Especially, one would expect, in a public place.
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Wednesday, 4 January 2012
The First Cut Is The Deepest?
The Singapore Government has clearly been taking note of the 2011 Election results and the voters dissatisfaction with the high level of remuneration that local politicians receive in the Republic.
There is a reason for these salaries which are the highest in the world; they are currently pegged to the salaries of the top 48 from six industry sectors.
The new proposal (and it is just a proposal at this stage, not law) is to extend this benchmark to the top 1,000 across all industries. i.e. the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners. Mind you, there is also a ' 40-per-cent discount to "signify the sacrifice that comes with the ethos of political service" clause' which rather dissipates the political or real effect of any pay cut.
The President will be hit hardest with a 51% decrease but I am sure will live quite comfortably on the remaining S$1.5 million.
Even with a 36% cut, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will remain one of the highest paid politicians in the world at S$2.2million ($US1.7 million). By comparison, US President Barack Obama earns about $400,000 and the British PM about $US 270,000.
Post-pay cut, the PM's new salary will still be three times that of the Hong Kong chief executive, Donald Tsang, the world's next highest paid political leader, who earns about $550,000.
The least a Minister at the lowest entry level grade would expect to get is $S935,000. According to TodayOnline their salary will now comprise a fixed component of 12 months' pay and a traditional 13th-month Annual Wage Supplement (bonus).
The individual bonus is based on the minister's performance as determined by the Prime Minister while the National Bonus will be linked to "the socio-economic progress of average and lower income Singapore citizens".
While the international press is is offering scant praise ito news of the pay cuts, it needs to be remembered that the rational behind the high salaries in the first place was to entice the best professional candidates into politics.
This might be a fine idea in times of economic bliss but when recession bites, as it has in Singapore these past two quarters, the voters find such largesse difficult to stomach. This in combination with MRT problems, housing price rises and taxi woes points to challenging times ahead. The income of Singaporeans in the bottom fifth has been flat or negative in the 10 years to June 2010 while politicians salaries have soared since the 1990's.
But I wonder if all the above truly reflects the cost of a politician? Making judgments on salary alone is insufficient. A 'total cost of office' should include salary, entertainment, total travel, pensions and personal security costs, to name but a few.
If such an equation was in place then the true comparison between US President's cost and those of the Singapore PM would be dramatically different. Having seen the US President's advance security sweep in action before a planned visit, I can vouch that these are thorough and the costs considerable.
Bottom line which only the voters can answer - are you getting value for your money?
There is a reason for these salaries which are the highest in the world; they are currently pegged to the salaries of the top 48 from six industry sectors.
The new proposal (and it is just a proposal at this stage, not law) is to extend this benchmark to the top 1,000 across all industries. i.e. the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean earners. Mind you, there is also a ' 40-per-cent discount to "signify the sacrifice that comes with the ethos of political service" clause' which rather dissipates the political or real effect of any pay cut.
The President will be hit hardest with a 51% decrease but I am sure will live quite comfortably on the remaining S$1.5 million.
Even with a 36% cut, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong will remain one of the highest paid politicians in the world at S$2.2million ($US1.7 million). By comparison, US President Barack Obama earns about $400,000 and the British PM about $US 270,000.
Post-pay cut, the PM's new salary will still be three times that of the Hong Kong chief executive, Donald Tsang, the world's next highest paid political leader, who earns about $550,000.
 |
| How the salaries will compare after the pay-cuts |
The individual bonus is based on the minister's performance as determined by the Prime Minister while the National Bonus will be linked to "the socio-economic progress of average and lower income Singapore citizens".
 |
| Source - Report on Salaries for a capable and committed Government (TodayOnline) |
This might be a fine idea in times of economic bliss but when recession bites, as it has in Singapore these past two quarters, the voters find such largesse difficult to stomach. This in combination with MRT problems, housing price rises and taxi woes points to challenging times ahead. The income of Singaporeans in the bottom fifth has been flat or negative in the 10 years to June 2010 while politicians salaries have soared since the 1990's.
