Yes, it's trending on twitter and carried in newspapers all over the world, from Guardian to Bloomberg.
Everybody's talking about the seemingly massive 36% pay cut that Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has "agreed" to take.
While it's a long overdue step in the right direction, he remains, and by some orbital mile, the highest paid elected official on this planet. Still 4 times more than Barack Obama and 45 times that of Manmohan Singh.
But the root of the problem remains that many within the regime's ranks still think that high salaries are needed to attract the "best" talents to political office.
Such as one Grace Fu, who probably summed up what many of her colleagues feel:
"If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for any one considering political office."
Unfortunately, money cannot be the main motivation for joining politics. You are simply attracting candidates that will put the moolah before servitude. Such as this MP with 64 other jobs.
Personally, I think the pay cut is totally justified and there should be more to come.
GDP growth, the indicator that PAP swears by, is looking extremely weak going into 2012. Singapore could again be the first Asian country to go into a technical recession defined by two consecutive quarters of negative growth.
The party state has failed to diversify from the volatile and highly competitive electronics sector which makes up a massive 35% of non-oil domestic exports.
Worryingly, the Purchasing Managers' Index or PMI, which measures future business activity, has been declining for 6 straight months.
Granted that if US and Eurozone growth tank in 2012, and if there were a hard landing in China, most economies of the world will be adversely affected.
Difference is that other leaders don't have million dollar salaries nor tell the US to put its fiscal house in order.
I can't help but notice the inverted commas around the word Mentor in this WSJ article.
Additionally, the SMRT debacles, Orchard floods, taxi fare hikes and persistent rise in cost of living speak volumes of the extremely disappointing performance by our Ministers.
This move may have swayed some citizens over to their side.
But please ask yourselves this: Imagine that you were all shareholders of this company called Singapore Inc. Would you continue to agree to pay directors (Ministers) the highest salary among their global counterparts millions of dollars for repeated sub par performance?
I agree with some Opposition parties' suggestion that in addition to top earners, the average salaries of bottom and average earners should also be incorporated into the salary calculation.
After all, the greatest leaders (arguably) didn't have seven figure pay packages: Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, Tony Blair, Franklin D Roosevelt.....
Finally, an honourable mention to our dear President who apparently volunteered a 51% pay cut. Bravo!
Congratulations to the 35.2% who voted for five more years of mediocrity. The lot of you have demonstrated that "fools seldom differ" by choosing a President to extend the incapacity that is the elected Presidency.
Dr. Tony Tan certainly has big shoes to fill.
Can he actually shape a Presidency even more redundant than the last twelve years? His predecessor has set the standard for what it means to be a pure ceremonial head.
Still, unless you are like Dr. Ibrahim living in self-denial, the fact is 64.8% voted against Dr. Tan and the PAP.
Many opposition voters went with Dr. Tan Cheng Bok whom they saw as someone from the old guard, those who helped build Singapore with true servitude, unlike the elitist career politicians that Tony Tan exemplifies.
In addition, more than half a million Singaporeans cast their votes for Tan Jee Say, a newcomer to politics with no political base.
The PE clearly shows that more and more Singaporeans are losing patience with the PAP.
The Men in White may have won the battle, but it remains to be seen if they can win the war with democracy in 2016.
Further, Tony Tan barely scraped past the finish line despite having glowing public endorsements from unions, clans and pandering business federations. When many Singaporeans fret over job security in an environment where foreigners can be hired at a whim, it is not surprising that these workers wouldn't dare go against the union line. Together, they would have ensured Dr. Tan 200,000 or so votes.
Yet these pitifully naive Singaporeans didn't stop for a moment to ask what their unions have done for them.
Have the unions protected them from excessive foreign competition? Have the unions fought for restoration of employers' CPF to what it was at 20%?
The Tony Tan-PAP ticket also campaigned on the climate of fear in the global economy. While the global economy is a concern for Singapore, it remains to be see how Tony Tan has "sound understanding of the global economy and challenges facing business" as he claims.
Remember this is the man who oversaw GIC's staggering S$60 billion loss in the 2008 global crisis and sanctioned billions (from our reserves?) to shore up greedy western banks instead of investing in Singaporeans.
But what is done is done. 1.5 million Singaporeans will just have to put up with five more years of hegemony and group think. We came so close to voting in some semblance of moral authority but far too many daft Singaporeans remain daft.
Our only hope is six brave souls from the Workers' Party. How they perform against 81 overbearing PAP MPs is anybody's guess.
For now, we're left to lament what might have been...
A crowd of about 20,000 turned up yesterday at Toa Payoh Stadium to support Tan Jee Say.
Whether or not it is reflective of how the votes will go, its anybody's guess.
In my opinion, Tony Tan started as the front runner, implicitly backed by the PAP machinery.
A few weeks later, Dr. Tan is just about clinging onto the lead and this shift in momentum is largely due to the fairly rapid rise of the obscure dark horse Tan Jee Say.
I think many neutrals have been turned off by Dr Tan's wishy washy statements, his son's unprecedented 12 year deferment from National Service and his new starring role as the "Interruptor".
