and talent to practise politics and to be successful. Many fell to disgrace at the end of their careers. Compare to engineering, medicine or even law, politics is perhaps the most difficult of the lot, or any discipline. Everything is right and everything is wrong in politics.
Don’t trust a salesman, an insurance agent and don’t trust a politician. That is how bad this profession has become, being compared with salesman and insurance agent. My apologies to the two professions mentioned. I am only quoting the wise cracks of the masses.
What is so difficult about politics is that one has to look honourable and morally right in everything one does. Personal conduct must be spotless, man of good character, honesty, incorruptible, no greed, always for the people, sacrifice etc etc when one is everything except these things. The contradiction and illusion are unmatched in any profession.
In a way, politics is an art of saying one thing and doing the opposite, being one thing but being another at the same time. Yes Jekyll and Hyde. It is about being principled but unprincipled, being dishonest but claiming to be honest, being corrupt but telling the masses otherwise. A religion will help. Some even hide behind gods and use gods to justify everything they do in politics. In the name of gods, in the name of people, in the name of country, but all for themselves. The list and examples of contradiction are inexhaustible to mention.
Politics is about hypocrisies and surviving it. It is about being dishonest and claiming to be morally righteous. It is about being corrupt and getting away with it, and standing on high pedestal lecturing people about the virtues of honesty.
How many good men can live, survive and be successful in politics and live to tell? Politics is an art of deception honed to perfection, to win/cheat the hearts and minds of the masses, ignorant or learned, for as long as one can. The masters of politics are those that can bluff some people some of the time, some people all the time and all the people all the time.
Don’t underestimate the skill and talent of politicians. They are superior to all the other disciplines and professions to be the master of all of them. They swear to everything that is a virtue to the daft masses but live by everything to the contrary. Politics is a master science according to Einstein. He could grasp all the complex theories of the universe, but could not comprehend politics.
Only the very best and craftiest of human beans can survive a political career.
Don’t trust a salesman, an insurance agent and don’t trust a politician. That is how bad this profession has become, being compared with salesman and insurance agent. My apologies to the two professions mentioned. I am only quoting the wise cracks of the masses.
What is so difficult about politics is that one has to look honourable and morally right in everything one does. Personal conduct must be spotless, man of good character, honesty, incorruptible, no greed, always for the people, sacrifice etc etc when one is everything except these things. The contradiction and illusion are unmatched in any profession.
In a way, politics is an art of saying one thing and doing the opposite, being one thing but being another at the same time. Yes Jekyll and Hyde. It is about being principled but unprincipled, being dishonest but claiming to be honest, being corrupt but telling the masses otherwise. A religion will help. Some even hide behind gods and use gods to justify everything they do in politics. In the name of gods, in the name of people, in the name of country, but all for themselves. The list and examples of contradiction are inexhaustible to mention.
Politics is about hypocrisies and surviving it. It is about being dishonest and claiming to be morally righteous. It is about being corrupt and getting away with it, and standing on high pedestal lecturing people about the virtues of honesty.
How many good men can live, survive and be successful in politics and live to tell? Politics is an art of deception honed to perfection, to win/cheat the hearts and minds of the masses, ignorant or learned, for as long as one can. The masters of politics are those that can bluff some people some of the time, some people all the time and all the people all the time.
Don’t underestimate the skill and talent of politicians. They are superior to all the other disciplines and professions to be the master of all of them. They swear to everything that is a virtue to the daft masses but live by everything to the contrary. Politics is a master science according to Einstein. He could grasp all the complex theories of the universe, but could not comprehend politics.
Only the very best and craftiest of human beans can survive a political career.
1/24/2012
Chiefs of SCDF and CNB under CPIB probe
One day after the Dragon came in with a big bang, the ST today reported that the Commissioner of SCDF Peter Lim Sin Pang and Head of CNB Ng Boon Gay were both under probe by CPIB. This is really startling news to start the new lunar year with a bang. Since the big hike in salary for politicians and civil servants, corruption is more or less a thing of the past. With the kind of salary that is being paid, who would need to be corrupt anymore?
But as the saying goes, greed knows no bound and no matter how much one is being paid, greed will triumph over human weaknesses. And the contrary is that a good man will never succumb to greed no matter how much he is paid, a lot or very little.
If these two cases proved to be true, then there is a lot of rethinking needed on the high salary no corruption policy. And for the CPIB to be involved and for the two men to be under questioning, it is likely that the CPIB would have enough evidence to make the move.
Not a good bang to have from the Dragon.
But as the saying goes, greed knows no bound and no matter how much one is being paid, greed will triumph over human weaknesses. And the contrary is that a good man will never succumb to greed no matter how much he is paid, a lot or very little.
If these two cases proved to be true, then there is a lot of rethinking needed on the high salary no corruption policy. And for the CPIB to be involved and for the two men to be under questioning, it is likely that the CPIB would have enough evidence to make the move.
Not a good bang to have from the Dragon.
Survivor kit for Parliament
Our parliament is still pretty tame compares to those in Taiwan or Japan or even India. But then again, it is always good to go fully prepared in case things get a bit rough. I have briefly listed down some items that MPs, particularly opposition MPs, should bring along as a survivor kit to Parliament. But before that, MPs must note that no firearms are allowed, not even firecrackers. No bottles containing liquid, no scissors or sharp objects.
Okay now for the list of survivor kit.
1. A comprehensive list of notes and research material on the subject in discussion. A dictionary will also be helpful, or an electronic translation machine in case they speak in another official language that one cannot understand. Important thing is to know the subject matter well even if it is a discussion on judgement call or an arbitrary recommendation. A slip can be fatal.
2. Related to the above, a mobile phone is essential and make sure that there are some well informed assistants waiting to assist on call, when one is cornered. Get them to sit beside a computer with access to Wikipedia and Wikileaks to pull out information asap to make a proper defence when under attack.
