Loading ...
Say NO to internet regulation in Singapore.
Of Sinking Funds
Posted by singaporedaily on November 23rd, 2008
The Quiet Men in White
If the money is yours, you would be prudent. If it is not yours however, one can afford to be callous with it. “it” equates 12 milions.
Most of us have to pay conservancy fees. Over the years, we were told to pay it so we can get a fresh coat of paint on our flats, when we step out of our units we see clean corridors not dirty walkways, to avoid sharing the lift with voluminous trash, bursary to students who live in the precinct who have scored well, etc.
When news about Lehman Brothers broke out and DBS was singled out as having “missold” funds, citizens like you and I were thinking if investors should be refunded. Most of us are empathetic towards the elderly investors. At the same time, we know that every investment comes with risk.
Now we learn that we are all investors, like it or not.
Each time things happen, the government rebukes, “caveat emptor”. The government is impeccable. The citizens imperfect. So, where’s the man who chided the investors and told them to “swallow the bitter pill that you have to pay for your consequences” now?
Til now, the PM and MPs maintain their pronounced silence. Given that the PM inherited the old guards in the cabinet from the Senior Minister who inherited it from his predecessor… Until the old man releases the reins fully or till he passes on, the PM however capable he may be, may not have the ability to flex his muscles.
Madam Ho Ching has offered to take a paycut, what about the cabinet full of the non-grandstanding ones?
So, do we have strong leaders?
Thanks for reading,
the B
November 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Well they are keeping silent, aren’t they?
The news that “Temasek , headed by Ho Ching, the wife of Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said senior managers had volunteered to take a pay cut of between 15 and 25 percent.” was reported by Reuters… not our mainstream media?
“We anticipate a global recession in 2009 and possibly beyond. Therefore, Temasek will institute a firm-wide wage cut,” said Robert Chong, managing director of human resources at Temasek. Chong also said the current crisis “will throw up tremendous opportunities” and that the majority of wage savings will be borne by their key managers. Temasek said it aimed to increase headcount by 15 percent over the next two years.”
Senior Managers of Temasek has volunteered to take the pay cut. What about our top top 1st world leader? The government top salaries are pegged to the top private sectors (indicated as necessary by LKY in order to keep the top top talents? - so is Mr lee Hsien Loong, and his senior ministers? looking to volunteer to take a pay cut? of between 15 to 25%, or they will have some ludricrous excuses to still main the high salaries of the senior ministers who has not shown their abilities or capabilities in managing the current crisis.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I am sceptical of Temasek’s senior management pay cuts as their pay are in such stratospheric ranges that a 15 to 25% cut results in them having one Lexus or Philippe Patek less than their usual. Would any heads roll for ABC Learning’s $400+ Aussie Dollar write-off or should Temasek put it down to “caveat emptor”? Citibank’s dismal share prices also indicate perhaps Temasek was too hasty in putting money down when the market for US banks was going to pieces?
Not sure if Temasek’s leadership should be paid so much for the number of investment (honest) mistakes? Of course, Senior Management will cite “market conditions”, “once in a lifetime event”, “financial tsunami” that no-one could have seen and say “hindsight is 20-20″.
I recall an old auditor who taught me this. During good times, bank management will say we did this/that to result in the super profits earned during that year. But in bad times, bank management will blame market conditions, external factors, geo-political seismic shifts except their own lack of managerial ability to steer the bank away from losses (or decline in profits). It’s heads I win, tails I win that is so typical of the current regime leading Singapore Inc.
And best of all, your hard-earned tax dollars is used to pay the regime leaders to talk down to you.
Majullah Singapura.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:11 am
And don’t forget their favourite excuse: “we invest long term 30-50yrs, look at our returns over that period blahblahblah”. Ask any fund manager worth his salt and he’ll tell you putting investment horizons at that time frame dont make rational sense. Its an excuse to not take responsibility because no one will be around in 30-50yrs!
November 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
i agree. 15 to 25% pay cut results in having one Lexus lesser, one Philippe Patek short and lesser tailored suits from Hugo Boss. these are high-end items that an average Singaporean would probably never get to own. at the same time, they would just sit back in their chairs and go “the crystal ball didnt exactly show the slumping economy. we do what people would do at a sale with the intention of benefitting the country.”
i suspect the 15-25% pay cut is so that if the men in white should ever take a pay cut, a 30% cut would immediately make them look better than that of the people at Temasek.
it’s the “your money is my money, my money is my money” adage.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Editors please post this video for all to watch. Shame on you ministers!
Japan Airlines’ CEO slashes his pay below the pay of pilots. CNN’s Kyung Lah reports
http://www.glenntilton.com/newsarticles/2008/11/6/japan-airlines-ceo-slashes-his-pay-below-that-of-pilots-cnn.html
November 24th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Forget it. We don’t have a single Minister with the integrity and honor to stand up and say “I don’t want my pay rise, I am here to serve the people and being paid millions is not “serving” the people.
November 24th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“i suspect the 15-25% pay cut is so that if the men in white should ever take a pay cut, a 30% cut would immediately make them look better than that of the people at Temasek.”
They already had a 77% increase in salary in the past year so what is 30%. I will be surprised if they make any move to do this. Not increasing the salary to meet the 100% plan could already mean to them, a pay cut! Furthermore, should this be a natural process as responsible leaders… not one that requires pushing, prodding?