Wage revamp? Govt helping us to save jobs? Are you sure?
-
Okay, get this people!! This new wage revamp that the Govt is introducing, looks harmless right? They have thought of a great new idea to improve our economy and save jobs for all of us. In a way, yes I agree, some can agree but like always you have to read the terms and conditions in any agreement.
If you hear on the radio from all our DJs, promoting wage reform, "saves jobs", "makes us more competitive", "we will be better off", I really feel like a sheep, I listen I do. The only problem I have is, I think we're going to get TAX MORE!
Look, at the way the wage reform is structured, they have yet to release the full terms and conditions but there's this Annual Variable Component, AVC, now for those of you who are uncertain about the tax rules, its simple, we are taxed on our earned income ie if you earn more than 20k per year, you have to pay taxes to the govt. However, you have to pay taxes immediately for any bonus you receive at year end, this being the AVC. Thus, you do not see it but in the end, we get taxed on these variable parts, which acts as bonus I believe. Anyone knows more about this wage reform? Do we get taxed more year end on these so-called 'bonus'? or is it considered earned income? There's a big difference!
Anyone working for the IRAS knows how we will be taxed under this wage reform? -
Can the flexi-wage plan save job, or does it serves as an Exit Route for the Company when any cash flow crunch raise its ugly head ?
With the GLC's being the dominating player in the Singapore Economy, it is also naturally the largest employer of Singaporeans.
Whose interest does this Flexi-Wage Policy serve ?
The Singaporean Workers, or the GLC Employers ?
Is wage cost the only factor that can affect Employment Opportunities in the matrix of factors that affect the well being of the Economic Environment in Singapore ?
There seems to be a lack of POLITICAL WILL from the Ruling Party to review the 'skewed' LAND PRICING Policy - (affecting housing and commercial developments), Transportation Costs (cost of ownership of private and commercial vehicles of all types - trucks, pick-ups, taxis, buses), and the Privatisation of GLCs - in substance and not mere cosmetic changes of ownerships to politically acceptable proxies.
While the wages (including CPF, bonuses and 13th month 'payout') are made flexible, the tax structure remains 'inflexible' in two main parts - PERSONAL INCOME TAX and GOODS + SERVICES TAX.
A fixed sliding scale of tax imposed according to where your wage amount fall into structured category - visit the IRAS website at http://www.iras.gov.sg/ click on the 'Salaried Employees' category, go to 'Tax Rate Table').
The Personal Income Tax rate was loudly acclaimed to have been reduced by a bigger cut of 8 percent (since it was reviewed in the late 1980's and early 1990's when tax was at the highest rate of 36 percent) - compared to a relatively insignificant increase of 5 percent in GST.
While Income Tax is levied on a SINGLE Wage of A PERSON, the GST is levied on every and any transaction that is performed by each and any individual, in any activities.
However, the Singapore Population, generally, do not seem to be aware that the insignificant 5 PERCENT GST has a huge cumulative effect, when applied onto every and any transaction that is conducted in the daily economic activities in Singapore.
Are we returning to the early days of the 1960s, where wages are kept low to sustain the various industries, so as to have jobs available ?
After marching down the expressway for the last 38 years - since the beginning of early 1960's - are we to see low wages again ?
What became of the goal to achieve the 'Swiss Standard of Living' - when wages were intentionally raised hiher ? -
On your mention of the Taxes area, I do find it quite curious as to why in particular, the general 5% GST option had been choosen over other alternative considerations, say tax that target specific industries.
An example of what I mean by industry specific tax would be something like the extra 10% that we pay for dinning in restaurants?
Would industrial based taxation that target and revolve around specific parties be a better way of both managing and preserving a country's diversified revenue sources?
Tax percentiles can be adjusted in a more agile manner in accordance to the different changes in the various industrial performance cycles to better meet various macro economic conditions.
Where a rising industry is flourishing, the imposement of a slightly higher tax figure - to a reasonable amount, can help the country to both have tax revenues without increasing the level of business cost to an unsustainable level and provide yet another useful excuse for employers to go on a wage cutting rampage at an employer's whims and fancy.
Likewise where an industry sector is facing some serious challenges, reduce the industry tax figure for those whom are affected by the trade.
An experiences nomad will herd his sheeps to feed on different pastures of grass because he knows that ONE source of pasture should never ever be over consumed.
When all the grass that grows in a pasture get eaten away, the goats and the Nomad will not be able to avoid a similar fate. -
Taxation by industry can do more harm to the industry, by making it less competitive, and may tantamount to 'milking the cow' that may end up in 'killing the goose that lay the golden egg'.
The 10 percent tax that is applied on restaurant bills has to be paid by the public at large, and not by the restaurant as an industry. The restaurants only serve as points of collection for the Government.
Tax collection entails cost too, as there will be manpower needed to ensure that accounting and auditting process are correctly performed, and revenue collection do not result in leakages.
Tax collection should be kept simple, ease in implementation and operation, and do not entail a high cost in its execution.
It should also be seen to be fair and do not impose hardship by discriminating any sector, and its effect should net everyone equally without discrimination.
The GST is such a tax system that covers all economic activities - from individual consumption and transaction, up to that of the large corporations.
The Income Tax and GST policy is a 'double whammy' for Singaporeans, as prior to GST being implemented, it was announced that Income Tax will be reduced very substantially when the GST is fully implemented.
Now that we have seen GST being fully implemented to its 5 percent as originally planned - (Government Revenue Collection was already bursting to its seams when it was at its initial level of 3 percent GST) - we have yet to see Income Tax being reduced any further.
Similarly, when Mr Mah Bow Tan was the Communications and Transport Minister, he had indicated that once the ERP or Road Pricing System was fully implemented, Road Tax will be reduced substantially.
So far we have seen only a reduction of less then 25 percent, when Road Tax was increased by leaps and bounds of over 200 percent since increases were made from the late 1970s.
Now that Mr Mah is no longer the Communications and Transport Minister, what was said by him seems to have been conveniently forgotten by his successor.
Now, the shortness in Ministerial memory seems to be in effect with regards to the lowering of Income Tax, when the 5 percent GST is fully implemented. -
Wage revamp? You can call in SWAT
Team made up of MOM, NTUC staff and employers' reps helps firms make pay structures more flexible and save jobs
By Sue-Ann Chia , The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2004
COMPANIES needing help to revamp their wages can call in SWAT (reStructuring Wages Action Team).
Made up of human resource experts and officers from the Manpower Ministry (MOM), NTUC and the employers' federation, the team is currently working with the 'first wave' of 70 to 100 companies to help them make salary structures more flexible and save jobs.
The Government will also provide other help tools - such as a $2 million fund for small and medium enterprises to attend training workshops, and a pool of human resource consultants to assist companies with reforming their wages.
These measures are listed in the Tripartite Taskforce on Wage Restructuring's 137-page report that will be presented today at a conference.
About 1,600 employers, unionists and government officials will be there to discuss how the suggestions can be used to revamp wage systems.
The recommendations by the taskforce are designed to speed up wage restructuring in Singapore.
Chairman and MOM permanent secretary Yong Ying-I noted that the recommendations will reduce the 'hard work' for companies as the groundwork has already been laid by her taskforce.
There are also four sectoral groups - covering electronics, chemicals, transport and hotels - that have come up with sector-specific details on wage reforms. More groups dealing with other sectors are expected to spring up after the conference.
Ultimately, the help measures will 'keep up the momentum' of wage reform, she said at a briefing to release the report to the media.
She noted, for instance, that 70 to 100 companies in the initial batch are willing to restructure their wage systems as long as there was some 'hand-holding'.
From there, she hopes the success cases can be used as models, as such 'peer testimonials' will inspire other companies to follow suit.
Mr Stephen Lee, president of the Singapore National Employers' Federation, said companies are now 'more receptive' to the idea after witnessing the devastating impact of Sars on the economy and the waves of job losses.
Given the brighter prospects this year, he urged companies not to delay restructuring their wages as it would be easier and less painful to do so during good times - when there is more room to adjust wages and pay cuts will be less likely.
It will also enable companies to be more competitive and withstand future downturns.
Companies which have revamped their wages agreed.
A spokesman for Shell told The Straits Times: 'Wage restructuring must be embraced if we are to survive and thrive.'
But Mr Lee acknowledged that there are still a lot of companies 'struggling with the why and how'.
Smaller companies, in particular, are 'not familiar' with wage restructuring, noted Mr Lawrence Leow, president of the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises.
Hence, the Workforce Development Agency's help to co-fund training and coaching fees, subject to a cap of $8,500, will come in 'very handy'.
Workers too will stand to benefit from wage reform, said NTUC president John De Payva.
'If the company does well, workers can look forward to higher bonuses and more pay,' he said, adding that it will ensure jobs are preserved during a downturn. -
Ppl who earn $100,000 a month have no right to tell workers to cut wages, reform wages etc. What is LKY doing? He doesnt have ministerial porfolio but just go round the world commenting on this and that. Why don he just retire and save tax payers' money?
-
To borrow a certain minister's parable of the two frogs in two different pots of water, it's apparent that The Party has been doing a good job of turning up the heat slowly, making small, but certain insteps into the tolerances of the Singaporean in order to numb them of the pain of being fleeced constantly and in ever increasing amounts.