3. Tape recorders. I did mention this. I remember there is another gadget in the market that gives a loud and long laughter by simply pressing on it, and I think this can be a good substitute to pretend to laugh at the enemy. Those comedy clips in TVs use this very often and very effectively.
4. Mirrors or pak kwas to deflect hostile and evil stares. The pak kwas will boost once confidence against more superior enemy, psychologically or spiritually.
5. Protective body gears. Maybe not needed with the present friendly ethos of verbal debates. Hope our Parliament will never see the days of those in Japan and Taiwan.
6. Sleeping bag in case the speaker refuses to stop. Just a precaution. But probably not necessary as there is a time keeper to keep everyone to 15 mins, I think. An inflatable pillow will do as some speaker can be real boring, or if one had a late night.
7. A mask. I think this will be useful so that no one can recognize you outside of Parliament. Just in case. It would be helpful for those who needed to doze off for a few minutes as well.
8. I think a thick skin is also important so that one does not feel embarrass too easily for saying the wrong things. This one is hard to buy.
9. Acting skill is a great asset, to pretend to laugh or to be emotional and cry. Crying is very effective and used very frequently. A greater art is choking, the precise moment before breaking into tears. The pause, the veins popping out on the face, the voice breaking, a little trembling, will make be perfect to win the hearts of the audience. A show of passion and zeal. It will be a class act. Get some training from MediaCorp.
10. Oratory skill is a must. Debating skill will come in handy. The main aim is to win an argument. Pick up the little mistakes the enemy makes and bite into it, don’t let go. Keep chewing on it to make it hurt. Use a bit of body language to bolster the effect.
11. As physical fighting skill is not permissible, a steely stare can be very effective to kill the enemy or make him urinate in his pants. There is a whole art to this skill, penetrating, timing and how to squint the eyes to increase the damage.
12. Make use of technology like videos and put it on the net for the public to see, over and over again, on how good one’s debating skill is and how bad is the enemy. If this can be put on air in the main stream media the viewership will be bigger and the effect multiplied. But a word of caution. Do not over kill or it may backfire. A video clip of real combat serves to improve one’s position and to destroy the credibility of the enemy when one is on the upper hand.
13. Not to forget, Vitamin B Complex to stare calm and compose and not getting too stress up. Relax and enjoy the session. Don’t be too serious. A cool mind can think better and not to get carried away and comes out looking like a gangster in Parliament.
The above list is not exhaustive. Political parties often have their own secret moves, recipes and tactics to defeat the enemy. It will be good if political parties have the resources to send their MPs overseas to learn from them, learn new and untested tactics to surprise the enemy.
Attending Parliament is not attending a tea party and there are risks and hazards. If one can find an excuse, it is better not to attend. Apply for leave to attend company business and overseas trips will be a better excuse. Board meetings may also be important enough for not attending Parliament sessions. Correct me if I am wrong. I have never been to Parliament so my knowledge on the intricacies of Parliament is just guessing, an educated guess at most.
Okay now for the list of survivor kit.
1. A comprehensive list of notes and research material on the subject in discussion. A dictionary will also be helpful, or an electronic translation machine in case they speak in another official language that one cannot understand. Important thing is to know the subject matter well even if it is a discussion on judgement call or an arbitrary recommendation. A slip can be fatal.
2. Related to the above, a mobile phone is essential and make sure that there are some well informed assistants waiting to assist on call, when one is cornered. Get them to sit beside a computer with access to Wikipedia and Wikileaks to pull out information asap to make a proper defence when under attack.
3. Tape recorders. I did mention this. I remember there is another gadget in the market that gives a loud and long laughter by simply pressing on it, and I think this can be a good substitute to pretend to laugh at the enemy. Those comedy clips in TVs use this very often and very effectively.
4. Mirrors or pak kwas to deflect hostile and evil stares. The pak kwas will boost once confidence against more superior enemy, psychologically or spiritually.
5. Protective body gears. Maybe not needed with the present friendly ethos of verbal debates. Hope our Parliament will never see the days of those in Japan and Taiwan.
6. Sleeping bag in case the speaker refuses to stop. Just a precaution. But probably not necessary as there is a time keeper to keep everyone to 15 mins, I think. An inflatable pillow will do as some speaker can be real boring, or if one had a late night.
7. A mask. I think this will be useful so that no one can recognize you outside of Parliament. Just in case. It would be helpful for those who needed to doze off for a few minutes as well.
8. I think a thick skin is also important so that one does not feel embarrass too easily for saying the wrong things. This one is hard to buy.
9. Acting skill is a great asset, to pretend to laugh or to be emotional and cry. Crying is very effective and used very frequently. A greater art is choking, the precise moment before breaking into tears. The pause, the veins popping out on the face, the voice breaking, a little trembling, will make be perfect to win the hearts of the audience. A show of passion and zeal. It will be a class act. Get some training from MediaCorp.
10. Oratory skill is a must. Debating skill will come in handy. The main aim is to win an argument. Pick up the little mistakes the enemy makes and bite into it, don’t let go. Keep chewing on it to make it hurt. Use a bit of body language to bolster the effect.
11. As physical fighting skill is not permissible, a steely stare can be very effective to kill the enemy or make him urinate in his pants. There is a whole art to this skill, penetrating, timing and how to squint the eyes to increase the damage.
12. Make use of technology like videos and put it on the net for the public to see, over and over again, on how good one’s debating skill is and how bad is the enemy. If this can be put on air in the main stream media the viewership will be bigger and the effect multiplied. But a word of caution. Do not over kill or it may backfire. A video clip of real combat serves to improve one’s position and to destroy the credibility of the enemy when one is on the upper hand.
13. Not to forget, Vitamin B Complex to stare calm and compose and not getting too stress up. Relax and enjoy the session. Don’t be too serious. A cool mind can think better and not to get carried away and comes out looking like a gangster in Parliament.