But I wonder if all the above truly reflects the cost of a politician? Making judgments on salary alone is insufficient. A 'total cost of office' should include salary, entertainment, total travel, pensions and personal security costs, to name but a few.
If such an equation was in place then the true comparison between US President's cost and those of the Singapore PM would be dramatically different. Having seen the US President's advance security sweep in action before a planned visit, I can vouch that these are thorough and the costs considerable.
Bottom line which only the voters can answer - are you getting value for your money?
Tuesday, 3 January 2012
Image via WikipediaAt the risk of sounding like Scrooge I have to say that the bargains come to those who wait. It is a week after Xmas and the supermarkets are now putting their surplus Xmas cakes and mince pies on special.I am 'mince-pie'd out' and now somewhat of an expert on the various brands although last night's fare proved anything but pleasant.
A packet of Ernest Adams Xmas tarts smelt and tasted rancid so these were returned this morning. We were apparently the second customer to do so, but I noted that the supermarket concerned still had not removed the stock from display.
People who are really experienced in such matters will no doubt be consulting the Daily Telegraph who went to the trouble of publishing glowing tributes to the 'best of the bake'. Marks and Sparks came highly recommended.
While on the subject of the baked, and in this case the half-baked, today marks the 10th year anniversary of the foiled terrorist plot to hijack a plane and fly it into Singapore's Changi International Airport. The perpetrators were a Singapore cell of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), a pan-South-east Asian terrorist group and Al Qaeda affiliate.
The plan was thankfully thwarted by Singapore's domestic intelligence service, the Internal Security Department (ISD) and the plotters were clearly not as clever as they thought they were.
The other piece of news that caught my eye was a series of DNA errors due to inaccurate reading of the instructions on a chemical bottle. While this might seem a trivial misdemeanor, it adversely affected 412 criminal cases or which 87 required re-testing.
Sunday, 1 January 2012
Too Much Of A 'Good Thing'
The standard cost of throwing up in a taxi in Singapore is apparently twenty Singapore dollars. This is the maximum a driver can charge his drunken passenger although they (the driver) also stand to lose about $30 of cab fares as they go about cleaning up their taxi.
According to a newspaper report in the Jakarta Post, ComfortDelGro, Singapore's biggest cab operator with a fleet of about 15,000 taxis, does not have a policy on compensation but offers its cabbies free cleanups at its workshops.
And before anyone jumps to a conclusion, it is not just the men of Singapore who have this habit of 'hurling' in cabs. The same newspaper report gives the example of a 34 year old female professional who, after a night out drinking at Clarke Quay, threw up.
She is reported as saying " "I felt very bad seeing the taxi uncle's face fall after I threw up". I bet you it did!
Surely the bigger question is why is it necessary to binge drink in the first place? There is nothing less edifying than a drunk and I am sure most cab drivers world wide would agree.
Meanwhile drivers such as Tan Pin Lin comes prepared for his shift with "10 plastic bags, boxes of tissue paper and a prayer that no one would puke in his cab after a night of partying."
According to a newspaper report in the Jakarta Post, ComfortDelGro, Singapore's biggest cab operator with a fleet of about 15,000 taxis, does not have a policy on compensation but offers its cabbies free cleanups at its workshops.
And before anyone jumps to a conclusion, it is not just the men of Singapore who have this habit of 'hurling' in cabs. The same newspaper report gives the example of a 34 year old female professional who, after a night out drinking at Clarke Quay, threw up.
She is reported as saying " "I felt very bad seeing the taxi uncle's face fall after I threw up". I bet you it did!
Surely the bigger question is why is it necessary to binge drink in the first place? There is nothing less edifying than a drunk and I am sure most cab drivers world wide would agree.
Meanwhile drivers such as Tan Pin Lin comes prepared for his shift with "10 plastic bags, boxes of tissue paper and a prayer that no one would puke in his cab after a night of partying."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