-
Well back to Atobe statement about GLCs, with many GLCs the duration in one managerial post is usually 1 - 2 years before they leap frog to another higher post. At each post, the incentive for our 'scholars' to maximize their own wealth, would be to achieve a sales target or increase profitability. Sometimes, they use too much theory, in practice, sales targets are easy to get, just drop price and you get more sales. Or just axe most of the older workers so that you dunch have to pay them pensions to increase profitability. All this at what cost? So that you can get your base pay and your bonus as well? But what will happen to the poor GLC which might suffer in the long run due to poor margins and lack of skilled trained staff?
Sometimes, brains is'nt everything, Singapore bases everything on brains, tests and exams... look at mcdonald's CEO, if you looked at his track record, he started out at mcdonalds in Australia when he was 14 as a cleaner, then later learnt to cook fries, to burgers to serving at the counter. He worked his way up from manager to regional to... and finally CEO. GLCs definitely needs to base more on merit rather than just intellect. So long as the scholar does'nt screw up big time or make a huge mess at his post, he/she moves on to the next post. -
Is not tat easy to increase "profitability". Wat happened if everyone do the same thing u mentioned, and had to take over a stinking post where your predecessor has also done all those sh1t ?
Why is Macdonald story so entertaining is because it is about creating miracles. And miracles r called miracles because it is near impossible for it to happen. Face it, this society looks at qualification. Otherwise u might as well ask your children to stop schooling now and work as a cleaners in Macdonald. Every year there r 4-5 president scholars returning to singapore. However not everyone manage to be a minister. They still have to go through competition and shows result before they get to increase their ranks. If u talk about their pay, frankly speaking they will get an almost or higher pay if they work in the private sector instead. They r not going to be poor and unsuccessful when they don't work for Gov. It is the same as COE getting 10-200 times more pay than the workers. How they choose who to be scholars is also based on fairness too. If u r good at your studies, u will be given a chance. If u lose the race to be the top, don't grumble at the fact u had lost.
So far the performance of the minister aren't bad isn't it ? Which minister do u think deserved to be booted yet remain in power ? -
Well, actually I am just seeking comments on wage reform and not being disgruntled about president scholars taking the elite jobs. Our govt does keep a good watch on all these forums, so its good feedback for them on how the public feels. I occasionally send emails to ministries if I have a good suggestion and would get a response within a week or so, telling me if they would plan on implementing it.
-
Have you not heard of 'window dressing' to achieve 'profitability' ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:Is not tat easy to increase "profitability". Wat happened if everyone do the same thing u mentioned, and had to take over a stinking post where your predecessor has also done all those sh1t ?
This practise is common in all countries, whether in Singapore or EU countries, UK, USA, or Japan, Australia, and any other countries with Public Accounting System.
Some corporations experiencing losses from their core business, will attempt to cover up these losses with more activities in non-related business - such as selling off some assets to improve their cash positions and reflect 'PROFITABILITY'.
The successor can only continue with the show, and the last man at the helm left with no more assets to dispose off, will have to think smart and pray that the cash that have been realised with all the past Assets Sales would have been put to better use - so as to achieve REAL PROFITABILITY.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Miracles are NOT IMPOSSIBLE, as miracles do happen in the Business World.
Why is Macdonald story so entertaining is because it is about creating miracles. And miracles r called miracles because it is near impossible for it to happen.
It takes alot of hardwork and lots of LUCK too.
It takes commitment and undying perseverance.
It also takes alot of intelligence.
It requires a good sense of BUSINESS ACUMEN - a sixth sense to smell, see, feel and get excited with an OPPORTUNITY that no one is able to see.
This is what makes the Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia).
They all started with NOTHING, and as NOBODY.continuing post by stupidissmart:
To the credit of the Singapore Government, who had the decency to turn around - (and seemingly following the solutions proposed by SDP Dr CSJ's book written 10 years ago) - and are changing the education policy with a less emphasis on examination oriented achievements.
Face it, this society looks at qualification. Otherwise u might as well ask your children to stop schooling now and work as a cleaners in Macdonald.
The Government is reviewing policies and giving schools the option of dropping the 'O' and 'A' Levels, and finding new creative ways to TRULY EDUCATE our Future Generation of Potential Leaders.
The Government has now decided to turn around from their skewed policy of having a limited quota of graduands from our only TWO Universities in Singapore; and have suddenly decided to place emphasis on KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE.
The past skewed policy of limited university graduates have been followed for the last 40 years (from the 1950's), even when there have been protests in the manner that the Government were limiting entries into local universities - especially with the imposing of SUITABILITY CERTIFICATES (politically motivated - after strong University Student's Union activities in Politics) before one is allowed to enter universities.
The government had always feared the nightmare of larger pool of university graduates with trained critical mind that the economy cannot absorb.
This fear rides parallel with the LKY's philosophy of 'Dull the Mind by Filling the Stomach'.
How can one 'Dull an Educated and Critically Trained MInd, when the Stomach has Difficulty in being Filled' ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
Does a President's Scholar (or any returning Scholar) need to compete for any job in Government ?
Every year there r 4-5 president scholars returning to singapore. However not everyone manage to be a minister. They still have to go through competition and shows result before they get to increase their ranks. If u talk about their pay, frankly speaking they will get an almost or higher pay if they work in the private sector instead. They r not going to be poor and unsuccessful when they don't work for Gov.
They are led to any Government Job of their own choosing (within reason), unless their training and aptitude is seen to be needed elsewhere that the Government feel is more suitable for both their mutual benefit.
The Scholar will only need to compete with his own shadow, and until there is any major disaster in his hands that he is incapable of dealing with, his career is almost assured.
Compared to a 'scholar material' that enters the Private Sector, the President's Scholar position in Government is a 'walk-in-the-park'.
Many local corporations will give a 'scholar material' candidate a very short learning period, and is expected to perform within THREE MONTHS with a reasonable BOTTOM LINE.
Ever heard of CITIBANK's high pressure environment at the Top ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
You seem to be fixated with the term 'C.O.E' - which seems to hang over from our last cross-exchange some months ago in 2003.
It is the same as COE getting 10-200 times more pay than the workers.
The term 'C.O.E.' is supposed to be Certificate Of Entitlement for cars.
The correct term that you should be using is 'C.E.O.' - which actually means CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Is the selection process of SCHOLARS a fair process ?
How they choose who to be scholars is also based on fairness too. If u r good at your studies, u will be given a chance. If u lose the race to be the top, don't grumble at the fact u had lost.
On the surface, it is supposed to be 'fair' and is based on the exam results of the candidates vying for the scholarships.
Unfortunately, the Rich Kid will have better SUPPORTING HELP outside school hours, and also a better ENVIRONMENT that give them a headstart to excel.
It will be interesting to do a study to determine the background of all the scholarship receipients - from the date that the various scholarships were implemented.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Are you joking with these loaded questions ?
So far the performance of the minister aren't bad isn't it ? Which minister do u think deserved to be booted yet remain in power ?
Who do you think had 'WH' Red Carpet treatment rolled out throughout his entire career(s) ?
Who do you think had all the stones and boulders blasted away, rolled over, and a paved smooth highway opened for his easy passage in an ASSIGNED career ?
Is it so impressive and productive of a Minister, when his requirements are attended to by an army of supporting staff ?
All that the Minister has to do is to delegate, assigned, and wait for the return of the works that have been instructed to be accomplished; and on their return the materials are then digested, reviewed, corrected, and regurgitated as his own.
The army of supporting staff will prepare all answers from their research works, summarised reports into key notes; speeches that are researched and prepared for redraft by the Minister; ideas that are brainstormed by the supporting scholar civil servants and offered for the consideration of the Minister, who will adopt them as his own brilliant speech.
Now that PM GCT is about to retire, WHY is there a need NOW for there to be SIX Ministers WITHOUT Portfolio to tbe attached to the PM's Office ? -
are ministers getting a wage revamp? lead by example. give us a demo 1st please.
-
I can't help but to agree wholeheartedly with the above.Originally posted by Atobe:Does a President's Scholar (or any returning Scholar) need to compete for any job in Government ?
They are led to any Government Job of their own choosing (within reason), unless their training and aptitude is seen to be needed elsewhere that the Government feel is more suitable for both their mutual benefit.
The Scholar will only need to compete with his own shadow, and until there is any major disaster in his hands that he is incapable of dealing with, his career is almost assured.
Compared to a 'scholar material' that enters the Private Sector, the President's Scholar position in Government is a 'walk-in-the-park'.
Many local corporations will give a 'scholar material' candidate a very short learning period, and is expected to perform within THREE MONTHS with a reasonable BOTTOM LINE.
Ever heard of CITIBANK's high pressure environment at the Top ?
Ever heard of how scholarship officers are being promoted?
Well according to a former university classmate whom had done his NS in SPF, he had literally awed me stun with stories of how his seniors had told him about how this particular breed gets their promotion - and which is in a series of double jumps.
That means while an average Joe out from uni goes in as Inspector (1) after the officer course, the next promotion that Joe will rise to will be Inspector (2).
First class and Second Upper Honours grads, due to their 'higher' and more 'superior' know-how in theories, get in immediately as ASP.
And finally, the supreme champion above all on Mother Earth - The Scholars - I heard that their promo jumps from Inspector to ASP, and the next one would be DSP and yada yada....
Of course, I do not deny the hardship, the efforts and the dedication that each and everyone of the officers - regardless of Scholars or Non-Scholars - would be putting into their work.