The above list is not exhaustive. Political parties often have their own secret moves, recipes and tactics to defeat the enemy. It will be good if political parties have the resources to send their MPs overseas to learn from them, learn new and untested tactics to surprise the enemy.
Attending Parliament is not attending a tea party and there are risks and hazards. If one can find an excuse, it is better not to attend. Apply for leave to attend company business and overseas trips will be a better excuse. Board meetings may also be important enough for not attending Parliament sessions. Correct me if I am wrong. I have never been to Parliament so my knowledge on the intricacies of Parliament is just guessing, an educated guess at most.
1/23/2012
Ministerial Salary -'Shen Guan Fa Cai'
Ministerial Salary Review – Look at both sides now(Shen Guan Fa Cai means getting rich on promotion as court official)
One of the key factors of the Review Committee’s recommendation is to peg minister’s salary to the top 1000 income earners, using the median with a 40% discount. Depending on the actual income, the salary could be near to the 501 of 1000 top income earners. Could it be above the 501 if the bonuses are added up? It should be rare for it to fall out of the top 1000 income earners. And this is the group of people that the PAP is targeting the future political leaders. They are probably looking at people who are able to earn this kind of income to be of ministerial material. The pool is going to be very small. But nonetheless it is a good area to look at and a good aspiration.
Turn it around and look at it from another angle. By pegging the salary to the top 1000 income earners and the 40% discount, it is very likely that the ministers will all be among the top 1000 income earners. Not bad at all. The only thing that is bad is that the PM may not be at the top of the 1000 income earners though holding the top job in the country. Then again I am being presumptious. As to whether the PM’s salary would be at the top it would depend on the actual income of the top 500 earners and if the PM is paid anything else from his other appointments. Hypothetically, if the 500 incomes were marginally higher than the median income earner, then the PM’s salary could go right to the top of the 1000. This should look more proper.
This new salary will be a good incentive for those aspiring for political office. If they can make it to become ministers, they could be among the top 1000 income earners in the country. There is a Chinese saying, I translated, ‘Beneath one man but above a million’ to describe the Prime Ministers of the dynastic era. Here our ministers can be thankful that their income is beneath 500 and above 5 million. Not bad at all I shall say. As for the PM’s salary, could it be near to the top or at the top of the heap? This is like returning to the imperial dynastic days when ‘shen guan fa cai’ was the aspiration of the elite and the poor scholars.
‘Shen guan fa cai’ is a good new year greetings for all Singaporeans.
One of the key factors of the Review Committee’s recommendation is to peg minister’s salary to the top 1000 income earners, using the median with a 40% discount. Depending on the actual income, the salary could be near to the 501 of 1000 top income earners. Could it be above the 501 if the bonuses are added up? It should be rare for it to fall out of the top 1000 income earners. And this is the group of people that the PAP is targeting the future political leaders. They are probably looking at people who are able to earn this kind of income to be of ministerial material. The pool is going to be very small. But nonetheless it is a good area to look at and a good aspiration.
Turn it around and look at it from another angle. By pegging the salary to the top 1000 income earners and the 40% discount, it is very likely that the ministers will all be among the top 1000 income earners. Not bad at all. The only thing that is bad is that the PM may not be at the top of the 1000 income earners though holding the top job in the country. Then again I am being presumptious. As to whether the PM’s salary would be at the top it would depend on the actual income of the top 500 earners and if the PM is paid anything else from his other appointments. Hypothetically, if the 500 incomes were marginally higher than the median income earner, then the PM’s salary could go right to the top of the 1000. This should look more proper.
This new salary will be a good incentive for those aspiring for political office. If they can make it to become ministers, they could be among the top 1000 income earners in the country. There is a Chinese saying, I translated, ‘Beneath one man but above a million’ to describe the Prime Ministers of the dynastic era. Here our ministers can be thankful that their income is beneath 500 and above 5 million. Not bad at all I shall say. As for the PM’s salary, could it be near to the top or at the top of the heap? This is like returning to the imperial dynastic days when ‘shen guan fa cai’ was the aspiration of the elite and the poor scholars.
‘Shen guan fa cai’ is a good new year greetings for all Singaporeans.
1/22/2012
Starting with an agreeable year
I must say that we have an auspicious start for year 2012 with a more stable foundation for an agreeable year. The two political parties in Parliament have came to many common view points and policies. For a start, and the most important point to note, is that the PAP has commented and is happy that the WP has accepted the Salary Review Committee’s recommendation for ministerial salary. Though the WP had voted nay, the fact that they have agreed to the principle of a high and competitive pay for ministers, to attract top talents and the final sum of money which was very similar to the Salary Review Committee’s number is cause for celebration. The WP should play along and stop trying to say that it is the principle and methodology that are important and theirs were different.
The sum is something that PAP is comfortable with and with WP’s concurrence, there is no more fear that WP would in the future dare to cut it down further or they would have a hard time for changing their position. A warning shot has been fired (figuratively of course) that they must stick to the position and cannot change or it could be seen as hypocrisy or political opportunism. That is why PAP has never changed its policies and has been very consistent in defending all their policies. Or else they will be explaining and explaining every time there is a change of policies.
This style of not changing policies or not seen as having changed its policies is the trademark of PAP. And it may be the reasons why so many things were changed without an explanation for the PAP because there was no change in the first place.
It is implicit, without many words spoken, that both parties also agreed that the current pay was too much and needed to be cut. It is also explicit that some of the allowances were, well, needed to be thrown away as well. It is also implicit that pension is something that is not right to start with for politicians and definitely unbearable at that kind of numbers and for a life time.
It is politically unacceptable to pay ministers pension when they reached 55 years, which means taking two salaries at the same time, while the people’s CPF withdrawal date is becoming an elusive appointment date with the maker.
