Fake Buddhists Monks (Sunday Times 8 Jul); and
Fake Buddha Tooth (Sunday Times 15 Jul)
Last week it was fake monks begging for alms in Singapore. This week it's questionable Buddha's relic. $45m was raised to build a temple to house a tooth said to be from Buddha. Experts sy it looks like a cow's tooth. Frankly, if I know anything about buddhism, Buddha should be turning in his grave (if he had one) if he knew people were keeping pieces of him let alone worshipping it. People who donate money to house relics, even if authentic, for worship seems not to have understood the teachings of Buddha.

A tale of true humanity (ST, 14 July)
On Hainan Island, a rag-and-bone odd job labourer has been taking in and adopting baby girls abandoned by their natural parents trying to have a son to carry on the family name. All over almost 2 decades he has taken in 10 or more girls. With his meagre income, he still manages to ensure that his children, natural and adopted, get an education and have a better future. When he sent his eldest adopted daughter, who was 19 by then, off to Shenzhen to work, it was a tearful separation as she had never left home before. The father cried all the way back on the bus. When the daughter offered to send money home for the family to celebrate Chinese New Year, he told her to keep the money for her own use, as he did not raise their children in order to make money from them.

As I read this story, I was thinking that if this man applied for PR status in Singapore he would probably be denied. He had no education, and no wealth to offer Singapore. And yet, what he could offer was the immeasurably more precious human heart and the compassionate soul.

Instead, we accept the rich and "talented" who are not afraid to use their talent to further enrich themselves materially (and in so doing, enrich Singapore). While some are probably nice people, the selection criteria probably doesn't favour philanthropy or compassion.

If Singapore is already crassly materialistic, the future with more immigrants of similar ilk, does not seem likely to be any different.


Who's misbehaving?

With the headlines, "Ok. Ok. I'll behave. Don't shoot." The Sunday Times (15 Jul) probably thought it was a fun picture to show a Spl Ops Command Officer pointing his gun at at 11-yr-old.

The Officer should know better than to do that. His weapon is not a toy, and even in basic weapons handling he should have been taught
1) Treat all firearms as loaded. 2) Never point a firearm at anything you do not want destroyed or killed.

There is a third rule: never let the breaking of the 2nd rule be captured in the national press. Yes, it's NDP, and maybe the kid was willing to pose for it, and maybe the dumb photographer asked for the pose. You should still be professional enough (or at least smart enough) to say no.

Guess who's gonna get a reprimand?

Dealing with Govt is a pain.

Bernie Ecclestone candidly said that he found dealing with the Singapore Govt, a pain. Mahathir had previously said that Singapore Govt is also inflexible.

A glimpse into the back stage negotiations was given when it was revealed that at all stages the govt kept raising operational issues and questions that had to be resolved. I think businessmen like Bernie Ecc and Ong Beng Seng were used to shaking hands on the deal in principle and sorting out the niceties and details as they arise. Their personal relationship and trust would smooth over any bumps.

However with govt personal ties only goes so far. Personality is not a good basis for business with the govt. Mahathir and Abdullah are a contrast in styles and approach and Singapore's relationship with Malaysia, is more dependent on the personality of the Malaysia leader than the shared economic interests and potential for collaboration.

Similarly, on hindisght, the security of Temasek Holdings investment in ShinCorp could also be said to be tied to the personal influence of Thaksin, rather than on indisputable legal foundations.

The fact is that govt leaders changed. Sometimes as a matter of succession, sometimes a little more forcefully, like Thaksin. Furthermore, there is a tendency to treat the govt as the safety net when things go awry. That's when the govt will see its commitment and expenses grow beyond the budget.

So it is good and prudent to spell out the details of any deals clearly. Good fences make good neighbours. Good agreements make good deals.

Blogging for Change

There's quite a bit of navel-gazing and meditation going on as bloggers asks, "What is the point?" This after all the sound and fury did nothing to change the govt's plans to proceed with the Minister's pay hike.

One suggestion is to stake out your battleground and build up your support:
http://theonlinecitizen.com/2007/05/16/the-next-step-proactive-blogging/

But that's just tactics. The lessons just doesn't seem to catch.

Bloggers and political critics don't seem to get it.

For years, the govt did not agree to casinos. It was only when the casino option was seen as being necessary for Singapore's economic success that the govt reversed its position.

The govt had stopped motor racing, and even rejected a bid to host the F1 in Singapore. It reversed that decision when it saw how much Malaysia was benefitting from the F1.

The anti-gay laws on our law books have been there for years and the govt is still defending their anti-gay stance. But there are some evidence linking creativity to the "gay index".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/IE17Ae01.html

And Singapore sees creativity as a major ingredient for Singapore's future success, so that means we may be reversing those laws soon.

So go ahead and blog about man's inhumanity to man (or PAP's inhumanity to man), and human rights, and freedom, and justice, and human dignity, and ideals, and nobility, integrity, and sentimentality. It will make for great reading.

But if you want to get the attention of the government, you got to show them the money.

So apparently, the blogosphere is dying.

http://diodati.omniscientx.com/2007/05/02/state-of-the-singapore-blogosphere-may-2007/

Must be the thinning Ozone layer.

Bloggers have bee closing down their blogs. The disappointment over the ineffectiveness of blogging as a way of changing the government's decision was the last straw, it seems.

It's unfortunate. Think global act local. Or in other words, give me courage to change what I can, serenity to accept what I cannot and wisdom to know the difference.

Too much courage, not enough wisdom and serenity.

So over lunch I was talking to my colleague about this. Perhaps, I said, this was all a conspiracy. By making such a big deal about this, and then dashing the hopes of the bloggers, the government had anticipated that bloggers would then curl up and die from sheer frustration and exhaustion.

Nah, said my colleague. The govt is smart, but not that smart.

Well, yah. Maybe not this time around, but the govt can learn. The next time it has a very controversial plan, it will first discuss another slightly less controversial plan, dash all the hopes and see bloggers die off. Then it will introduce the very controversial plan and not worry because all the critical bloggers would have died off! That's now a standard operating procedure for govt controversial policy announcement.

Those whom the govt seek to destroy, they first make mad with frustration.

Passion needs a climax to satisfy and sustain. Without a climatic resolution, there is dissatisfaction, frustration, and disengagement.

To endure in this, passion needs to be tempered with pragmatism, and wisdom.



Technorati Tags: singapore, blogs, singapore politics, conspiracy, minister's pay

Powered by ScribeFire.

You don't know what you're talking about!

http://singabloodypore.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/04/11/singapore-ministerial-civil-service-pay.html

Singaporeans will be Singaporeans. Whether in authority or fighting authority, they have the same response to foreigner's opinion that they don't accept.

When foreigners criticise Singapore's government or our way of doing things, the government responds by blocking the publication and telling them to mind their own business.

When a foreigner praise the PAP, anti-govt citizens tell the alien that he's just a visitor and don't know what he's talking about and to mind his own business.

I guess when you've become the thing you oppose (or use the same tools or weapons) they've already won.

And such ridiculous hyperbole: "People living on less than a dollar a day With no food, no home and no education is better than people living in social inequality with no justice, no freedom, no democracy, the rich will become richer and the poor will become poorer after
another 40 years of ruling."

It's only because you have food, a home and education that you can complain about social inequality, injustice, lack of freedom and democracy.

Or by social equality do you mean everyone is equally poor?

Youth is wasted on the young, and Singapore is wasted on the Singaporeans.

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.

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.

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.