But just how far away will the above Elitism, conflict with the existing Meritocracy structure in our culture?
And even more importantly -
What does it's comfortable existence within a merit based society imply?
Damn.
I feel so confused now.
Maybe I'll should go and get myself an appointment with a Scholarship holder Counseller to analyze my problem for me.
They are the truly smarter ones after all now ain't they? -
Double post.
-
Finding the right balance of payments
A tripartite taskforce on wage reform has come up with comprehensive guidelines for flexible wages. Bosses are expected to get the ball rolling. But just how and what are the pitfalls?
EUGENE LOW, SUE-ANN CHIA and REBECCA LEE report, The Straits Times, 07 Feb 2004
THE toilet may be the last place where you want to hear about wage reform, but that doesn't deter Mr Han Hun Juan, director of human resources at Raffles The Plaza and Swissotel The Stamford.
With almost evangelical zeal, he takes every opportunity to persuade his colleagues of the merits of flexible wages.
'There were many dialogues - we talked about the issue everywhere, along corridors and even in the toilets,' he said.
'It takes time to educate and explain the changes to workers.'
The company rationalised staff allowances last month. A portion - about 25 per cent - was converted to basic salary, while the rest was made variable and dependent on performance. Around 400 of its 1,600 staff were affected.
All the effort to speak to employees was necessary because wage reform 'can be quite difficult to understand', said Mr Han.
Even minor changes that result in less take-home pay for employees will always meet with resistance.
Revamping salary structures to make them more variable is a complex process and companies can end up demoralising their employees if they push through changes in an insensitive manner.
So while many companies understand fully the advantages of a more flexible wage system - that they can cut the wage bill and save jobs in a downturn - they are not raring to make the changes just yet, because they know it will be tough to get workers to accept them.
They are also reluctant to be the first to change, for fear that workers will leave companies with flexible wage systems.
Enter the Swat (reStructuring Wages Action Team) team, a group of human resource experts and officers from the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the employers federation. It is working with the 'first wave' of 70 to 100 companies to help them implement more flexible wage systems.
Ms Joyce Kok, who is head of industrial relations at United Workers of Electronic and Electrical Industries and a member of the Swat team, said: 'Companies are waiting for each other to start, worried that they will be the first few.'
To tackle this issue, the taskforce is pushing for wage reform on a sector-by-sector basis. Its four sectoral groups - covering electronics, chemicals, land transport and hotels - have come up with sector-specific details on wage reforms. More groups dealing with other sectors are expected to be set up as well.
Beyond the fear of being the first, the issue of managing worker morale is probably the main reason for the delay in wage reform so far.
In recent years, the workforce has suffered blow after blow: wage cuts and retrenchments, and rising unemployment and successive Central Provident Fund cuts.
Fresh from the latest CPF cut in October, workers are unlikely to be optimistic about further changes that affect their pay package.
Like any restructuring exercise, the devil is in the details and it will take hours of painstaking work and persuasion to get workers to accept wage reform.
Just what does the taskforce recommend?
( To be Continued below ) -
THE IDEAL WAGE PACKET
FOR one, it wants to see employers build up the monthly variable component (MVC) of their workers' wages. Many companies already have an annual variable component (AVC), but as the recent spate of crises have shown, few companies can wait till the end of the year to trim costs. So the idea is for the MVC to be trimmed when business conditions get bad - and restored quickly when things improve.
If the taskforce has its way, this is what the average wage packet for rank-and-file employees will look like: 70 per cent in basic pay, 20 per cent in AVC, and the remaining 10 per cent in MVC.
The taskforce recommends that companies build up the MVC partly from future wage increases and partly from basic wages. It also urges companies to convert wage allowances that 'no longer serve any purpose' to the MVC.
It sounds straightforward enough on paper, and there are clear gains from the change.
However, bosses will have to deal with the perception that introducing the MVC into the wage structure is just a way to initiate pay cuts, said Mrs Mildred Tan, managing director of Ernst & Young Associates.
'This perception brings about associated fears and anxiety, leading to employee dissatisfaction and low morale,' she told Insight.
Ms Mary Chua, a consultant at Watson Wyatt Singapore, agreed.
'A key challenge will be engaging employees and soliciting their understanding and acceptance of a flexible wage system,' she said.
'Nobody likes uncertainty. A flexible wage system introduces more pay-at-risk and employees will find this change unsettling.'
One common perception which should be corrected is that basic wages will be cut in order to build up the MVC, said Mr Peter Lee, managing consultant of Remuneration Data Specialists.
'Their basic pay will not be cut, although it may now increase by less than before - for example, by 2 to 3 per cent instead of by 5 to 6 per cent,' he pointed out. The rest of the increment can go towards building up the MVC.
More important, employees need to be convinced that wage flexibility works both ways - while salaries may be cut in lean times, wages should rise when the company does well.
NTUC chief Lim Boon Heng, a staunch believer in flexible wages who constantly urges employers to reform salaries, said this was one area where bosses should play fair.
'Where there is the possibility of a downside, there must also be the possibility of an upside for the employees to feel that it is fair.'
NEC Semiconductors, for one, intends to spell out the criteria. It introduced the MVC three years ago. This now forms 6.5 per cent of total wages, and will go up to 10 per cent.
The company intends to set trigger points for when to cut and restore the MVC, said its director, Mr Eric Wong.
It is also setting clearer key performance indicators to determine variable bonus payments, and will seek help from unions and wage consultants.
One clear, explicit way to set such criteria is by linking variable pay to profit targets. When Singapore Airlines cut wages last year, for example, it promised that if it made $500 million in the current financial year ending next month, employees will get back a lump sum payment worth all foregone wages.
If profit is $600 million, the payback will be 115 per cent. The payback is 75 per cent if the profit is $400 million.
It may be possible to spell out such quantitative targets for company performance. But it is also individual performance that will determine how much an employee takes home in a variable pay system.
To win trust, companies need a transparent and fair performance management system.
'Performance criteria and assessment need to be clearly articulated and defensible,' said Ms Chua.
'Employees need to be assured that when they turn in good performance, they can expect to receive meaningful rewards.'
Philips Electronics Singapore has already redefined its performance measures.
'In the past, bonuses were based on a hotchpotch of things such as how the company performed, economic data and competitive data,' said Mrs Elizabeth Martin-Chua, executive director of country management and vice-president of human resources.
'This couldn't go on. There was a need to base the bonuses on performance - both the company's and the individual's. We have set clearer targets that will translate into bonuses.'
Some of its key performance indicators include economic profit (net profit after tax and deduction of capital financing cost), cash flow and customer satisfaction.
While Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong is right in saying that setting up a performance appraisal system isn't exactly 'rocket science', it is also true that developing a robust appraisal system is not easy.
As Singapore Management University associate professor of economics Hoon Hian Teck notes, performance criteria may be hard to determine for some types of jobs.
'It may be easy in some businesses like the manufacture of umbrellas, for example, but much more difficult and hence costlier to do in, say, a consultancy business.'
However, managing worker morale is not simply a matter of having a good appraisal system in place. Nor is it only about providing verbal assurances to workers. -
NEED FOR SAFEGUARDS
WITH their wages at stake, employees want meaningful measures that will safeguard their interests.
For example, will the MVC become an instrument of first resort, since it's so easy to trim, rather than one of last resort? What recourse do workers have if companies are hasty in cutting it but tardy in restoring it? What assurance do they have that other business costs will be trimmed first, before wages are snipped?
And the most vital question of all: Since the flexible wage system is being sold to workers as a way to save jobs, who will monitor companies to make sure they keep their word? That, having cut wages, reduced CPF and introduced monthly variable pay, they don't continue to retrench workers even in the face of rising profits?
No compulsion is possible or necessary. But workers must feel they can trust their employers to do the right thing.
As it is, Singapore employers are fortunate that unions here are fully behind wage reform. Far from blocking it, the labour movement is actually at the forefront of change.
Unionists said another big concern for workers was whether pay increases can keep up with rising costs of living, especially with basic pay packets increasing by less under a flexible wage system.
Mr Fauzi Abdullah, a 40-year-old engineer, said: 'Workers can understand how flexible wages can help save their jobs but they need to know that basic items such as utilities, transportation and education will continue to be affordable.'
This is one area that is beyond the effort of the Swat team.
It requires commitment from the Government to provide a macroeconomic environment - and an inflation rate - that is consistent with lower assured pay increases.
As Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said, the 'stars are aligned' for employers to act on wage reform. The ball is in their court.
But given that it is workers who will be at the receiving end if wage reform is not done properly, employers may have to volley the ball to workers gently, and make sure they don't hit it out of court. -
Have you not heard of 'window dressing' to achieve 'profitability' ?
Selling off assets to reinvest isn't "window dressing". If by wat u say, then buying over assets should be considered as a "loss" too ? Selling off assets only increases the companies' liquid money, but it will not be considered as a profit unless they sell it off at a higher price then they buy it in.
This practise is common in all countries, whether in Singapore or EU countries, UK, USA, or Japan, Australia, and any other countries with Public Accounting System.
Some corporations experiencing losses from their core business, will attempt to cover up these losses with more activities in non-related business - such as selling off some assets to improve their cash positions and reflect 'PROFITABILITY'.
The successor can only continue with the show, and the last man at the helm left with no more assets to dispose off, will have to think smart and pray that the cash that have been realised with all the past Assets Sales would have been put to better use - so as to achieve REAL PROFITABILITY.
