Just as we all thought that the recent debate on the Gerard Ee's proposal for ministerial salary review is all over, recent spate of events turned on the spotlight squarely on the issue once again. The revelations that two senior civil servants, a commissioner of the SCDF Peter Benedict Lim Sin Pang and the Director of CNB Senior Assistant Commissioner Ng Boon Gay had been put on leave and subsequently relieved of their duties pending investigations by the CPIB on allegations relating to "monie and sexual favours". These are senior grade level civil servants probably paid in the range of $300K or above a year.
How is it that despite the very high level of monetary compensation package and the security of a top level senior civil posting, these two men still succumb to the temptation of sex and money when the occasions arises. These are men are not your average Ah Seng earning $2K a month but instead have the typical profile of a PAP minister holder with one holding a Carl-Duisberg Scholarship and the other a first class mathematics degree holder from NUS on a local merit scholarship. How is it that the arguments that we have been bombarded all days by the PAP government that we need to pay top dollars for top talent in order to prevent corruption did not apparently work on these two men the moment they reached the pinnacle of their civil service careers???Have we got the basic wrong? These are perplexing questions indeed and if we are not careful about it, they will rot the core of our very foundation of a supposedly clean and competence government. Or have the rot already started impervious to our knowledge?
We may argue that corruption on matters relating to sex and money can be found everywhere and are especially prevalent in China where most of our current stock of immigrants originate. However, it must be noted that is because senior civil servants in China are lowly paid so the temptations to corrupt are infintely higher. This is however not the case in singapore where senior civil servants are not only highly paid compare to the peers in the private sector but they also have the added benefit of job security which is often lacking in the private sector.
All in all, I think the current thinking on ministerial and senior civil servants pay is flawed based on the following equation:-
HIGH MONETARY COMPENSATION = ZERO OR LOW CORRUPTION
We have to seriously rethink and retool our model before things start to go drastically wrong.
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Thursday, 19 January 2012
PAP Lost a Chance for Bi-Partisanship!
I watched the debate in parliament over the last three days on the issue of the review of ministerial salary. Both sides presented their case but it basically boiled down to this core position. For the WP, you should apply the principle of service first in considering the setting of ministerial salary which is then further supported by the principles of competitive salary and clean wage. For the PAP position, you should apply the principle of competitive salary first (to get top talent is the justification) before considering the principles of service (done via a discount) and clean wage.
These two diametrically different approaches in applying the three key principles endorsed in the review resulted in two different set of numbers which look practically the same at the fixed salary portion but are worlds apart when you scrutinize the variable portion. Also, it produced two different pegs where the WP's is more inclined to a non-elitist broad-based peg and the PAP's more inclined to a elitist peg looking at the mean of the income of the top 500th and 501th earner.
My view is that WP has offered a olive branch to the PAP by proposing on a conciliatory proposal where the political salary are still high but cap to below $1M (for MR4) even in the max bonus scenario grounded on the principles of public service and non-elitism.
Deep in their hearts and in the hearts of most singaporeans, our political office holders do not necessary need to be the ones that made the most money in their previous careers.
Unfortunately, with characteristics distrust and maybe greed, PAP turned down the chance for bi-partisanship by rejecting the WP proposal but instead harped on the similiarity between the fixed salary portion (from both proposals) to confuse and distract the electorate.
These two diametrically different approaches in applying the three key principles endorsed in the review resulted in two different set of numbers which look practically the same at the fixed salary portion but are worlds apart when you scrutinize the variable portion. Also, it produced two different pegs where the WP's is more inclined to a non-elitist broad-based peg and the PAP's more inclined to a elitist peg looking at the mean of the income of the top 500th and 501th earner.
My view is that WP has offered a olive branch to the PAP by proposing on a conciliatory proposal where the political salary are still high but cap to below $1M (for MR4) even in the max bonus scenario grounded on the principles of public service and non-elitism.
Deep in their hearts and in the hearts of most singaporeans, our political office holders do not necessary need to be the ones that made the most money in their previous careers.