It is also not right to peg the minister’s salary to the top 48 income earners (something like that, I don’t have the resources to get me the exact formula), so pegging it to the top 1000 would be less elitist. Someone please do some work to see whether the final outcome of the change will lead to a different result ie the minister’s salary vis a vis the top income earners, would it still be in the same band of top income earners, plus or minus 100.
It is agreeable that pegging to the top 1000 is the same or better than pegging to MX9. The latter is bad because it is not the median or income of average Singaporeans. I think it is reported in the media that this is the income level of the 94 percentile of income earners. Wonder, just wondering, what percentile will be the median of the top 1000, or what percentile will be the minister’s salary if it has not been cut at all.
The PAP is happy, the WP is also happy, that the salary of ministers will henceforth be unlikely to go lower. There are also many ordinary people who are happy as well. One taxi driver told me that he aga aga the right amount will be about 50k or 60k and he was so happy that he guessed it right too. In the kopitiams every Ah Peh is also happy because they also computed the amount correctly with some winning big time in their bets using their abacus.
Confidentially, I too was happy as I dreamt of the number $55k also. And this is the same as the number the little bird at Serangoon Road picked.
It is a big coincidence that $55k is the number that everyone picked. For the superstitious or believers of supernatural forces, this must be a sign that the gods also agreed.
We now have many happy people in an agreeable mood to start the new year with a happy salary. I don’t think anyone needs to explain anything about this happy coincidence. Nothing really changed and it is after all a judgement call or an act of god. Let’s be happy and keep everyone in the happy mood instead of bitching around like a dog in heat. Otherwise many people will have many explanations to do when policies changed.
And a happy lunar new year to every one. Be happy. With the GDP out of the formula, hopefully this distraction will no longer be a preoccupation of those who are counting their bonuses and time can be well spent on improving the lot of the people. And there is no more guilt of being paid too much as it is done by an independent body with the approval of a compensation specialist agency and the Parliament.
The sum is something that PAP is comfortable with and with WP’s concurrence, there is no more fear that WP would in the future dare to cut it down further or they would have a hard time for changing their position. A warning shot has been fired (figuratively of course) that they must stick to the position and cannot change or it could be seen as hypocrisy or political opportunism. That is why PAP has never changed its policies and has been very consistent in defending all their policies. Or else they will be explaining and explaining every time there is a change of policies.
This style of not changing policies or not seen as having changed its policies is the trademark of PAP. And it may be the reasons why so many things were changed without an explanation for the PAP because there was no change in the first place.
It is implicit, without many words spoken, that both parties also agreed that the current pay was too much and needed to be cut. It is also explicit that some of the allowances were, well, needed to be thrown away as well. It is also implicit that pension is something that is not right to start with for politicians and definitely unbearable at that kind of numbers and for a life time.
It is politically unacceptable to pay ministers pension when they reached 55 years, which means taking two salaries at the same time, while the people’s CPF withdrawal date is becoming an elusive appointment date with the maker.
It is also not right to peg the minister’s salary to the top 48 income earners (something like that, I don’t have the resources to get me the exact formula), so pegging it to the top 1000 would be less elitist. Someone please do some work to see whether the final outcome of the change will lead to a different result ie the minister’s salary vis a vis the top income earners, would it still be in the same band of top income earners, plus or minus 100.
It is agreeable that pegging to the top 1000 is the same or better than pegging to MX9. The latter is bad because it is not the median or income of average Singaporeans. I think it is reported in the media that this is the income level of the 94 percentile of income earners. Wonder, just wondering, what percentile will be the median of the top 1000, or what percentile will be the minister’s salary if it has not been cut at all.
The PAP is happy, the WP is also happy, that the salary of ministers will henceforth be unlikely to go lower. There are also many ordinary people who are happy as well. One taxi driver told me that he aga aga the right amount will be about 50k or 60k and he was so happy that he guessed it right too. In the kopitiams every Ah Peh is also happy because they also computed the amount correctly with some winning big time in their bets using their abacus.
Confidentially, I too was happy as I dreamt of the number $55k also. And this is the same as the number the little bird at Serangoon Road picked.
It is a big coincidence that $55k is the number that everyone picked. For the superstitious or believers of supernatural forces, this must be a sign that the gods also agreed.
We now have many happy people in an agreeable mood to start the new year with a happy salary. I don’t think anyone needs to explain anything about this happy coincidence. Nothing really changed and it is after all a judgement call or an act of god. Let’s be happy and keep everyone in the happy mood instead of bitching around like a dog in heat. Otherwise many people will have many explanations to do when policies changed.
And a happy lunar new year to every one. Be happy. With the GDP out of the formula, hopefully this distraction will no longer be a preoccupation of those who are counting their bonuses and time can be well spent on improving the lot of the people. And there is no more guilt of being paid too much as it is done by an independent body with the approval of a compensation specialist agency and the Parliament.
1/21/2012
Lawrence Wong - Change also must explain
Last night it was in the news, repeated several times to make sure that everyone heard it, that Lawrence Wong, Chairman of PAP’s Publicity and Publication Subcommittee, wrote in the PAP’s website demanding that the WP explains its change in position on the pay of ministers. And there is a half a page article in the ST today to signify how important it is and how strong the PAP attached to the issue of explaining.
I quote, ‘This is what it means to be accountable and transparent, …Otherwise, how can voters be sure what to make of their future election promises and manifestos?...they never mentioned their past positions, much less explain their policy reversal…It is honourable and logical to change one’s position as circumstances change and new information becomes available. I hope that is why WP has changed its position. But when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the people.”
He added with a query, “if the change was due to a ‘principled approach’ or ‘political opportunism’.” This broadly sums up the importance of transparency and accountability of a responsible party like the PAP. Every major change and decision must be explained clearly to the people. This is a very honourable position to take. Tell the people the truth, the whole picture, do not hide anything, so that the people know exactly what the party stands for.