DO u think in auditing, there is a loophole whereby when u buy in assets, it is not a loss while selling off assets is a profit ? In tat case if I am the CEO of a company, I will sell off all my companies asset (selling thus PROFIT) using the name of my subsidiary companies (buying is not loss), which transfer the asset back to the main company (Since I control the companies I can do tat). Than I can earn any amount of money, maybe a few hundred trillion of dollars, depending on how often I transfer the name of the assets.
If tat asset doesn't help them or earn them any cash, I don't think there is a problem selling them off to reinvest in other areas. Such is the problem of economics, u cannot expect all your investment to perform as expected. It is the same for politics, u cannot expect all your policies to work.Miracles are NOT IMPOSSIBLE, as miracles do happen in the Business World.
Other than these few examples u had given, the rest of the CEOs in the world r at least a graduate. From the previous reply from sk, he mentioned about a person working from a cleaner to CEO of Macdonald. How many cleaners r there in Macdonald ? How many of them make it into being a CEO ? For every CEO with humble beginning, there is at least a million other people with the same humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a miracle ?
It takes alot of hardwork and lots of LUCK too.
It takes commitment and undying perseverance.
It also takes alot of intelligence.
It requires a good sense of BUSINESS ACUMEN - a sixth sense to smell, see, feel and get excited with an OPPORTUNITY that no one is able to see.
This is what makes the Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia).
They all started with NOTHING, and as NOBODY.
People with qualities tat excel in work will excel in school work too. People who excel in school work displays the following traits.
They have an attitude to work hard to display excellent result, which also shows their commitment and undying perseverance
They have the basic intelligence to understand complicated theories
they understand competition and can work and excel in such environments.
Wat other better ways to guage a person's performance other than school work ? If u need to develop people at an early age for future crucial needs, wat other guage do u have ?
Look at all the politicians out there in this world, which one of them aren't remarkable in their studies ? I guess the only names u can come out with is Arnold.
The policy of limiting the people in the university is an old policy. In the past, most other countries also limit the number of people into the university too. In the past very few people get a degree in almost every country too. Is tis something only singapore display ? In the past, is it a time where manufacturing is important or knowledge is important ?
To the credit of the Singapore Government, who had the decency to turn around - (and seemingly following the solutions proposed by SDP Dr CSJ's book written 10 years ago) - and are changing the education policy with a less emphasis on examination oriented achievements.
The Government is reviewing policies and giving schools the option of dropping the 'O' and 'A' Levels, and finding new creative ways to TRULY EDUCATE our Future Generation of Potential Leaders.
The Government has now decided to turn around from their skewed policy of having a limited quota of graduands from our only TWO Universities in Singapore; and have suddenly decided to place emphasis on KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE.
The past skewed policy of limited university graduates have been followed for the last 40 years (from the 1950's), even when there have been protests in the manner that the Government were limiting entries into local universities - especially with the imposing of SUITABILITY CERTIFICATES (politically motivated - after strong University Student's Union activities in Politics) before one is allowed to enter universities.
The government had always feared the nightmare of larger pool of university graduates with trained critical mind that the economy cannot absorb.
This fear rides parallel with the LKY's philosophy of 'Dull the Mind by Filling the Stomach'.
How can one 'Dull an Educated and Critically Trained MInd, when the Stomach has Difficulty in being Filled' ?
U seems eager to complain about old policies made in the past using the new found knowledge u have now. Is tat fair ? Does everyone know wat will happened in future ? During the times when the policy is implemented, it is illogical for them to do it ?
How does large companies treat their own returning scholars ? They also give it an acclerated route too. True, if they don't perform in 3 months, they get condemn. However if they perform well, they get to climb much faster and higher than other normal workers.
Does a President's Scholar (or any returning Scholar) need to compete for any job in Government ?
They are led to any Government Job of their own choosing (within reason), unless their training and aptitude is seen to be needed elsewhere that the Government feel is more suitable for both their mutual benefit.
The Scholar will only need to compete with his own shadow, and until there is any major disaster in his hands that he is incapable of dealing with, his career is almost assured.
Compared to a 'scholar material' that enters the Private Sector, the President's Scholar position in Government is a 'walk-in-the-park'.
Many local corporations will give a 'scholar material' candidate a very short learning period, and is expected to perform within THREE MONTHS with a reasonable BOTTOM LINE.
Ever heard of CITIBANK's high pressure environment at the Top ?
The Gov scholars may get an assured position caring little about performance. But then if they don't perform, will they be able to get into the ranks of ministers ? U may heard of Gov scholars getting the accelerated route into the ranks of at least a colonel early. However it gets much harder than tis after tat. They have to be made into Brigadier general, working under the minister of defense then gradually work up to become a minister. (giving an example if the scholars choose defence) Do u think one with no talent nor performance can made it so far ? Getting a quick route to a colonel is only the beginning. Trying to work up after tat is difficult. They will faced better competitors and had to really show performance in order to be promoted.
Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?You seem to be fixated with the term 'C.O.E' - which seems to hang over from our last cross-exchange some months ago in 2003.
Is just a small spelling error and u made a paragraph about it ? Facinating...
The term 'C.O.E.' is supposed to be Certificate Of Entitlement for cars.
The correct term that you should be using is 'C.E.O.' - which actually means CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.Is the selection process of SCHOLARS a fair process ?
So in other words u feel tat people who r richer can study better ?
On the surface, it is supposed to be 'fair' and is based on the exam results of the candidates vying for the scholarships.
Unfortunately, the Rich Kid will have better SUPPORTING HELP outside school hours, and also a better ENVIRONMENT that give them a headstart to excel.
It will be interesting to do a study to determine the background of all the scholarship receipients - from the date that the various scholarships were implemented.
Frankly, I always thought studying well is remotely associated with the weath of the family.Is it so impressive and productive of a Minister, when his requirements are attended to by an army of supporting staff ?
Then does all the others CEOs in the private companies deserve the pay they r getting ? COORDINATING and MAKING DECISIONS r some of the most important and hardest skill for human to acquire. These class of people r the one tat made the most money, thus became the real talents in the world. Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now ? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far ?
All that the Minister has to do is to delegate, assigned, and wait for the return of the works that have been instructed to be accomplished; and on their return the materials are then digested, reviewed, corrected, and regurgitated as his own.
The army of supporting staff will prepare all answers from their research works, summarised reports into key notes; speeches that are researched and prepared for redraft by the Minister; ideas that are brainstormed by the supporting scholar civil servants and offered for the consideration of the Minister, who will adopt them as his own brilliant speech. -
Have you not heard of 'window dressing' to achieve 'profitability' ?
Selling off assets to reinvest isn't "window dressing". If by wat u say, then buying over assets should be considered as a "loss" too ? Selling off assets only increases the companies' liquid money, but it will not be considered as a profit unless they sell it off at a higher price then they buy it in.
This practise is common in all countries, whether in Singapore or EU countries, UK, USA, or Japan, Australia, and any other countries with Public Accounting System.
Some corporations experiencing losses from their core business, will attempt to cover up these losses with more activities in non-related business - such as selling off some assets to improve their cash positions and reflect 'PROFITABILITY'.
The successor can only continue with the show, and the last man at the helm left with no more assets to dispose off, will have to think smart and pray that the cash that have been realised with all the past Assets Sales would have been put to better use - so as to achieve REAL PROFITABILITY.
DO u think in auditing, there is a loophole whereby when u buy in assets, it is not a loss while selling off assets is a profit ? In tat case if I am the CEO of a company, I will sell off all my companies asset (selling thus PROFIT) using the name of my subsidiary companies (buying is not loss), which transfer the asset back to the main company (Since I control the companies I can do tat). Than I can earn any amount of money, maybe a few hundred trillion of dollars, depending on how often I transfer the name of the assets.
If tat asset doesn't help them or earn them any cash, I don't think there is a problem selling them off to reinvest in other areas. Such is the problem of economics, u cannot expect all your investment to perform as expected. It is the same for politics, u cannot expect all your policies to work.Miracles are NOT IMPOSSIBLE, as miracles do happen in the Business World.
Other than these few examples u had given, the rest of the CEOs in the world r at least a graduate. From the previous reply from sk, he mentioned about a person working from a cleaner to CEO of Macdonald. How many cleaners r there in Macdonald ? How many of them make it into being a CEO ? For every CEO with humble beginning, there is at least a million other people with the same humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a miracle ?
It takes alot of hardwork and lots of LUCK too.
It takes commitment and undying perseverance.
It also takes alot of intelligence.
It requires a good sense of BUSINESS ACUMEN - a sixth sense to smell, see, feel and get excited with an OPPORTUNITY that no one is able to see.
This is what makes the Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia).
They all started with NOTHING, and as NOBODY.
People with qualities tat excel in work will excel in school work too. People who excel in school work displays the following traits.
They have an attitude to work hard to display excellent result, which also shows their commitment and undying perseverance
They have the basic intelligence to understand complicated theories
they understand competition and can work and excel in such environments.
Wat other better ways to guage a person's performance other than school work ? If u need to develop people at an early age for future crucial needs, wat other guage do u have ?
Look at all the politicians out there in this world, which one of them aren't remarkable in their studies ? I guess the only names u can come out with is Arnold.
The policy of limiting the people in the university is an old policy. In the past, most other countries also limit the number of people into the university too. In the past very few people get a degree in almost every country too. Is tis something only singapore display ? In the past, is it a time where manufacturing is important or knowledge is important ?