Unfortunately, with characteristics distrust and maybe greed, PAP turned down the chance for bi-partisanship by rejecting the WP proposal but instead harped on the similiarity between the fixed salary portion (from both proposals) to confuse and distract the electorate.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Worker Party Ministerial Salary Proposal
The debate on the proposal for ministerial salary review is over and to nobody surprises, it was passed in parliament due to PAP overriding numerical superiority in voting members in parliament.
Both Chen Show Mao and Gerard Giam put up a spirited performance on the first day that clearly illustrated that they had done their homework thoroughly on the issue. It is good to see after so many years that an opposition party (despite its small numerical number) able to engage and surpass the PAP in a parliamentary debate in key areas of substance, poise and delivery.
If you watch the video, CSM’s eloquence, logic and persuasiveness will rank head and shoulder above most PAP ministers.
Below are a few tables that encapsulate the differences between the WP and the Gerard Ee’s committee proposals.
Monthly Pay Proposed By Committee and WP
Commitee | WP | |
MP | $14,807 | $11,000 |
MR4 | $55,000 | $55,000 |
PM | $110,000 | $99,000 |
No Bonus Scenario (13 months for both Committee and WP Proposals)
2010 Actual Total Pay | Committee Proposed Pay | Committee Proposed Cut | WP Proposed Pay | WP Proposed Cut | |
MP | $199,200 | $192,500 | 3% | $143,000 | 28% |
MR4 | $1,583,900 | $715,000 | 55% | $715,000 | 55% |
PM | $3,072,200 | $1,430,000 | 53% | $1,287,000 | 58% |
Typical Bonus Scenario (20 months for Committee, 15.5 months for WP Proposals)
2010 Actual Total Pay | Committee Proposed Pay | Committee Proposed Cut | WP Proposed Pay | WP Proposed Cut | |
MP | $199,200 | $192,500 | 3% | $143,000 | 28% |
MR4 | $1,583,900 | $1,100,000 | 31% | $852,500 | 46% |
PM | $3,072,200 | $2,200,000 | 28% | $1,534,500 | 50% |
Maximum Bonus Scenario (26.5 months for Committee, 18 months for WP Proposals)
2010 Actual Total Pay | Committee Proposed Pay | Committee Proposed Cut | WP Proposed Pay | WP Proposed Cut | |
MP | $199,200 | $192,500 | 3% | $143,000 | 28% |
MR4 | $1,583,900 | $1,457,500 | 8% | $990,000 | 37% |
PM | $3,072,200 | $2,915,000 | 5%% | $1,782,500 | 42% |
Tuesday, 22 March 2011
Issues Facing Singapore Today
I like to chronicle the list of pressing issues and frustrations that Singaporean are facing today which I will elaborate in future blogs. By coming up with a list, it help me to stay focused and not stray away unnecessary into random ranting.
1) mass immigration influx particularly over the last 5 years
2) high housing cost
3) rising inflation
4) income disparity gap
5) loss of national identity & cohesion
6) low fertility rate
7) excessive ministerial and senior civil service compensation
8) healthcare cost
9) bloated SAF
10) lack of representation in Parliament for close to 40% of the population
11) overloaded public infrastructure eg transport
12) tranparency of government reserves and investment (Temasek, GIC..)
13) GLCs
14) lack of enterpreneurship
15) lack of clarity of purpose and mission with organizations like NTUC, PA
16) casino impact
17) ministerial accountability eg Floods, Mas Selemat
18) excessive GST & related taxes
19) education system issues
20) lack of support for retirees & sick
21) energy issues & hydrocarbon footprint
22) CPF
23) low productivity & economic competitiveness
23) weakening of social contract between the PAP dominated government and the people
Wow, I am surprised that when I sit down and list them, it is such a long list. Within each item, there could be a number of related issues too. To think that we have a parliament where the majority of the MPs are always singing praises of the government. Among the list, I think item (6) will most likely ruin Singapore as a nation in the long term.
