Calvin & Hobbes by Bill Watterson

Calvin asks, "Dad, how come old photographs are always black & white? Didn't they have color film back then?"

"Sure they did," answered Calvin's dad. "In fact, those old photographs ARE in color. It's just that the WORLD was black and white then."

"Really?"

"Yep. The world didn't turn color until sometime in the 1930s, and it was a pretty grainy color for a while, too."

"But then why are old PAINTINGS in color?! If the world was black and white, wouldn't artists have painted it that way?"

"Not necessarily. A lot of great artists were insane."

"But... But how could they have painted in color anyway? Wouldn't their paints have been shades of gray then?"

"of course, but they turned colours like everything else did in the '30s"

"So why didn't old black ad white photos turn color too?"

"Because they were color pictures of black and white, remember?"

Later, Calvin says to Hobbes, "The world is a complicated place."

Hobbes replies, "Whenever it seems that way I take a nap in a tree and wait for dinner."

-----------

I like this story because it illustrates the point that truth is usually simple and lies are complicated. So the whole thing about Minister's salary - simply put, in black and white, is about greed and enriching the rich.

Or is it?

The explanation for why Ministers pay must go up is also simple: it's lagging behind the benchmark and if Singapore is to attract talent in govt, it must pay Ministers better.

Then all the arguments about why Ministers' pay must stay low are complicated explanations about altruism, sense of duty, national service, honour, privilege and all that.

Someone did an interview with David Marshall, former Chief Minister of Singapore and he denounced the high $60,000 and $90,000 monthly salary of the PM and the Ministers then (1994). See this link:
http://thinkhappiness.blogspot.com/2006/08/meeting-david-marshall-in-1994.html

He went on to say that he only made $8,000 a month.

But that was 50 years ago. $8,000 a month in 1957 dollars? Back then you could get a bowl of mee for 5 or 10 cents. Now the cheapest you can get is $2. That's 20 to 40 times more. Extrapolating from that, $8k then is equivalent to at least $160k now. And that's not too far off from the new pay.

So how should ministers be paid? Should they serve for the sheer "joy and excitement of public service" as David Marshall says?

Complicated.

I'll take and nap and wait for dinner.

What's the Best Government for Singapore

Where the Economy is run by the PAP, the trade unions is headed by the Workers Party, and the Town Councils are run by Chiam See Tong?



Just a question. :-)

Powered by ScribeFire.

MM Lee said that he understood the emotions associated with the issues, but that he found the fuss over the Minister's salaries "completely unreal", because there were larger issues at stake.

One might comment that MM Lee is out of touch with what's "real" if he found the "hoo-ha" unreal.

I think he moves and thinks at a level that most of us never reach. I say this with respect. But others would say the same with disgust.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Bypassing Singapore

Malaysia is planning to build a 312 km oil pipeline to short cut travel through the piracy-prone Malacca Straits (Straits Times, 17 April). The pipeline would save about 2,000 km in travel. The plan is to build an oil refinery on the west coast of Kedah where crude oil would be received and refined, and then sent over the pipeline to the Kelantan coast where the oil will be distributed to other countries, notably China, which has an insatiable appetite for fuel as it develops.



Meanwhile, in another report (ST 17 April also), NTU researchers found that piracy attacks in the Malacca Straits have hit a 10-year low.



So... no need to build oil pipeline that would bypass Singapore, or refinery to take business from Singapore.



This is the Kra canal threat in another form.



Hmmm.... threat of pirate or terrorist attack on shipping, particularly oil tankers in the Malacca Straits, or threat of terrorist attack on oil refinery or a 312 km static pipeline? At least the oil tankers are a moving target, no?



Then again, Northern Malaysia borders Southern Thailand where there have been a lot of unrest. Again, a security issue.



And didn't Malaysia lose like million dollar shipment of Intel Chips in Penang to some daring robbers?