To the credit of the Singapore Government, who had the decency to turn around - (and seemingly following the solutions proposed by SDP Dr CSJ's book written 10 years ago) - and are changing the education policy with a less emphasis on examination oriented achievements.
The Government is reviewing policies and giving schools the option of dropping the 'O' and 'A' Levels, and finding new creative ways to TRULY EDUCATE our Future Generation of Potential Leaders.
The Government has now decided to turn around from their skewed policy of having a limited quota of graduands from our only TWO Universities in Singapore; and have suddenly decided to place emphasis on KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE.
The past skewed policy of limited university graduates have been followed for the last 40 years (from the 1950's), even when there have been protests in the manner that the Government were limiting entries into local universities - especially with the imposing of SUITABILITY CERTIFICATES (politically motivated - after strong University Student's Union activities in Politics) before one is allowed to enter universities.
The government had always feared the nightmare of larger pool of university graduates with trained critical mind that the economy cannot absorb.
This fear rides parallel with the LKY's philosophy of 'Dull the Mind by Filling the Stomach'.
How can one 'Dull an Educated and Critically Trained MInd, when the Stomach has Difficulty in being Filled' ?
U seems eager to complain about old policies made in the past using the new found knowledge u have now. Is tat fair ? Does everyone know wat will happened in future ? During the times when the policy is implemented, it is illogical for them to do it ? -
How does large companies treat their own returning scholars ? They also give it an acclerated route too. True, if they don't perform in 3 months, they get condemn. However if they perform well, they get to climb much faster and higher than other normal workers.
Does a President's Scholar (or any returning Scholar) need to compete for any job in Government ?
They are led to any Government Job of their own choosing (within reason), unless their training and aptitude is seen to be needed elsewhere that the Government feel is more suitable for both their mutual benefit.
The Scholar will only need to compete with his own shadow, and until there is any major disaster in his hands that he is incapable of dealing with, his career is almost assured.
Compared to a 'scholar material' that enters the Private Sector, the President's Scholar position in Government is a 'walk-in-the-park'.
Many local corporations will give a 'scholar material' candidate a very short learning period, and is expected to perform within THREE MONTHS with a reasonable BOTTOM LINE.
Ever heard of CITIBANK's high pressure environment at the Top ?
The Gov scholars may get an assured position caring little about performance. But then if they don't perform, will they be able to get into the ranks of ministers ? U may heard of Gov scholars getting the accelerated route into the ranks of at least a colonel early. However it gets much harder than tis after tat. They have to be made into Brigadier general, working under the minister of defense then gradually work up to become a minister. (giving an example if the scholars choose defence) Do u think one with no talent nor performance can made it so far ? Getting a quick route to a colonel is only the beginning. Trying to work up after tat is difficult. They will faced better competitors and had to really show performance in order to be promoted.
Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?You seem to be fixated with the term 'C.O.E' - which seems to hang over from our last cross-exchange some months ago in 2003.
Is just a small spelling error and u made a paragraph about it ? Facinating...
The term 'C.O.E.' is supposed to be Certificate Of Entitlement for cars.
The correct term that you should be using is 'C.E.O.' - which actually means CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.Is the selection process of SCHOLARS a fair process ?
So in other words u feel tat people who r richer can study better ?
On the surface, it is supposed to be 'fair' and is based on the exam results of the candidates vying for the scholarships.
Unfortunately, the Rich Kid will have better SUPPORTING HELP outside school hours, and also a better ENVIRONMENT that give them a headstart to excel.
It will be interesting to do a study to determine the background of all the scholarship receipients - from the date that the various scholarships were implemented.
Frankly, I always thought studying well is remotely associated with the weath of the family.Is it so impressive and productive of a Minister, when his requirements are attended to by an army of supporting staff ?
Then does all the others CEOs in the private companies deserve the pay they r getting ? COORDINATING and MAKING DECISIONS r some of the most important and hardest skill for human to acquire. These class of people r the one tat made the most money, thus became the real talents in the world. Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now ? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far ?
All that the Minister has to do is to delegate, assigned, and wait for the return of the works that have been instructed to be accomplished; and on their return the materials are then digested, reviewed, corrected, and regurgitated as his own.
The army of supporting staff will prepare all answers from their research works, summarised reports into key notes; speeches that are researched and prepared for redraft by the Minister; ideas that are brainstormed by the supporting scholar civil servants and offered for the consideration of the Minister, who will adopt them as his own brilliant speech. -
Before we get into another round of debate, perhaps you may wish to brush up some knowledge about accounting practises, and strategies 'normally' employed by Management to 'pretty up' their bad performace so as to continue to gain confidence from the Board of Directors or Shareholders (either in Private or Public corporations).Originally posted by stupidissmart:Selling off assets to reinvest isn't "window dressing". If by wat u say, then buying over assets should be considered as a "loss" too ? Selling off assets only increases the companies' liquid money, but it will not be considered as a profit unless they sell it off at a higher price then they buy it in.
DO u think in auditing, there is a loophole whereby when u buy in assets, it is not a loss while selling off assets is a profit ? In tat case if I am the CEO of a company, I will sell off all my companies asset (selling thus PROFIT) using the name of my subsidiary companies (buying is not loss), which transfer the asset back to the main company (Since I control the companies I can do tat). Than I can earn any amount of money, maybe a few hundred trillion of dollars, depending on how often I transfer the name of the assets.
If tat asset doesn't help them or earn them any cash, I don't think there is a problem selling them off to reinvest in other areas. Such is the problem of economics, u cannot expect all your investment to perform as expected. It is the same for politics, u cannot expect all your policies to work.
As a start, try this website to understand how an investment company follow similar practices, or 'malpractices' :-
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/personal_finance/6836401.htmcontinuing post by stupidissmart:
Do you have a problem of understanding here, or is your intention not correctly conveyed across in print ?
Other than these few examples u had given, the rest of the CEOs in the world r at least a graduate. From the previous reply from sk, he mentioned about a person working from a cleaner to CEO of Macdonald. How many cleaners r there in Macdonald ? How many of them make it into being a CEO ? For every CEO with humble beginning, there is at least a million other people with the same humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a miracle ?
Are you having a 'miracle' problem by asking about the fact that 'there is at least a million other people with the same humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a miracle ?'
I see it as being quite normal that 'at least a million other people with the same HUMBLE beginning but CANNOT excel as much - THIS IS NOT A MIRACLE.
Do you consider this a miracle ?
Do you need me to list more examples of non-graduates who make it to become C.E.O's of successful companies ?
I would think that it is a 'MIRACLE' for non-graduates to become successful C.E.O's of successful companies.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Ecellent academic results from 'hard work' that shows 'commitment and undying perseverance' does not necessarily help a Scholar to be a successful person in any other fields.
People with qualities tat excel in work will excel in school work too. People who excel in school work displays the following traits.
They have an attitude to work hard to display excellent result, which also shows their commitment and undying perseverance.
They have the basic intelligence to understand complicated theories
they understand competition and can work and excel in such environments.
Their success in academia may confirm a certain degree of intelligence or capacity to learn, store and retrieve information, but not necessarily make every excellent Academic understand every complicated theories.
Neither does it take a person with excellent academic results to appreciate, understand, and cope with competition, and responding to excel over competition.
Competition is a fact of Life; so is 'Hard Work', and all the related attributes of 'commitment and undying perseverance' that anyone with the URGE TO SURVIVE must have to get out of one's economic status - whatever strata one may find oneself to be at.
The efforts of a 'Scholar' is no different from that of a 'non-scholar'.
The difference is only in the Size of Financial Value in the achievements or the failures that can be attributed to the Scholar, or to the non-scholar.
The Scholar can make multi-million dollar blunders - as in decisions to invest in a Hard Disk Drive business when it is a sunset industry - and the money is not necessarily his or HER own.continuing post by stupidissmart:
By your standard, late starters like Albert Einstein would not have a chance in Life.
Wat other better ways to guage a person's performance other than school work ? If u need to develop people at an early age for future crucial needs, wat other guage do u have ?
Bill Gates would have been shown the door, and Steve Jobs would not even get to bite his Apple.
Little wonder that Sim Wong Hoo, a Polytechnic qualified technician, could not get any support from DBS Bank or EDB, and had to start his business in the USA.
Goi Seng Hoi was also a technician, servicing machines before he was offered the opportunity of a Life time to buy over the business that bought the machines he had designed, built, and maintained.
Academic results is only a small window to a person's ability.
It is the ATTITUDE and APTITUDE of a person - towards ALL THINGS - that makes a person successful in meeting all the CHALLENGES FACED IN LIFE.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Will you consider Bush and Blair remarkable in their studies ?
Look at all the politicians out there in this world, which one of them aren't remarkable in their studies ? I guess the only names u can come out with is Arnold.
How about Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin ?
Suharto ? Megawati ? Mrs Aquino ? Thaksin ?
They are not small time politicians, but political leaders of their respective countries. Were they remarkable in their studies ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
This 'Old Policy' of limiting the number of people into the Singapore University had been stubbornly followed by the Government for too long, and has affected too many Singaporeans to spend life savings to send their children to be educated in overseas Universities.
The policy of limiting the people in the university is an old policy. In the past, most other countries also limit the number of people into the university too. In the past very few people get a degree in almost every country too. Is tis something only singapore display ? In the past, is it a time where manufacturing is important or knowledge is important ?