1) mass immigration influx particularly over the last 5 years
2) high housing cost
3) rising inflation
4) income disparity gap
5) loss of national identity & cohesion
6) low fertility rate
7) excessive ministerial and senior civil service compensation
8) healthcare cost
9) bloated SAF
10) lack of representation in Parliament for close to 40% of the population
11) overloaded public infrastructure eg transport
12) tranparency of government reserves and investment (Temasek, GIC..)
13) GLCs
14) lack of enterpreneurship
15) lack of clarity of purpose and mission with organizations like NTUC, PA
16) casino impact
17) ministerial accountability eg Floods, Mas Selemat
18) excessive GST & related taxes
19) education system issues
20) lack of support for retirees & sick
21) energy issues & hydrocarbon footprint
22) CPF
23) low productivity & economic competitiveness
23) weakening of social contract between the PAP dominated government and the people
Wow, I am surprised that when I sit down and list them, it is such a long list. Within each item, there could be a number of related issues too. To think that we have a parliament where the majority of the MPs are always singing praises of the government. Among the list, I think item (6) will most likely ruin Singapore as a nation in the long term.
Monday, 21 March 2011
Some Observations about PAP candidates
From recent observations from the media, PAP aspiring new candidates can broadly be categorised to come from the following segments of the population:-
1) Civil Service/SAF
2) NTUC
3) Banker
4) Lawyers
5) Doctors
I would like to make a few comments on the composition of such a makeup
1) Most of them do not have experience working for the private enterprises where more often than not, careers are not smooth sailing and subjected to the twist and turn of the market.
2) There are no enterpreneurs in the group as it is often the case. PAP seems to have difficulty engaging the most unorthodox and creative segment of the population
3) For most of them, their work exposure are mainly in Singapore so they are often lacking the ability to understand how things tick outside Singapore
4) For some of them, it could even be suspected that they are joining the PAP to enhance their careers.
5) Most important of all, the selection fall way short of representing the entire populace
By throwing up this sort of people after the supposedly intricate and meticulous selection process, I think the PAP is not regenerating itself with the vigour and passion that is required if it is to lead Singapore forward onto more uncertain terrain.
On the contrary, the opposition has in this coming election been able to come up with some passionate and inspiring people who have chosen to tread the less down-trodden path.
Unlike the past, the opposition has close up the gaps and in some ways outshone the PAP in terms of the potential candidates that they throw up for GE2011.
1) Civil Service/SAF
2) NTUC
3) Banker
4) Lawyers
5) Doctors
I would like to make a few comments on the composition of such a makeup
1) Most of them do not have experience working for the private enterprises where more often than not, careers are not smooth sailing and subjected to the twist and turn of the market.
2) There are no enterpreneurs in the group as it is often the case. PAP seems to have difficulty engaging the most unorthodox and creative segment of the population
3) For most of them, their work exposure are mainly in Singapore so they are often lacking the ability to understand how things tick outside Singapore
4) For some of them, it could even be suspected that they are joining the PAP to enhance their careers.
5) Most important of all, the selection fall way short of representing the entire populace
By throwing up this sort of people after the supposedly intricate and meticulous selection process, I think the PAP is not regenerating itself with the vigour and passion that is required if it is to lead Singapore forward onto more uncertain terrain.
On the contrary, the opposition has in this coming election been able to come up with some passionate and inspiring people who have chosen to tread the less down-trodden path.
Unlike the past, the opposition has close up the gaps and in some ways outshone the PAP in terms of the potential candidates that they throw up for GE2011.
Thursday, 17 March 2011
The Japanese Tragedy
The people in Japan are still reeling in the aftermath of the most devastating earthquake, tsunami and the ongoing risk of nuclear contamination emitting from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plants ever to have rocked Japanese history.A substantially large area of north-eastern Japan has been laid to waste within a few split seconds at the hand of mother nature.
I share my sympathy to all the people who are affected in one way or another by this most tragic catastrophe especially to those helpless victims who have perished during the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. I silently pray for those who are rendered homeless that they may be able to find the strength to recover and go back to their normal lives in the shortest time possible.