So PAP, and credit to them for always having "plan B", realises this. If you've been reading between the lines in State Media these past few days, they've thrown more weight behind Tan Cheng Bok. The man whom many in the current establishment saw as the party pooper may actually be PAP's best hope if Dr. Tan's popularity continues to dip.
To any rational citizen, the President must be independent, not just independent-minded, but independent of the ruling party.
Most of us have fond memories of our schooldays. 20, 30 years after leaving school, many of us still hold a sense of pride and loyalty to our Alma Mater, whether or not we've been actively involved in alumni activities.
I still reminisce my first job about a decade ago. Ten years later, I still hold a degree of attachment to that company and from time to time turn to them for certain services I require in my current capacity.
The point I'm trying to make is that we are all human beings and one of the things that makes us unique among living creatures is memory and nostalgia.
Last I checked, all four Presidential candidates are human beings.
Now do you seriously believe that Tony Tan, Tan Cheng Bok and Tan Kin Lian, each with 2-3 decades of ties and service to the PAP, can suddenly erase all the emotional and nostalgic attachment to the regime?
As Tan Jee Say puts it, "there may be constitutional constraints in what the President can or cannot do but there is no limit to what I can do as a Singaporean for Singaporeans".
A President that has cultivated decades of ties to the PAP is very likely to be alot more limited in what he can do for Singaporeans.
And that is bad for us because the PAP will continue to shove unpopular policies like immigration, unrestrained investments by GIC and Temasek and CPF withdrawal age/sum down our throats without aa moral authority to protect Singaporeans.
The power of independence and alternative views cannot be taken for granted.
Many Singaporeans are appalled by the People's Association move to ban Workers' Party MPs from attending grassroot events in their own Aljunied-Hougang Town Council.
The move is obviously politically motivated and serves to diminish the WP's outreach effectiveness.
But today, State Media reported that the PAP has sort of retracted this probably in response to public anger which may hurt its candidates chance in the Elections.
The four candidates had also come out to question the move by PA and HDB (some from the heart, others to score voter points) Is this an "exercise" of moral pressure?
I think it's clear that if used courageously and wisely, the President has significant influence over day-to-day operations of the PAP.
It will be a close fight down to the wire but I feel that Tan Jee Say has a genuine chance of winning this.
1) He has some sort of machinery behind him. His campaign posters are suddenly everywhere. His merchandise also pretty deccent. Presence = votes
2) We don't know how PAP candidates Tony Tan and Tan Cheng Bok will split the votes. We do know they will
3) I don't think Tan Kin Lian will have as big an effect on Jee Say's votes. I admire what he tried to do for minibond investors but I just don't think he has the machinery or aura for this job
4) Public anger over the WP v PA incident, transport fare increase, SMRT vandalism, weak economy etc etc could sway swing voters toward the alternative vote
5) His rag to riches story- washerwoman mother and poor childhood to successful civil servant and investment banker and now, running for the highest office in the land
In the meanwhile, coming to a polling booth near you, I present the blockbuster "The Interruptor".
Despite opposition from various parts of society and numerous petitions sent to President S R Nathan, PM Lee Hsien Loong and his totally dominant party decided in 2005 that two casinos will be built in Singapore.
They even came up with an ingenious plan to charge Singaporeans $100 for each entry while foreigners walk in free.
The only other thing more ludicrous was when PM Lee said he was raising GST to help the poor!
Well you can argue that the casinos have contributed to GDP. They obviously fattened the pockets of Malaysia's Genting and the once nearly bankrupt American Las Vegas Sands Group.
While it may too early to measure the social cost of gambling, it is widely documented, unsurprisingly, that the casinos have attracted more than its fair share of patrons, including prostitutes and petty thieves.
And accordingly to a study, Singaporeans have been losing big.
Has the PAP government taken on the right bet?
Did S.R Nathan play any part in all this? Now hold on. Before you start accusing him of doing nothing, think again. On the contrary, our President contributed in a massive way.
By keeping silent and counter-signing a blank cheque, he effectively sanctioned the casinos.
Could the President have stopped it? Nobody knows for sure. But if we had an independent President who cared for the people, he could have raised moral objections and increased public scrutiny of casinos.
Maybe we would have just gotten one, not two casinos. Maybe none.
This is why the elected Presidency is crucial to the future survival of the country. Paying another puppet $3 million dollars just to grace a couple of annual charity programmes, recite poems and cut ribbons is just gambling our future away.
We need a President who can return some moral authority to a government who has lost its moral compass. And a candidate that carries all that emotional baggage and cozy ties with Lee Kuan Yew and his merrymen is simply not cut out for this role.
And a candidate who presided over a staggering $59 billion loss in our reserves, monies, call it what you like, is certainly unsuitable.
The good news for Singaporeans is that there is one candidate who has an alternative vision for Singapore, one that creates better jobs for citizens, returns accountability to the government and importantly, puts Singaporeans at the heart of policy making.
Fortunately, this vision can be found here.
The State Media is in full force today extolling PM Lee Hsien Loong's National Day Rally speech.