The 'Old Policy' was POLITICALLY and ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED to achieve the undeclared agenda of the Government, but made quite obvious in their public actions - such as the implementation of the Suitability Certificate, the limited quota for certain courses, the manipulation of cut-off points for certain popular courses to redirect interests into areas that meet manpower demand from the Economy.
What is the purpose with 'Knowledge' but to improve one's ability to handle the challenges in Life ? Life will encompass all areas including economics that cover commerce, and industry.
We are back into one full circle, having returned to the economic malaise that we faced during independence - CREATING JOBS FOR SINGAPOREANS.
Yet, this time around, the Government seems to be awakened that with a LARGER NUMBER of MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE, Singapore stand a better chance to RUN the LONGER TERM RACE.
We now have more Universities, but Polytechnic Students upon graduation, remain blocked in further studies in local universities - even when ESTABLISHED Overseas Universities accept the qualification of our Polytechnic GRADUATES. -
continuing post by stupidissmart:
It is by knowing the PAST WEAKNESS that led to PRESENT FAILURES, then we can PREPARE for the FUTURE.
U seems eager to complain about old policies made in the past using the new found knowledge u have now. Is tat fair ? Does everyone know wat will happened in future ? During the times when the policy is implemented, it is illogical for them to do it ?
Is it not logical to understand the historical problems, when we are regularly visited by economic problems caused by our INHERENT STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS ?continuing post by stupidissmart:
In the Private Sector, except for Family Owned business in Singapore, the 'sky is the limit' for any successful Scholar.
How does large companies treat their own returning scholars ? They also give it an acclerated route too. True, if they don't perform in 3 months, they get condemn. However if they perform well, they get to climb much faster and higher than other normal workers.
The Gov scholars may get an assured position caring little about performance. But then if they don't perform, will they be able to get into the ranks of ministers? U may heard of Gov scholars getting the accelerated route into the ranks of at least a colonel early. However it gets much harder than tis after tat. They have to be made into Brigadier general, working under the minister of defense then gradually work up to become a minister. (giving an example if the scholars choose defence) Do u think one with no talent nor performance can made it so far ? Getting a quick route to a colonel is only the beginning. Trying to work up after tat is difficult. They will faced better competitors and had to really show performance in order to be promoted.
In Singapore Politics, do you think any Scholar overshadow DPM LHL to be the NEXT PM, or replace SM LKY to be the Chairman of the GIC, or even replace Mdm Ho Ching at the lesser Temasek ?
Do you think it is ODD that all the SAF Lt Generals - on their retirement - do not make it into the Cabinet, and that the most senior position that they can get is to be an Ambassador ?
In Singapore, it seems that only ONE STAR BGs and Rear Admirals can make it into the Cabinet, the 2 and 3 Stars are only good to be in senior positions in GLCs.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Is this another one of your trademark confused thoughts being displayed, which I will try to unravel.
Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?
Up till today, those persons who are made Ministers are from two categories.
First, those who are 'called-up' from the Private Sector - such as Dr Tony Tan, Dr Richard Hu, late Mr Ong Teng Cheong, Abdullah Tarmugi, Abbas Abu Amin, Inderjit Singh, and others.
Second, those who are recruited from Academia - Prof Jayakumar, Prof Ho Peng Kee, Dr Ker Sin Tze, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and others.
These personalities are established in their own distinguished careers BEFORE entry into politics - and already enjoying distinguished salaries.
The amount that they currently 'earn' as Members of Parliament is only an allowance to run their Constituency, and cannot be treated as Salary.
The salaries paid to Ministers' cannot be compared to those paid to CEOs from the Profits made by Private ENTERPRISE.
The amount that the Ministers 'earn' is largely increased by Legislations to prevent them from falling into the clutch of corruption - as was obliquely mentioned by SM LKY.
As had happened, in the past and also recently, good buinessmen does not necessarily make good Ministers; and conversely, good Ministers do not necessarily make good businessmen - especially without the political clout that they are accustom to.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Is just a small spelling error and u made a paragraph about it ? Facinating... [/quote]
[quote]You seem to be fixated with the term 'C.O.E' - which seems to hang over from our last cross-exchange some months ago in 2003.
The term 'C.O.E.' is supposed to be Certificate Of Entitlement for cars.
The correct term that you should be using is 'C.E.O.' - which actually means CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
SDP Chief's excuse of 'spelling' or 'typo' error was not well received by many, can you accept his given 'excuse' ?
I was 'fascinated' by your repeated use of C.O.E in two different threads, and thought of having some fun, glad to know that you find it 'Facinating....'continuing post by stupidissmart:
If you care to read my statements made you will note that your interpretation is completely skewed.
So in other words u feel tat people who r richer can study better ?
Frankly, I always thought studying well is [b]remotely associated with the weath of the family. [/b]
Did my statement hint that 'people who r richer can study better' ?
The statement made was that people who are rich, enjoy BETTER SUPPORT AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and has a BETTER ENVIRONMENT - which in SUM TOTAL provide the Rich Kid a HEAD START over the other less wealthy.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Looks like you have not acquired this management skill yet ?
Then does all the others CEOs in the private companies deserve the pay they r getting ? COORDINATING and MAKING DECISIONS r some of the most important and hardest skill for human to acquire.
Why do you think that the guys who have all the time to ENJOY LIFE are those in this Class, who only CO-ORDINATE and MAKE DECISION, while the lesser people just slog it out all their lives to make ends meet ?
I will agree with you that it is 'the most important and hardest skill for human to acquire' - as this skill CANNOT BE ACQUIRED in the normal process.
One can be trained but remain paralysed to make any decision.
You either have the cut for it, or you don't.
The C.E.O job is subject to review by the Board of Directors and Shareholders, he cannot pass any resolution to paralyse or restrict or hamper or remove the rights of the Board or the Shareholders.
Unfortunately, with the many scandals and huge financial losses, and repeated economic failures (which were blamed on external factors), the Ruling Party - that form the Government and appoint its own permanent 'C.E.O and Management Team' of Singapore Inc. - has passed too many resolutions that prevent the Singapore 'Board and Shareholders' from sacking them and allowing any New Team of 'Independent Alternative Consultants' (Opposition) to watch over them for the interest of the Singapore Shareholders.continuing post by stupidissmart:
Exactly - now you are getting somewhere.
These class of people r the one tat made the most money, thus became the real talents in the world.
It is those who have the TALENT, and with that certain kind of intelligence and alertness (or smartness) to capitalise on the 'slowness' (or stupidity) of others to do so, and to seize the opportunity to take COMMAND and CONTROL over others (including the competition) and become successful.
They certainly deserve to earn the money which THEY MAKE from the PROFITS of the MARKET PLACE.continuing post by stupidissmart:
NOW, at the Present Time - YES, they are supported by an Army of Staff, which NOW gives them the TIME to ENJOY LIFE, compared to their early days when they - ALONE, and WITHOUT the SUPPORTING ARMY - had to take a risk for their future.
Isn't "Bill Gates (Microsoft) and Steven Jobs (Apple), Sim Wong Hoo (Creative) and Goi Seng Hui (Tee Yih Jia)" just plainly "attended to by an army of supporting staff "now ? Without tis "army of supporting staff", can they get tat far ?
You are now skewing my last statements posted that were made in relation to these persons. If you remember, those statements in my previous post was made in response to your denial of MIRACLES.
It is no use to hurt the success stories of these personalities in your effort to demolish my position. -
Some corporations experiencing losses from their core business, will attempt to cover up these losses with more activities in non-related business - such as selling off some assets to improve their cash positions and reflect 'PROFITABILITY'.
Wat will most people think after reading this paragraph ? Literally speaking, u r trying to sugest tat the more assets they sell, the more the company show profitability. The successor with no assets to sell will be the one with the big probem at hand and may either sink or swim.
The successor can only continue with the show, and the last man at the helm left with no more assets to dispose off, will have to think smart and pray that the cash that have been realised with all the past Assets Sales would have been put to better use - so as to achieve REAL PROFITABILITY.
However from the website u have given me, window dressing is
The PROFIT made by the company remains the same. It is still how much they earned and increase their total assets within this period of time. Window dressing is they sell lackluster shares and buy in stellar performer. During tis time, the profit margin remains the same. Why they do it is just to give people a wrong impression tat they have made a good judgement and buy in shares tat had rise tremendously. However the numbers in the profit margin is still nevertheless true. The loss margin will still remains as losses.
So they will sometimes sell lackluster investments they have held for a while and buy recent stellar performers - just so their holdings on the day of record look good.
So with tat in mind, do u still think tat it is easy to reflect profitability ? If a minister is performing in a certain department, do u think tat it is easy to pull the wools over ones eyes ?
Other than these few examples u had given, the rest of the CEOs in the world r at least a graduate. From the previous reply from sk, he mentioned about a person working from a cleaner to CEO of Macdonald. How many cleaners r there in Macdonald ? How many of them make it into being a CEO ? For every CEO with humble beginning, there is at least a million other people with the same humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a miracle ?Do you have a problem of understanding here, or is your intention not correctly conveyed across in print ?
I think u r the one tat have the wrong understanding here, or is your intention not correctly conveyed across in print ?
Are you having a 'miracle' problem by asking about the fact that 'there is at least a million other people with the same humble beginning but cannot excel as much. Isn't tat considerd as a miracle ?'