Then again, maybe it's best to spread the risk about. Maybe the terrorist will see Malaysian refineries and oil pipelines to be an easier target than Singapore's oil refineries and bunkers.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The elephant in the living room

I don't mean this elephant:

Task of jumbo proportions, not for the squeamish
http://sewerserpent7.livejournal.com/#asset-sewerserpent7-528

I mean the Great Debate on Ministers' Salaries Part III.

It was debated to bits while I was overseas. Then when I was back, it was debated again. Like most if not all Singaporeans, I couldn't accept it at first. Then I did. Maybe it's because I know people and I'm not the envious sort. I've accepted it as necessary and I haven't really followed the news. There is no new arguments from either side. The only new twist is the juxtaposition with the debate a few weeks ago on the public assistance handouts. Tens of dollars vs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It's been talked and blogged to death, but if I don't say anything about it, I may seem out of touch with reality. Or Singapore. Which some people claim is unreal.

I think most people can't accept paying Ministers higher salaries because there is some kind of envy, some kind of socialistic robin hood need to take from the rich to give to the poor. Some kind of idealistic self-delusion where they tell themselves, if I were in their shoes, I would NEVER do what they did, those selfish bastards.

It makes people feel good about themselves. Feel superior. Or maybe they just don't want the rich to get richer. They just want themselves to get richer.

It is an emotional issue and people confuse the issue, drag in irrelevancies, make non sequitur leaps of logic, confound the situation with unrelated matters, and make unwarranted comparisons.

For example, one argument and it's variant is that Ministers a) do not need that salary, b) do not deserve their salary, c) should not need that salary to serve, d) are not doing work that is worth that kind of money, e) are overpaid compared to other leaders who have much greater responsibility, and f) should not be benchmarked against the private sector because it doesn't matter who's up there, it's always the top people.

This argument misses the point completely. It's not so much about what the job of Minister pays. It's what else the person can make in other jobs. If you are a brilliant professional who can make $4m a year, why should you give up a lucrative career for $1.2m a year? or $1.8m? For the sheer joy of serving? Riiight.

Most Singaporeans will say, tell you what, why don't you play-play run the govt, don't bother me, I have to go make some real money. And if we get some cheap talents who don't make the grade, would the brilliant professional then decide to step up to the plate and serve? Well, he might. Or he might just go someplace else where he can do better business or make more money.

The Ministers' salaries have to be substantial enough so that good minds will weigh the "sacrifice" of foregoing their lucrative careers as not too much of a deterrent.

The problem is not that our current crop of ministers will leave if we don't up their pay. The problem is that the govt will have trouble recruiting potential new leaders if we don't.

So I say, pay them to attract new blood. Don't let Singapore become like NKF. T. T. Durai started with good intentions. Then he "lost the plot."

Pay them well upfront. So they don't have to wheel and deal and try to give their families a better life in unethical ways.

Benchmarking Minister's Salaries to the lower income

Another interesting article on the Online Citizen. This one proposes that Minister's salaries be benchmarked to the lower income.

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/09/ministers-salaries-losing-touch/#more-276

Left my comment there too. Hmmm... might be turning into a commentary blog? *sigh*

Mr Leong does make a very good point about benchmarking to the lowest income to motivate political leaders to raise the income of the lowest paid workers in Singapore.

There would seem to be an inherent bias that if I know my pay is benchmarked against the top 50 paying professionals, I would be motivated to see what policies i can make to raise their salaries.

That said, the salaries of the top 50 or 100 people in any field in the private sector are not likely to be affected by govt policies much. I’m pretty sure that Wee Cho Yaw’s salary is not much affected by govt policies directly. Moreover, the richest in the country are also the most mobile. Given enough disincentives or disadvantages, they will leave taking their business and their capital with them. In IR-speak, we must know how to treat the whales well.And while there is a lot of things the govt can do to raise the salaries of the lower income (e.g. minimum wage, protecting industries,preventing layoffs/retrenchment) in the long term, these policies maynot be in the best interests of Singapore. I agree with the principle that the income of poor should be a deliverable that contributes to the decision as to whether Ministers salary goes up or down, but at this point it is at best a concept.