Above all, I am impressed with the way how the Japanese people bravely and stoicly took this montrous calamity in its stride. There are no riots, no looting and no mass hysteria. There is a strong. sense of "shared" responsibility amongst the Japanese in face of adversity.I doubt there is another populace on this planet that is able to react more courageously. I salute the selfless personnel braving the risk of excessive radiation exposure to relentlessly fight to cool down the nuclear fuels located in the damaged plants. These are huge risks that the fronline staff willingly undertook to try to save their compatriots and homeland from further radiation fallout at their own personal costs. What they are taking are existential risks and they know it. It may be possible that some of these valiant men may have to suffer from the side effects of excessive radiation exposure that may cost them their lives later on if we can relate to the experience of the Chernobyl meltdown
I also contemplate that if a disaster will to happen in Singapore, will our citizenry be able to react in a commendable manner? I have my serious doubts. In most likelihood, the nation will collapse with the rich, foreign workers and the new citizens probably being the first to pack their bags and go. There will be mass looting, I would conjecture given the lack of a group identity and sense of "shared" purpose that we are all Singaporeans with a common future and deep affection for this tiny red dot. I doubt we will be able to find the same number of selfless men in our SAF and SCDF who will be able to cast aside the risk to their personnel lives in a brave effort to save their fellow countrymen and their country from further destruction.
If I have to make such a reflection twenty years ago with a much younger and less prosperous Singapore, I would probably be less pesssimistic on our collective social cohesion and ability to stand together in face of severe hardships. Such it the resultant outcome of close to two decades of relentless insistence that you need to pay top dollars to those holding ministerial portfolio, to those in the SAF, to those in civil service, to those in PAP-related grassroot organization and to those in GLCs. The concept of service and sacrifice have been chipped away sliently and obscure in the process. The huge influx of immigrants over the last 5 years have diluted our national cohesiveness and our ability to care for each other just because we are all Singaporeans. Like it or not, there is a price to have to pay for the so called "progress".
I share my sympathy to all the people who are affected in one way or another by this most tragic catastrophe especially to those helpless victims who have perished during the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. I silently pray for those who are rendered homeless that they may be able to find the strength to recover and go back to their normal lives in the shortest time possible.
Above all, I am impressed with the way how the Japanese people bravely and stoicly took this montrous calamity in its stride. There are no riots, no looting and no mass hysteria. There is a strong. sense of "shared" responsibility amongst the Japanese in face of adversity.I doubt there is another populace on this planet that is able to react more courageously. I salute the selfless personnel braving the risk of excessive radiation exposure to relentlessly fight to cool down the nuclear fuels located in the damaged plants. These are huge risks that the fronline staff willingly undertook to try to save their compatriots and homeland from further radiation fallout at their own personal costs. What they are taking are existential risks and they know it. It may be possible that some of these valiant men may have to suffer from the side effects of excessive radiation exposure that may cost them their lives later on if we can relate to the experience of the Chernobyl meltdown
I also contemplate that if a disaster will to happen in Singapore, will our citizenry be able to react in a commendable manner? I have my serious doubts. In most likelihood, the nation will collapse with the rich, foreign workers and the new citizens probably being the first to pack their bags and go. There will be mass looting, I would conjecture given the lack of a group identity and sense of "shared" purpose that we are all Singaporeans with a common future and deep affection for this tiny red dot. I doubt we will be able to find the same number of selfless men in our SAF and SCDF who will be able to cast aside the risk to their personnel lives in a brave effort to save their fellow countrymen and their country from further destruction.
If I have to make such a reflection twenty years ago with a much younger and less prosperous Singapore, I would probably be less pesssimistic on our collective social cohesion and ability to stand together in face of severe hardships. Such it the resultant outcome of close to two decades of relentless insistence that you need to pay top dollars to those holding ministerial portfolio, to those in the SAF, to those in civil service, to those in PAP-related grassroot organization and to those in GLCs. The concept of service and sacrifice have been chipped away sliently and obscure in the process. The huge influx of immigrants over the last 5 years have diluted our national cohesiveness and our ability to care for each other just because we are all Singaporeans. Like it or not, there is a price to have to pay for the so called "progress".