I see it as being quite normal that 'at least a million other people with the same HUMBLE beginning but CANNOT excel as much - THIS IS NOT A MIRACLE.
Do you consider this a miracle ?
Do you need me to list more examples of non-graduates who make it to become C.E.O's of successful companies ?
I would think that it is a 'MIRACLE' for non-graduates to become successful C.E.O's of successful companies.
The paragraph u have quoted from me had said the point tat there r millions of cleaner in Macdonald but only 1 made it into CEO. Tat CEO had created the miracle. Then now u trying to act cute and said u r the one tat mentioned tis point while I just blabbered nonsense.
In the first posting,Why is Macdonald story so entertaining is because it is about creating miracles. And miracles r called miracles because it is near impossible for it to happen.
So I asked, how many such people can u find in this world compared wth the many others tat did not ? Qualification of the people is still important. Employing and observing performance of scholars is still relevant in today's world. If u don't, it will take a miracle for u to be as successful as tat macdonald CEO. I do not deny the existence of a few, I am questioning about the likelihood of it occurring to u and me. So wat is your point then ?Ecellent academic results from 'hard work' that shows 'commitment and undying perseverance' does not necessarily help a Scholar to be a successful person in any other fields.
BTW u had made a spelling error on the word excellent... should I write a para about it ? Hmm...
Their success in academia may confirm a certain degree of intelligence or capacity to learn, store and retrieve information, but not necessarily make every excellent Academic understand every complicated theories.
If u agree people tat r good in their studies have the following traits, then will u agree people tat failed utterly in studies, generally speaking will shows they have a poorer abilities of the above ?Neither does it take a person with excellent academic results to appreciate, understand, and cope with competition, and responding to excel over competition.
If u know a scholar well, u will know tat they compare their performance with other people regularly. Studying is actually a competition among the students. Who is performing better ? a person getting a B while the average grade of the exam is F of a person with B while the average grade of the exam is A* ? U sure in studies there is not competition at all ?The efforts of a 'Scholar' is no different from that of a 'non-scholar'.
But then the ability between a scholar and a non scholar is different. Or at least more the ability of a scholar is more easily detectable. If someone has to make multi million decisions, who will u choose to make it ? Scholars or non scholars ?
The difference is only in the Size of Financial Value in the achievements or the failures that can be attributed to the Scholar, or to the non-scholar.
The Scholar can make multi-million dollar blunders - as in decisions to invest in a Hard Disk Drive business when it is a sunset industry - and the money is not necessarily his or HER own.By your standard, late starters like Albert Einstein would not have a chance in Life.
Sure it is. But if u r a company recruiting new people, how do u know who has the ATTITUDE and APTITUDE required ? Though studies may not be an effective guage, there is no other guage we can rely on. Telling me all these stories above is pointless. My question is if A and B, both with no working experiences are seeking a job, how will u chose who is more capable ? From wat I know, most people will choose qualification. Wat will u choose ?
Bill Gates would have been shown the door, and Steve Jobs would not even get to bite his Apple.
Little wonder that Sim Wong Hoo, a Polytechnic qualified technician, could not get any support from DBS Bank or EDB, and had to start his business in the USA.
Goi Seng Hoi was also a technician, servicing machines before he was offered the opportunity of a Life time to buy over the business that bought the machines he had designed, built, and maintained.
Academic results is only a small window to a person's ability.
It is the ATTITUDE and APTITUDE of a person - towards ALL THINGS - that makes a person successful in meeting all the CHALLENGES FACED IN LIFE.Will you consider Bush and Blair remarkable in their studies ?
From wat I knew, Blair is a lawyer. Bush is a Master of Business Administration from Harvard Business School in 1975. Thanksin has a doctorate in his hand too.
How about Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin ?
Suharto ? Megawati ? Mrs Aquino ? Thaksin ?
They are not small time politicians, but political leaders of their respective countries. Were they remarkable in their studies ?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html # Bush
http://www.britannia.com/bios/blair.html # Blair
http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/t/thaksin-shinawatra.html #Thaksin
Of course there were politician tat were poorly educated. They rise from their ranks because they r great soldiers. Saddam Hussein, Suharto and Mao Te Tong r examples. R they good politicians ?
Holding the old policy for too longÂ… is it true ? Even if it is, is it easy to pull out of an existing policy at the precise moment ?
This 'Old Policy' of limiting the number of people into the Singapore University had been stubbornly followed by the Government for too long, and has affected too many Singaporeans to spend life savings to send their children to be educated in overseas Universities.
The 'Old Policy' was POLITICALLY and ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED to achieve the undeclared agenda of the Government, but made quite obvious in their public actions - such as the implementation of the Suitability Certificate, the limited quota for certain courses, the manipulation of cut-off points for certain popular courses to redirect interests into areas that meet manpower demand from the Economy.
What is the purpose with 'Knowledge' but to improve one's ability to handle the challenges in Life ? Life will encompass all areas including economics that cover commerce, and industry.
We are back into one full circle, having returned to the economic malaise that we faced during independence - CREATING JOBS FOR SINGAPOREANS.
Yet, this time around, the Government seems to be awakened that with a LARGER NUMBER of MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE, Singapore stand a better chance to RUN the LONGER TERM RACE.
We now have more Universities, but Polytechnic Students upon graduation, remain blocked in further studies in local universities - even when ESTABLISHED Overseas Universities accept the qualification of our Polytechnic GRADUATES.
Note we too have to improve on the quality of our 2 UÂ’s in order they be recognized as reputable University. How do people guage whether is a university good or not ? One criteria, is the number of students being selected from the total number of people applying for it. Tis is important as it gauges the standard of the students in the university. The 2 Singapore University always has a bad score for tis item because there r TOO LITTLE people here. The 2 Universities can churn out thousands of students a year, which probably make up 10-20% of all population born tat year. The ratio is already 20%, which is too high. It is the school policy to selectively pick people so tat they can become world class university. If u fail to get a place, it just means u arenÂ’t good enough for tis university. The university do chooses graduate from polytechnics too. However u must be good enough to be selected. In my knowledge, when poly graduates r going into NTU engineering, they r already sinking heavily as they canÂ’t cope with their studies there.
Reputable university ? I want to know if they can get into FAMOUS university since the reputation of the university in Singapore arenÂ’t tat bad either. Can poly students get into Harvard or Tokyo or Beijing or Oxford university ? Why donÂ’t u tell me the names of the reputable university tat accept people from our poly ?
[/quote] -
Frankly, now the policies for our country r getting harder and harder to make. Problems will keep surfacing up in all large institutes since we r speculating into the future. No companies have all their invesments making money. No stock broker tat keep winning nor is they any analyst correct in his predictions. There are some problems faced by our society, but which country doesn't ? Wat is your ideal political situation for a country ? Using your model, can u safely say tat all our present and future problems will dissappeared ?
It is by knowing the PAST WEAKNESS that led to PRESENT FAILURES, then we can PREPARE for the FUTURE.
Is it not logical to understand the historical problems, when we are regularly visited by economic problems caused by our INHERENT STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS ?
In singapore, frankly speaking LHL is set to be the prime minister for singapore. Ho Ching will still remains as head of Temesek. However r they without merits of their own ? Has temesek suffered heavy losses or instead made handsome profits under Ho Ching ?
In the Private Sector, except for Family Owned business in Singapore, the 'sky is the limit' for any successful Scholar.
In Singapore Politics, do you think any Scholar overshadow DPM LHL to be the NEXT PM, or replace SM LKY to be the Chairman of the GIC, or even replace Mdm Ho Ching at the lesser Temasek ?
Do you think it is ODD that all the SAF Lt Generals - on their retirement - do not make it into the Cabinet, and that the most senior position that they can get is to be an Ambassador ?
In Singapore, it seems that only ONE STAR BGs and Rear Admirals can make it into the Cabinet, the 2 and 3 Stars are only good to be in senior positions in GLCs.
The BG's and Rear Admiral by wat u suggested is their NSmen status. The 2 stars or 3 stars means they r too specialized in their field and thus better remain in that field. Heard of Master Sergeant ? When promotion comes, it is the senior sergeants tat became the warrant officers, and not Master sergeants.
Then do they have to quit their past jobs to go full time into being full minister ? Since u already mentioned they r earning distinguished salaries, why do u want to stop them from taking minister pay since they deserved it ? U mean if they take up the post of being a minister, with the much reduced freedom to go around and the increased workload, they deserved to get a lower pay then before ? Will there be a lot of people doing tis kind of charity ? A lot of people r grumbling about the pay at the minister level. However how many of them realise tat they did not get any raise, or in some case a pay cut if they choose to go into politics. It is good for the gov if they do not get to employed the best talents in the country ?
First, those who are 'called-up' from the Private Sector - such as Dr Tony Tan, Dr Richard Hu, late Mr Ong Teng Cheong, Abdullah Tarmugi, Abbas Abu Amin, Inderjit Singh, and others.
Second, those who are recruited from Academia - Prof Jayakumar, Prof Ho Peng Kee, Dr Ker Sin Tze, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and others.
These personalities are established in their own distinguished careers BEFORE entry into politics - and already enjoying distinguished salaries.
The amount that they currently 'earn' as Members of Parliament is only an allowance to run their Constituency, and cannot be treated as Salary.
The salaries paid to Ministers' cannot be compared to those paid to CEOs from the Profits made by Private ENTERPRISE.