As the ruling party and govt, and the champion of transparency and clean wage and clean everything, perhaps the PAP should take the lead to show the smaller parties what transparency and accountability mean. Before the WP try to explain anything, which may not be up to the standard of the PAP’s KPI or sort of, and be asked to explain more, PAP may want to set a few examples like say, why the change to cut ministerial pay when the pay was actually raised recently, including those of the President? And there should be more disclosure of what the ministers were actually paid over the last 3 years, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The people are still in the dark despite all the claims of transparency and clean wage. Set the example by explaining and telling the people about them.
This revelation is more relevant as lack of understanding, like the MX9 issue, could lead to improper conclusion and understanding of the matter in discussion. In fact, all the numbers quoted of percentages of salary cuts were wrong if the actual total payout is not known. They were all talking about the basic salary. It is vital to know what was the take home pay and what is the new take home pay to know how much will be the cut. It could be 5% or 50% or more, no one really knows and everyone arguing like they knew.
This is quite disappointing really. Unless there is full transparency and disclosure, all the discount or salary cut percentages are misleading. At best they were only reflective of the basic pay. I found it disturbing that the both parties had based their proposals of salary cuts without knowing or mentioning what was the total payout to the ministers, at least last year.
The PAP may also want to explain why the three ministers were dropped from the Cabinet so that the people would know the reasons behind the droppings. It is about explaining and communications.
To quote Lawrence Wong and to satisfy his hunger on ‘they never mentioned their past positions, much less than policy reversal’, and also his morally correct stand, ‘when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the public’ it would be good for the PAP to set the standard of explaining and public disclosure. This will definitely raise the standard of good govt and something that we can all be proud of and expected of future govt.
Let’s do it, show the way, and the smaller political parties can learn from it. Follow the leader with the highest standard of transparency and accountability. The smaller parties must know what should be explained and how much to tell as they did not know how high the PAP has set its standard on these matters. It is like the KPIs which no know really knows what they were and one can set KPIs for self and for others without telling or transparency.
I am impressed by Lawrence Wong’s call and support it and hope all parties will abide by this clean call for more transparency and accountability. “It is not always easy or popular to take an honest and principled approach. But Singaporeans expect no less, both from the ruling party and the opposition.’
It is all about honesty versus hypocrisy. I am glad that the PAP can stand on high pedestal and talked about principled approach. That is what the people expect of an honourable political party that frown upon political opportunism.
I quote, ‘This is what it means to be accountable and transparent, …Otherwise, how can voters be sure what to make of their future election promises and manifestos?...they never mentioned their past positions, much less explain their policy reversal…It is honourable and logical to change one’s position as circumstances change and new information becomes available. I hope that is why WP has changed its position. But when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the people.”
He added with a query, “if the change was due to a ‘principled approach’ or ‘political opportunism’.” This broadly sums up the importance of transparency and accountability of a responsible party like the PAP. Every major change and decision must be explained clearly to the people. This is a very honourable position to take. Tell the people the truth, the whole picture, do not hide anything, so that the people know exactly what the party stands for.
As the ruling party and govt, and the champion of transparency and clean wage and clean everything, perhaps the PAP should take the lead to show the smaller parties what transparency and accountability mean. Before the WP try to explain anything, which may not be up to the standard of the PAP’s KPI or sort of, and be asked to explain more, PAP may want to set a few examples like say, why the change to cut ministerial pay when the pay was actually raised recently, including those of the President? And there should be more disclosure of what the ministers were actually paid over the last 3 years, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The people are still in the dark despite all the claims of transparency and clean wage. Set the example by explaining and telling the people about them.
This revelation is more relevant as lack of understanding, like the MX9 issue, could lead to improper conclusion and understanding of the matter in discussion. In fact, all the numbers quoted of percentages of salary cuts were wrong if the actual total payout is not known. They were all talking about the basic salary. It is vital to know what was the take home pay and what is the new take home pay to know how much will be the cut. It could be 5% or 50% or more, no one really knows and everyone arguing like they knew.
This is quite disappointing really. Unless there is full transparency and disclosure, all the discount or salary cut percentages are misleading. At best they were only reflective of the basic pay. I found it disturbing that the both parties had based their proposals of salary cuts without knowing or mentioning what was the total payout to the ministers, at least last year.
The PAP may also want to explain why the three ministers were dropped from the Cabinet so that the people would know the reasons behind the droppings. It is about explaining and communications.
To quote Lawrence Wong and to satisfy his hunger on ‘they never mentioned their past positions, much less than policy reversal’, and also his morally correct stand, ‘when political parties and their leaders change positions, they have a responsibility to explain to the public’ it would be good for the PAP to set the standard of explaining and public disclosure. This will definitely raise the standard of good govt and something that we can all be proud of and expected of future govt.
Let’s do it, show the way, and the smaller political parties can learn from it. Follow the leader with the highest standard of transparency and accountability. The smaller parties must know what should be explained and how much to tell as they did not know how high the PAP has set its standard on these matters. It is like the KPIs which no know really knows what they were and one can set KPIs for self and for others without telling or transparency.
I am impressed by Lawrence Wong’s call and support it and hope all parties will abide by this clean call for more transparency and accountability. “It is not always easy or popular to take an honest and principled approach. But Singaporeans expect no less, both from the ruling party and the opposition.’
It is all about honesty versus hypocrisy. I am glad that the PAP can stand on high pedestal and talked about principled approach. That is what the people expect of an honourable political party that frown upon political opportunism.
1/20/2012
Poor thing - Tan Chuan Jin
"Minister of State Tan Chuan-Jin, choking over his words said: “I’m pained by the knowledge that I’ll miss the many moments when my children are growing up and time with my family. My parents are not getting any younger. Those moments missed do not return. Ever… In time I will look back and there will be gaps. But that’s life. I’m not sure how one considers it a privilege to miss these precious moments. It trivialises all of us who do cherish these.” Copied from CNA video/FeedmetotheFish commentary.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
I am starting to feel very sorry for all these good men and women making their terrible sacrifices for the country and people. I am sad to hear this. We must not allowed such a painful state of affair to go on and do nothing about it. The Americans got the best answer to this and we should see if we can borrow their ideas so that our leaders do not have to make this kind of big sacrifices.