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Singapore Fertility Rate
The hot issue of Singapore's declining total fertility rate was a key focus at this year's National Youth Forum, where Mr Goh was a guest-of-honour. Mr Goh said: "Those who can't afford to have children never had problems over affordability. They just have more children. And those who can afford, in fact, do not have more than one or two or so. So there's that contradiction over there, which suggests that having children in fact is a rather complex issue."
I think Mr Goh still does not get it. The reason I would be inclined to think so is that Mr Goh has been having a rather secure and smooth sailing career for too long. Likewise over the years, he has been working with or surrounded himself with people from the civil service or SAF where their jobs are too relatively secure and stable.
If you are in the private sector, you would have realised very quickly albeit depending on which line you are in that your job is always on the line. You could be fire any day due to reasons that are totally out of your control. In most cases, it has neither to do with ability or attitude. When whole industry collapses, there is really no place where you can hide. There is also a high rate where skills and experience are made redundant with the increasing pace of change in technology and emerging industries. In short, careers in private sector can be very disruptive.
Thus, I would surmise that one of the main reason singaporeans are not willing to have kids or more kids is not really an attitudinal issue. The more important factors are the uncertainty and the constant need for new adaption that come as part and parcel of private sector jobs. You could be drawing $15K per month and be the top performer this year but you know jolly well that you could be fire the very next day for whatever reasons. Finding similar jobs get increasing difficult as one get older and almost impossible once you hit 45. Young people starting out at 25 could not envision where they can be 10 years down the road, let alone 20.
Given such backdrop, why do people want to have kids as it going to be at least a 20+ years commitment?
If you look at the birth rate during the Asian Financial Crisis, it dropped. Why, becuase people became uncertain about the future so they postpone having a child. The dot-com crisis hit only smaller segment of the population so the effect may not be so accentuated. The SARS crisis is too short. Our TFR hit record low in 2010 recently, guess what? The 2008/2009 Financial Crisis!!!Remember, there is a delay effect of about 10 months.
I have this conjecture that married people in the civil service (including teaching) and SAF tends to have more kids that those working in the private sectors, especially the highly volatile ones.
I think Mr Goh still does not get it. The reason I would be inclined to think so is that Mr Goh has been having a rather secure and smooth sailing career for too long. Likewise over the years, he has been working with or surrounded himself with people from the civil service or SAF where their jobs are too relatively secure and stable.
If you are in the private sector, you would have realised very quickly albeit depending on which line you are in that your job is always on the line. You could be fire any day due to reasons that are totally out of your control. In most cases, it has neither to do with ability or attitude. When whole industry collapses, there is really no place where you can hide. There is also a high rate where skills and experience are made redundant with the increasing pace of change in technology and emerging industries. In short, careers in private sector can be very disruptive.
Thus, I would surmise that one of the main reason singaporeans are not willing to have kids or more kids is not really an attitudinal issue. The more important factors are the uncertainty and the constant need for new adaption that come as part and parcel of private sector jobs. You could be drawing $15K per month and be the top performer this year but you know jolly well that you could be fire the very next day for whatever reasons. Finding similar jobs get increasing difficult as one get older and almost impossible once you hit 45. Young people starting out at 25 could not envision where they can be 10 years down the road, let alone 20.
Given such backdrop, why do people want to have kids as it going to be at least a 20+ years commitment?
If you look at the birth rate during the Asian Financial Crisis, it dropped. Why, becuase people became uncertain about the future so they postpone having a child. The dot-com crisis hit only smaller segment of the population so the effect may not be so accentuated. The SARS crisis is too short. Our TFR hit record low in 2010 recently, guess what? The 2008/2009 Financial Crisis!!!Remember, there is a delay effect of about 10 months.
I have this conjecture that married people in the civil service (including teaching) and SAF tends to have more kids that those working in the private sectors, especially the highly volatile ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)