The Ideal Politician

I saw this on The Online Citizen:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/04/05/be-mindful-of-the-affective-gap/#more-273

And left a comment

Ms Lim’s points were well put and as she built her argument and spelt out the disjunct between leaders and people, she held my attention.

Then she got to this point, “For while the ideal political leader is imbued with nobility of purpose and altruistic instincts, the ideal CEO is impelled by the very opposite - raw ambition and ruthless drive. The first set of qualities is desirable for a life of public service; the second would be disastrous.”

From all the jokes and stereotypes about politicians, I do not know if an “ideal political leader” as she describes exists.

I would like to believe that such idealistic people exists. But the reality is that most people with talent choose to exercise their talent for their own benefit.

There are few Mother Teresas or Dalai Lamas in this world and the fact that these are spiritual and religious leaders says something about their calling. For every Mother Teresa, there are tens if not hundreds of Saddam Husseins, Hitlers, Stalins, Pinochets, Idi Amins, and Ferdinand Marcos who are morally ambiguous if not downright evil, to the sadly incompetent like George Bush, Habibie and Abdurrahman Abdul Wahid.

The reality is that hell is paved with good intentions. The situation in Thailand is an example. The coup was meant to reverse the damage of a corrupt Premier, but well intentioned or not, the effect has been less than laudable.

Indonesia’s Suharto was also corrupt, but he nevertheless kept things stable. After he was overthrown, there was a series of ineffective presidents that did little to bring the country forward effectively. Well-intentioned though they may be.

Ms Lim’s description of the politician reminds me more of a social worker. And while I respect and admire the social worker, I am not sure that a social worker would necessarily make a good political leader. A friend of mine once commented in the aftermath of the overthrow of Suharto: so what if he’s corrupt. At least he’s competent. Instead there’s now a series of honest, incompetent presidents. And we’re not even sure if they are honest.

My point simply is this: the “ideal politician” does not exists. Or he does not exist in sufficient numbers to form the government. Ms Lim practically confers sainthood on the selfless, sacrificing politician. You may find one in every 2 or 3 generations. The rest of the time, you make do with people who would be CEOs.

In the absence of competent selfless people, the reality is that we have to make do with competent selfish people. And to ensure the competent selfish people are not tempted to corruption, we must pay them well.

Perhaps if we had, we would not have had the sad incident of Mr Teh Cheang Wan.

Singapore is not a democracy

Democracy literally means "people rules". Thank god the people don't rule. Not directly anyway.

Not in Singapore, where we elect our government every 4 or 5 years. Not in the United States, the so-called bastion of democracy, where they elect their governors, their senators, and their president.... sort of. Indirectly.

Singapore is not a democracy. Then again, neither is the USA. or any other so-called democracy, because in between elections, the people really don't have much to say about unpopular decisions. Decisons like going to war in Iraq. Or increasing GST. Or giving Ministers a pay raise.

If people really ruled on a day to day basis, then there would be less globalisation. More immigration controls. More protectionism. More traffic jams arising from more cars on the road. No casino (or casino 30 years ago). No national service. Probably more wars.

Because basically, people are selfish, small-minded, and short-sighted.

Fortunately, democracy as practised in Singapore, and most other places, relies on people making a decision once ever 4 or 5 years to elect people who will make long term decisions. In other words, a Republic, or rule by representatives. In this case we are a democratic republic, in that we elect our representatives (MPs) who then form the government.

And "long-term" is relative to the circumstances.

The two-party system in the US also means that everytime there is a change in majority, the country changes its priority. The relatively stable political situation in Singapore means that generally, long term, really means more than just 5 years down the road.

And so that is how we get decisions like the Casinos. Oh wait. I mean the Integrated Resorts or IR. Which, coincidentally are the same 2 letters in front of IRAS.

There are also bad decisions on hindsight. Like Suzhou. And Shincorp. At least we didn't invade Iraq.