The Americans put Obama and his families in the White House, although in so doing they paid him a little lesser, but it is a good thing. Now Obama cannot claim that he is making a big sacrifice on his family life. He could work from his bedroom or his family could be playing next to his office. Now that is a humane way of looking after the welfare of their leaders.
We should send a petition to the govt to make such an arrangement so that our ministers need not have to suffer so much. This is all about inclusiveness, about taking care of our people. And ministers are people too. Poor thing.
What did Parliament approve?
The approval of the Salary Recommendation by the Review Committee also means that all the assumptions and logics are accepted as valid. The major points are, need to pay high salary to attract talent, right to peg ministerial salary to top 1000 income earners, right to pay allowances and variable bonuses based on the formula submitted.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
The other things that are accepted include a clean wage bill. Clean here means everything that is approved by parliament. Just wonder if clean means whatever is paid, now that it is public knowledge, be reported in Parliament? What if there are other additions, other appointments, would they be part of the approval as well and Parliament be informed as well? One thing for sure, they are definitely clean as they are known, and unclean if unknown to the public.
After the big debate, I thought something is missing? Are the people involved in this debate? Are their opinions important?
What is really important is that the MPs are representing the people in Parliament and voted for the salary recommendation. One question, did they ask the people they represented for their opinions? When they voted, were they voting as an individual or voting on behalf of the people? Is this a matter that concerns them only or a matter that concerns the people?
How many MPs have consulted the people on this matter, please kee chiu.
Poll on Ministerial Salary(at top right of page)
Parliament has approved the recommendation of ministerial salary by the Review Committee. Technically, the MPs are representatives of the people and when they support the bill, it means the people also support the bill. So technically the MPs have spoken and voted on behalf of the people and voted for the new salary package.
I have just created a poll on this to find out how many people support this salary package and whether the MPs position is reflective of the people's position and aspirations. This will act as a kind of feedback to the MPs to confirm that the people are with them or the people and the MPs are going in different ways.
I have just created a poll on this to find out how many people support this salary package and whether the MPs position is reflective of the people's position and aspirations. This will act as a kind of feedback to the MPs to confirm that the people are with them or the people and the MPs are going in different ways.
The warcraft of parliamentarians
MPs elected to parliament quickly learn that parliament is not a kopitiam to sing song and talk cock. Parliament can be a treacherous place, like a war zone or battle field and requires special skills to survive the day. Maybe that is a reason why so many MPs chose to disappear during parliament sessions.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
The democratic process of parliament is the culmination of a contentious way of pursuing political power between opposing parties. And that set the tone for debates in parliament, and also the behavior of parliamentarians. Once in parliament, it is me against them. There is no good idea or bad idea, it is our idea against your idea.
Every session in parliament is a battle. Anyone stands up must be prepared to be shot and then returns with counter offensive from supporting forces in the background. Some use small arms, some use snipers, some big guns and artilleries and air power. These are figuratively speaking of course.
The most effective or often used tactic against the enemy in parliament is the steely stare. Many have used them quite effectively. The way they manipulated their eyes to meet the enemy’s eyes, eye contact. To look straight into the enemy with big wide eyes or to squint the eyes to shape like a cutting blade of a knife, they all look very intimidating. It all ends up with the cold hard stare, in silence and measured in minutes.
Another effective way is to giggle or simply laugh the enemy away. This tactic is only effective if there is a superiority in number so that the laughter can be coordinated and the volume raised at the same time. Any MP speaking when everyone is giggling or laughing must be a frightening experience. He may even be made to have doubts on what he is saying to draw the giggling and laughters.
An alternative to this tactic, to dismiss an enemy MP, is to simply walk out, and this is even more effective when done in numbers. The psychologist will explain this as a kind of humiliating act, to humiliate the enemy, to make him question his own ability to make people listen.
The pedestrian style of picking at every wrong use of words or comments and raining blows at them may not be too effective after a while. Some comments in the media about new MPs jumping up like little frogs at on queue to attack the enemy’s viewpoint showed that this methodology is frown upon by the audience. It looks pretty childish, like school boys in a debate. Score points, score points. Damn clever like dat. Clap, clap, clap.
There are many tactics that were used, and one only needs to observe closely to detect them. The use of position power, authority, and the ‘I will fix you later’ body language are also quite common. The effectiveness of all these tactics basically boils down to power in numbers. Those without power and small in numbers will definitely be at the losing end. There is no way that one can use guerilla hit and run tactics inside the parliament house. There is no where to run and no where to hide.
What I thought would be a good weapon is to bring a tape recorder with tapes of laughters and giggling and play it out loud when the laughter offensive comes on. As for the cold hard steely stare, perhaps a big enough mirror may be able to deflect some of the venom. Or a wear a big pak kwa in the front chest could give an MP some cold comfort that a pak kwa has a defensive ability to ward off evil stares.
Parliament is a serious place and serious things are being discussed all the time. But there are interesting and humorous moments as well. And there are frightening moments too. Political parties must train their MPs in the art of war in parliament and armed them with offensive and defensive tactics before they step foot in parliament. And make sure they bring a tape recorder and some protective gear for their own protection. The naïve may thing good ideas is all they need to bring to parliament. As I said earlier, there is no good or bad idea in parliament. Only our idea or their idea.
Political appointments are part time jobs
MPs are part time jobs as they have another job or can have another job that requires them to work full time or 8 hours a day officially. MPs that resigned from their full time jobs to go full time are the full time MPs. This is easily understood.