While there were teeny weeny steps for the greater good of native Singaporeans, I can't help but feel the proposed policy changes are as cosmetic as the make-up on some flight attendants.
And he did not address the needs of the sandwiched or middle class. Singapore purportedly has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world so you would expect a large segment of society to fit into this category.
Notwithstanding, any compassionate government will take measures to improve the lives of all citizens regardless of strata.
Before the May Elections, the man himself spoke about how the PAP will ease burden on the middle class.
60% of votes and four months later, nothing much is done.
Let's talk about cost of housing.
Raising qualifying income ceiling does not really help because the real concern is flat prices. This move has no impact on flat prices and they continue to trend higher.
In any case, couples with higher than average income can always choose from the private market. If a family can afford private housing, why wouldn't they? (24 hr security, private amenities, cleanliness etc)
I'm interested to know which feedback channel the HDB has been using,
What may work is for the government to implement disincentives for speculative buying and restrictions on foreign ownership of property.
I repeat, raising the qualifying income ceiling does not tackle the problem of housing inflation!
Even more laughable is his take on "tightening" foreign worker policies. Many of us will know by now that there are far too many foreigners, who apparently do not possess unique skill sets (I don't mean juggling five cola bottles at the same time.), taking away our PMET jobs.
You don't need a whole lot of unique technical skills to be an accounts executive, marketing assistant or business developer do you?
These are jobs that should be readily filled by our ITE, Poly and fresh uni grads.
On Sunday, retiree Lee Kuan Yew again championed the need for immigrants claiming that Singapore will lose vitality and drive without immigrants.
So what has this vitality and drive brought to the majority of native citizens?
Unnecessary competition for jobs and school places, depressed wages, overcrowded public spaces and ridicule from these new residents.
Maybe we should send these foreigners packing, accept lower economic growth, slower pace of life and just be happy.
Is Mr. Lee also suggesting that the loss of "vitality" is reason to seek alternatives? So what is his advice to marriages that have lost "vitality"? Perhaps that is the reason for Singapore's high divorce rates.
As usual, he cited the country's pathetic birth rates as justification for opening the floodgates.
Has he paused for a moment to reflect the consequence of his ingenious "Stop at Two" policy?
Despite repeated warnings by experts that it is the stress of living that contributes most to low birth rates, the PAP government continues to apply stop gap measures like dangling monetary incentives and running dating schemes instead of addressing the root of the problem.
The attempt at making outpatient care more affordable is quite frankly a weak one at best.
While raising the qualifying income to $1,500 is in the right direction, the fact that only 20% of private clinics participate in the scheme makes this all rather redundant.
In Malaysia, it costs 30 Singapore CENTS to see a government outpatient clinic and $2 for a specialist clinic.
A visit to the Polyclinic here would set the average patient back by S$15-20 and 120 minutes of waiting.
Delivery fees in private hospitals are nearly 4 times more expensive in Singapore than Malaysia.
So dear Singaporeans, the healthcare measures announced by PM Lee are not nearly as signficant as what State Media makes them out to be.
Oh yes, back to foreign workers. Anyone in HR will know that companies can easily circumvent the "rules" because of MOM's lax controls. Moreover, the $200 increase in qualifying salary for fresh foreign grads is a lot cheaper than the mandatory employer CPF contribution to Singaporean grads.
The outcome- we will continue to be flooded by fake talents from third world countries.
There is no doubt that a sprinkling of foreign talent is healthy for the economy.
But what Singapore needs is a transparent point system employed by most developed countries from Australia to Hong Kong. This will go a long way in ensuring that we get capable and respectful foreigners that will together raise the standard of living of all citizens.
Not the ones that complain about the smell of curry from their neighbour. You don't go to China and start telling people to stop burning joss sticks do you?
My friends, this is not an isolated incident. Whether or not the mediating decision to cook curry only on Sundays was agreed by both parties as K Shanmugam claimed, it sends the wrong message to foreigners that they have the right to change Singaporean habits and culture.
Foreigners must respect our traditions or f&#k off! The Community Mediation Centre should be ashamed for not affirming the Singaporean identity. Or is it run by foreigners too?
I feel there is genuine simmering discontent among Singaporeans and the breaking point could arrive sooner than later.
This is why we need a President who canempathise with Singaporeans and preside over "government expenditure of financial reserves and appointments to key public offices". In other words, serve as an independent and impartial moral authority to a morally corrupt regime.
While the four Tans vying for the position all had prior PAP connections- one Tan shines as the Lee family's chosen one- Dr Tony Tan. Seriously Singaporeans, do you want another head of state drawing 18 million in the six year term to be another rubber stamp? That's 18 million we are paying through GST, income tax, ERP and what not.
Unfortunately, State Media has been in overdrive to promote Tony Tan. Suddenly, Unions that we never knew existed are coming out to make their support public.
This is the former Minister who refused to protect Singaporean jobs and university places from foreigners.
Can someone with wavering loyalty to his own people be worthy of the highest constitutional authority in this country?
With polling day imminent, let's take a moment to remember a President who truly cared for the people and made Lee Kuan Yew angry along the way.