The point is that government is about decision making and it is not rocket science. It may be harder. (ST 8 April 2007, "Successful govt not rocket science? It may be tougher", Janandas Devan). People who casually dismiss such policies as no big deal need to see the bigger picture.

When the rains came, our biggest deal was a few flooded plant nurseries. Johor had not one but 2 bouts of flooding with tens of thousands of people displaced. Jakarta apparently floods on a regular basis... when it's not covered in soot from the forest burning.

MM Lee suggested that the best argument is a bout of incompetent government. The problem is that the govt has succeeded so well, that is it inconceivable that Singapore could fail. His comments has been mocked as fear-mongering. Perhaps.

I guess then the opposition's platform for the next election is simple: Vote for the opposition and when we form the govt we will cut our salaries by 50%. $1m should be enough. And we can come up with the same, "no big deal" policies. We may even raise the public assistance to $400 instead of the miserable $290.

Yes. i do believe the PAP has dug their own grave with this pay rise. :-)

Indonesian police have decided that the sabotage at the Karimun granite quarry was business-related - "probably the product of unhealthy business competition".

I guess the anti-Singapore climate formented by the Indonesian political leaders were not relevant. Nor the possibility that some overzealous nationalists taking matters into their own hands to halt export of granite to Singapore was even considered.

It was just business competition.

Right.

At the time of the blasts, barges bound for Singapore with granite had been detained (and are still being detained) on suspicion of sand smuggling. Excuse me, how long for the Indonesian Navy to ascertain if there is sand under the granite? It's been over a month!

So at the time of the sabotage, there was no competition. Production had slowed and workers were retrenched because of the de facto granite export ban, and the fact that no barge owners want to risk getting their boats detained indefinitely.

Business competition? The business is closing down fast.

Singtel's new CEO will be earning $5m a year. The previous CEO, Lee Hsien Yang was paid $2.2m a year. If that figure looks familiar, is this the proposed new salary for Ministers. Lee Hsien Yang's brother, Prime Minister Lee probably earns only $2m. But if the new salary for Ministers and PM are approved, PM Lee can finally beat his younger brother.

To: CEO
SBS Transit

RE: MISSION STATEMENT, TAGLINE FOR SBS

Dear Sir,

I wish to draw your attention to the plaque or notice you have at the Toa Payoh Bus Interchange. To wit, I quote:

SBS Transit
2 Million Passengers
1 Mission: To go the extra mile

2 I wish to inform you that we have received numerous complaints that your passengers would rather you did not go the extra mile; try to get them straight to their destination.

3 One example in particular come to mind. Service 78 which runs from Jurong East looping at Clementi Central, back to Jurong East. Now we have checked with twenty independent and impartial drivers as the the fastest route from Jurong East Interchange to Clementi Interchange. 95% said that the best route would be to take the Boon Lay Way/Commonwealth Ave West route. Only 5% (a taxi driver) proposed going by the CTE.

4 The route taken by Service 78 goes through Jurong Town Hall Road, Penjuru Rd, Pandan Industrial Estate (Jln Buroh), West Coast Road, before entering Clementi.

5 We have checked with the complainants and clarified that while they do not mind SBS going the extra mile, they do object to being charged for the extra mile that they did not really want.

6 As such, we are proposing that you change your plaque/notice to properly reflect your policy. For example, "To go the extra mile... and charge you for it."

7 Please see other alternatives we thought you might like to consider in the annex.


Yours faithfully

Director. Ensuring Truth in Notices
(no signature required so you cannot forge my signature)

ANNEX - ALTERNATIVE TAGLINES/SLOGANS FOR SBS TRANSIT

a) "To go the extra mile... whether you like it or not."

b) "To go the extra mile... because govt said so, regardless of whether its appropos to transit companies."

c) "To go the extra mile... because this is the latest "hot" phrase. Next time it might be 'Not re-inventing the wheel'; or 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it'."

d) "To got the extra mile... because its on the route map and if you don't like it, well, too bad!"