When I say that political appointments are part time jobs, I can see many eye brows being raised. The smarter ones could see immediately where I am coming from and could see the logic of my statement. Ok, let me explain it to the slower ones who are still unable to grasp the logic of part time political appointments.
A full time job requires the incumbent to be on the job for about 8 hours a day, depending on how many days and the organization. A 44 hour week is the norm. Take for example a minister. He could be a minister of a ministry and a second minister of another ministry. He is also an MP. He probably holds several other appointments, like Chairman of A or B organizations, or sits in several committees.
A minister who is in charge of a ministry and nothing else will have all his 44 hours a week working in the ministry. If he has two ministries, he has to split his time between the two. He also has to split his time for his MP role even though some were taken care of by other MPs or grassroot leaders. If he is chairman of two organizations, he would need to spend some time there as well. The more appointments a minister has, the more part time is he in his primary job. It depends on what is the nature of these other appointments and if they are really that important as a ministerial job or if they must be part of a minister’s jobs. If they are not necessarily a minister’s jobs, or if they are of much lesser importance, and if they are taking too much of the minister’s time, what it means is that the minister is paid a ministerial salary to work part time in his main job and part time in other jobs that should not be paid that kind of salary.
For a minister to justify his high pay and devoting full time to his ministerial responsibility, he should be doing lesser of the other lower level or non ministerial work. He can do his MP duties, which is part time anyway, during after office hours, which is fair.
So, depending on the hours and the number of part time or other appointments, a minister is part timing his minister job to look after other part time jobs or appointments. Unless those other appointments and part time jobs are part and parcel of the minister’s main responsibility.
How many of you now agree with my statement that a minister’s job is a part time job? It can only be a full time job if the minister devotes all his working hours on his minister job. And this interpretation can be applied to all the other political appointees.
A political appointee who spent too much time in his secondary appointments like sports clubs or other social and civic or even commercial organizations is part timing his main appointment. The more he spreads his time, the lesser will he have time for his main appointment.
With the kind of world class pay that the political appointees are getting to perform his main job, it is better that he reduces his time on other lesser jobs to justify his pay, I think.
When I say that political appointments are part time jobs, I can see many eye brows being raised. The smarter ones could see immediately where I am coming from and could see the logic of my statement. Ok, let me explain it to the slower ones who are still unable to grasp the logic of part time political appointments.
A full time job requires the incumbent to be on the job for about 8 hours a day, depending on how many days and the organization. A 44 hour week is the norm. Take for example a minister. He could be a minister of a ministry and a second minister of another ministry. He is also an MP. He probably holds several other appointments, like Chairman of A or B organizations, or sits in several committees.
A minister who is in charge of a ministry and nothing else will have all his 44 hours a week working in the ministry. If he has two ministries, he has to split his time between the two. He also has to split his time for his MP role even though some were taken care of by other MPs or grassroot leaders. If he is chairman of two organizations, he would need to spend some time there as well. The more appointments a minister has, the more part time is he in his primary job. It depends on what is the nature of these other appointments and if they are really that important as a ministerial job or if they must be part of a minister’s jobs. If they are not necessarily a minister’s jobs, or if they are of much lesser importance, and if they are taking too much of the minister’s time, what it means is that the minister is paid a ministerial salary to work part time in his main job and part time in other jobs that should not be paid that kind of salary.
For a minister to justify his high pay and devoting full time to his ministerial responsibility, he should be doing lesser of the other lower level or non ministerial work. He can do his MP duties, which is part time anyway, during after office hours, which is fair.
So, depending on the hours and the number of part time or other appointments, a minister is part timing his minister job to look after other part time jobs or appointments. Unless those other appointments and part time jobs are part and parcel of the minister’s main responsibility.
How many of you now agree with my statement that a minister’s job is a part time job? It can only be a full time job if the minister devotes all his working hours on his minister job. And this interpretation can be applied to all the other political appointees.
A political appointee who spent too much time in his secondary appointments like sports clubs or other social and civic or even commercial organizations is part timing his main appointment. The more he spreads his time, the lesser will he have time for his main appointment.
With the kind of world class pay that the political appointees are getting to perform his main job, it is better that he reduces his time on other lesser jobs to justify his pay, I think.
1/19/2012
Singapore Education - A feel good system
The O level results have just been announced and so many students and their parents are elated with their straight A1s. Throw a stone and you will definitely hit one with at least 5 A1s and often more than that. Getting anything less is probably a rarity.
I do not want to dampen their spirit as the Chinese New Year is around the corner. How many of these A1 students will make it to the top JCs, or how many will go to the lower rung JCs?
We have a feel good education system that makes getting straight A1s today as easy as getting straight passes in the past when getting just an A1 was a dream come true. What did all these say of the grades?
The top 4000 or 5000 students from the top schools did not even bother to sit for the O level. One day, don’t be surprised that employers may not want to look at the O level result in the future. Don’t ask me why. The two most important examinations today are the PSLE and the A level. With the bulk of the top students not taking the O level, one could simply slide the bell curve backwards on the grades of those taking the O levels, and viola, a new batch of A1 students is manufactured.
Getting O level results today is such a happy moment for many students and their parents. In the past, it was a nerve wrecking experience for both students and parents. Then they did not know of things like the bell curve and moderation or massaging. It is worthwhile paying for a good massage, definitely.
Please ask why the top schools and their top students are not taking the O level examination. And if they do sit for the same examination, how would the distribution of straight A1 students be like? Would it be that 99% of the top school students be getting 10 A1s? Maybe that is too high a number, 90% should be just right. Or would they slide the bell curve back to where it was supposed to be?
If all the top school students would to sit for the O level, it is not surprising if there will be a few hundred 10 A1s students and a few hundred 9 A1s students from each cohort. It is simply possible.
I do not want to dampen their spirit as the Chinese New Year is around the corner. How many of these A1 students will make it to the top JCs, or how many will go to the lower rung JCs?