The amount that the Ministers 'earn' is largely increased by Legislations to prevent them from falling into the clutch of corruption - as was obliquely mentioned by SM LKY.As had happened, in the past and also recently, good buinessmen does not necessarily make good Ministers; and conversely, good Ministers do not necessarily make good businessmen - especially without the political clout that they are accustom to.
Then how do u choose who to be politicians ?SDP Chief's excuse of 'spelling' or 'typo' error was not well received by many, can you accept his given 'excuse' ?
2 para for a single spelling mistake ! The speling mistake betwen an O.E and E.O ! Gosh I must be careful on wat I write here...
I was 'fascinated' by your repeated use of C.O.E in two different threads, and thought of having some fun, glad to know that you find it 'Facinating....'
So the bottom line is wat ? After they get a HEAD START over other less weathy then wat ? Previously we r talking about is the selection process of SCHOLARS a fair process ? And u told me it is not since
The statement made was that people who are rich, enjoy BETTER SUPPORT AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and has a BETTER ENVIRONMENT - which in SUM TOTAL provide the Rich Kid a HEAD START over the other less wealthy.
If u r not trying to say tat richer people are better in studies, then wat r u trying to say ?
The statement made was that people who are rich, enjoy BETTER SUPPORT AFTER SCHOOL HOURS and has a BETTER ENVIRONMENT - which in SUM TOTAL provide the Rich Kid a HEAD START over the other less wealthy.Exactly - now you are getting somewhere.
It is those who have the TALENT, and with that certain kind of intelligence and alertness (or smartness) to capitalise on the 'slowness' (or stupidity) of others to do so, and to seize the opportunity to take COMMAND and CONTROL over others (including the competition) and become successful.
They certainly deserve to earn the money which THEY MAKE from the PROFITS of the MARKET PLACE.
u mentioned tat
So now u finally agree tat minister certainly deserve to earn the money which THEY MAKE from the PROFITS of the MARKET PLACE ? Your previous position is on the fact tat
Is it so impressive and productive of a Minister, when his requirements are attended to by an army of supporting staff ?
All that the Minister has to do is to delegate, assigned, and wait for the return of the works that have been instructed to be accomplished; and on their return the materials are then digested, reviewed, corrected, and regurgitated as his own.
The army of supporting staff will prepare all answers from their research works, summarised reports into key notes; speeches that are researched and prepared for redraft by the Minister; ideas that are brainstormed by the supporting scholar civil servants and offered for the consideration of the Minister, who will adopt them as his own brilliant speech.minister
don't deserved the pay they r getting because they werehelped by army of staffs
. Even the examples like Bill Gate u had given r taking multi million profit solely on doing the job tat minister r doing now. Why do Bill Gates deserve the money now and not the minister we have here ? Why do Bill Gates enjoy the money he has and not the software developers ? -
Glad to see that you are dropping comments on the issues preceding the ones that you are addressing now.
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Frankly, now the policies for our country r getting harder and harder to make. Problems will keep surfacing up in all large institutes since we r speculating into the future. No companies have all their invesments making money. No stock broker tat keep winning nor is they any analyst correct in his predictions. There are some problems faced by our society, but which country doesn't ? Wat is your ideal political situation for a country ? Using your model, can u safely say tat all our present and future problems will dissappeared ? [/quote]
[quote]
It is by knowing the PAST WEAKNESS that led to PRESENT FAILURES, then we can PREPARE for the FUTURE.
Is it not logical to understand the historical problems, when we are regularly visited by economic problems caused by our INHERENT STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS ?
Your response is now different in tone and direction from your previous post that receive my response that you are quoting now.
You had previously asked - 'U seems eager to complain about old policies made in the past using the new found knowledge u have now. Is tat fair ?'
Did I mention that policy making is easy ? Did I mention any 'model' for any kind of political institution in my last response to your post ?
Just to humor you with a response, perhaps you will consider the fact that if there had been less Political Dominance from the Ruling Party, and had they allowed ALTERNATIVE or DISSENTING VIEWS to be heard, then the present problems may not have arisen as had been created by the past policies of 2 Child Family, killing of the Small and Medium Enterprises, dominance of GLCs and MNCs in the Singapore Economy - just to name a few.continuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
In singapore, frankly speaking LHL is set to be the prime minister for singapore. Ho Ching will still remains as head of Temesek. However r they without merits of their own ? Has temesek suffered heavy losses or instead made handsome profits under Ho Ching ?
In the Private Sector, except for Family Owned business in Singapore, the 'sky is the limit' for any successful Scholar.
In Singapore Politics, do you think any Scholar overshadow DPM LHL to be the NEXT PM, or replace SM LKY to be the Chairman of the GIC, or even replace Mdm Ho Ching at the lesser Temasek ?
Do you think it is ODD that all the SAF Lt Generals - on their retirement - do not make it into the Cabinet, and that the most senior position that they can get is to be an Ambassador ?
In Singapore, it seems that only ONE STAR BGs and Rear Admirals can make it into the Cabinet, the 2 and 3 Stars are only good to be in senior positions in GLCs.
The BG's and Rear Admiral by wat u suggested is their NSmen status. The 2 stars or 3 stars means they r too specialized in their field and thus better remain in that field. Heard of Master Sergeant ? When promotion comes, it is the senior sergeants tat became the warrant officers, and not Master sergeants. [/quote]
Your present reply missed the point which you had asked that received my reply which you are quoting now.
In your last post, you had asked - (just to cut it short) - 'How does large companies treat their own returning scholars ? They also give it an acclerated route too. True, if they don't perform in 3 months, they get condemn. However if they perform well, they get to climb much faster and higher than other normal workers.' and continued with 'Do u think one with no talent nor performance can made it so far ? Getting a quick route to a colonel is only the beginning. Trying to work up after tat is difficult. They will faced better competitors and had to really show performance in order to be promoted.'
Now do you believe that the 'sky is the limit' for someone with talent, or if DPM LHL had to compete at all, or did he 'get' a better chance because of his relationship with SM LKY ?
Could Mdm Ho Ching be at the helm of Temasek Holdings, if she had not married DPM LHL, and remained as an INSIGNIFICANT 'pen pushing' Department Head at MINDEF - where she was found as a suitable match made to DPM LHL ?
Where were you when the losses at MICROPOLIS Hard Disk and Suzhou Industrial Park (just to name a few) had occurred. Try visiting the thread - 'TEMASEK HOLDINGS' and read some of the issues posted.
Where did you get this idea of Senior Sergeants bypassing Master Sergeants to become Warrant Officers ?
Even if it happen in the SAF, it is probably the performance of the Senior Sergeant - with new academic or skilled qualification - being double-promoted over the Master Sergeant.
The SAF ranks are following closer to the US Military Rank Structure, and if we visit the following site, your position will be riddled with bullets:-
US ARMY RANKS
http://www.gruntonline.com/TheWar/usarmy_rank.htmcontinuing post by stupidissmart: [quote]
Then do they have to quit their past jobs to go full time into being full minister ? Since u already mentioned they r earning distinguished salaries, why do u want to stop them from taking minister pay since they deserved it ? U mean if they take up the post of being a minister, with the much reduced freedom to go around and the increased workload, they deserved to get a lower pay then before ? Will there be a lot of people doing tis kind of charity ? A lot of people r grumbling about the pay at the minister level. However how many of them realise tat they did not get any raise, or in some case a pay cut if they choose to go into politics. It is good for the gov if they do not get to employed the best talents in the country ? [/quote]
First, those who are 'called-up' from the Private Sector - such as Dr Tony Tan, Dr Richard Hu, late Mr Ong Teng Cheong, Abdullah Tarmugi, Abbas Abu Amin, Inderjit Singh, and others.
Second, those who are recruited from Academia - Prof Jayakumar, Prof Ho Peng Kee, Dr Ker Sin Tze, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, and others.
These personalities are established in their own distinguished careers BEFORE entry into politics - and already enjoying distinguished salaries.
The amount that they currently 'earn' as Members of Parliament is only an allowance to run their Constituency, and cannot be treated as Salary.
The salaries paid to Ministers' cannot be compared to those paid to CEOs from the Profits made by Private ENTERPRISE.
The amount that the Ministers 'earn' is largely increased by Legislations to prevent them from falling into the clutch of corruption - as was obliquely mentioned by SM LKY.
Again, your direction has shifted from your last position which received my reply that you are now quoting, and when you had asked - 'Thus I ask tis question, if the minister start working up in a private firm instead, will he be less successful and not earn as much when they work in politics ?'
A businessman labor for the perks that he deserves as a result of his entrepreneurial success, and his benefits including salary is commensurate with the size of the Profit that he generate for his Board of Directors and Shareholders.
One may indicate that a Minister is similar to that of a Businessman, and should similarly deserve similar compensation for the success of the corporation. Is the profit from a business earned from enterprise similar to the State Revenues collected by taxations on a Country ?
However, we did not previously focussed about the pay package, but had originally debated on the suitability, capability and the opportunities available to scholars.
To humor you on this topic, Singapore Ministers are paid salaries to run a Singaporean economy with a GDP value about the size of the annual value of General Electric Corp of USA.
Meanwhile the US President runs a US Economy that is perhaps 40 times bigger than Singapore, and his benefits are only about one third paid to the C.E.O of General Electric, or about a salary that is half that of the Singapore PM.