We have a feel good education system that makes getting straight A1s today as easy as getting straight passes in the past when getting just an A1 was a dream come true. What did all these say of the grades?
The top 4000 or 5000 students from the top schools did not even bother to sit for the O level. One day, don’t be surprised that employers may not want to look at the O level result in the future. Don’t ask me why. The two most important examinations today are the PSLE and the A level. With the bulk of the top students not taking the O level, one could simply slide the bell curve backwards on the grades of those taking the O levels, and viola, a new batch of A1 students is manufactured.
Getting O level results today is such a happy moment for many students and their parents. In the past, it was a nerve wrecking experience for both students and parents. Then they did not know of things like the bell curve and moderation or massaging. It is worthwhile paying for a good massage, definitely.
Please ask why the top schools and their top students are not taking the O level examination. And if they do sit for the same examination, how would the distribution of straight A1 students be like? Would it be that 99% of the top school students be getting 10 A1s? Maybe that is too high a number, 90% should be just right. Or would they slide the bell curve back to where it was supposed to be?
If all the top school students would to sit for the O level, it is not surprising if there will be a few hundred 10 A1s students and a few hundred 9 A1s students from each cohort. It is simply possible.
The people who truly sacrificed for their country
It really makes me sick to hear people whining that they are sacrificing for the country. So ‘jia lat’. The ruling govt must be damn ‘chek ark’ to turn these people into martyrs of modern Singapore. When a Sinkie is called to stand for political office, the first thought that came to his mind is ‘sacrifice’, despite the world’s highest paid salary, with many even getting more than the President of the USA. My God, young men and women being paid that kind of money had sleepless nights worrying about the sacrifice they are going to make!
Of course it is not a calling. Many had left their high paying jobs when God called. For modern Singapore, the Brits used to pay their soldiers hardship allowance for a posting to the Far East, ie Singapore. Going into politics today must surely be a kind of hardship posting to Siberia.
Do we really need people who cried sacrifice so readily? Are they thinking that the people owe them a debt for their big sacrifice to go into politics to earn a miserable pay? Are they demanding that the ungrateful and unappreciative Sinkies kneel and bow and praise them for their sacrifice? Wan suay, wan suay, wan wan suay.
The opposition MPs in Parliament (never heard any of them griefing that they are making a big sacrifice without the big pay) should ask those who feel so aggrieved to stand up and be counted, and tell them there is a beeline of equally if not more able people who are willing to take their places. Just tell them, prease, no need to sacrifice lah. Just go home and be happy, there will be someone more willing, more committed and more capable and happier to do the job.
Do they believe that Sinkies are so untalented and the 80 plus are all the talents in this piece of rock and no one else is more able than them? Tell them they are not irreplaceable and not indispensable, that without them the island will not sink. How about a walk out, all resign and see if the country will sink? Don’t they feel embarrassed at all?
Where is the pride, the sense of duty and honour, the sense of recognition and satisfaction to be called upon to be leaders of a nation? Hey, the whole machinery is so well oiled to serve and put you into office, with all the grassroots running around at your becks and calls. These are the people who really sacrificed their time, money and energy to help the politician wannabes. Without them, the machinery and the GRCs, running for election is not going to be a cake walk. Many would not even make it. What a sacrifice!
But the people who sacrificed the most are the NS men. Some are even treated worst than new citizens, can’t buy public housing, not even invited to sacrifice for the country to be politicians, to be paid world best salary. New citizens who have not done any NS are called instead. And looking at them and looking at the Sinkies around, what is so great about the new citizens that the Sinkies are inferior to them? Why are good Sinkies left out of the great sacrifice to serve the people and country?
I think all the Sinkies will be queueing up to sacrifice themselves and happily say thank you Sir with the kind of pay they are not happy with.
Of course it is not a calling. Many had left their high paying jobs when God called. For modern Singapore, the Brits used to pay their soldiers hardship allowance for a posting to the Far East, ie Singapore. Going into politics today must surely be a kind of hardship posting to Siberia.
Do we really need people who cried sacrifice so readily? Are they thinking that the people owe them a debt for their big sacrifice to go into politics to earn a miserable pay? Are they demanding that the ungrateful and unappreciative Sinkies kneel and bow and praise them for their sacrifice? Wan suay, wan suay, wan wan suay.
The opposition MPs in Parliament (never heard any of them griefing that they are making a big sacrifice without the big pay) should ask those who feel so aggrieved to stand up and be counted, and tell them there is a beeline of equally if not more able people who are willing to take their places. Just tell them, prease, no need to sacrifice lah. Just go home and be happy, there will be someone more willing, more committed and more capable and happier to do the job.
Do they believe that Sinkies are so untalented and the 80 plus are all the talents in this piece of rock and no one else is more able than them? Tell them they are not irreplaceable and not indispensable, that without them the island will not sink. How about a walk out, all resign and see if the country will sink? Don’t they feel embarrassed at all?
Where is the pride, the sense of duty and honour, the sense of recognition and satisfaction to be called upon to be leaders of a nation? Hey, the whole machinery is so well oiled to serve and put you into office, with all the grassroots running around at your becks and calls. These are the people who really sacrificed their time, money and energy to help the politician wannabes. Without them, the machinery and the GRCs, running for election is not going to be a cake walk. Many would not even make it. What a sacrifice!
But the people who sacrificed the most are the NS men. Some are even treated worst than new citizens, can’t buy public housing, not even invited to sacrifice for the country to be politicians, to be paid world best salary. New citizens who have not done any NS are called instead. And looking at them and looking at the Sinkies around, what is so great about the new citizens that the Sinkies are inferior to them? Why are good Sinkies left out of the great sacrifice to serve the people and country?
I think all the Sinkies will be queueing up to sacrifice themselves and happily say thank you Sir with the kind of pay they are not happy with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)