Click the words ABOVE (NOT below..) to get around !!!
ABOUT {what i've}
LINKS {been looking for}
TAG {all this time}
bold italic underline link
This morning, I was reminded of yet another noteworthy point PAP made some time ago.
It was probably reiterated recently with all the backlash and slamming of their high paying salaries.
PAP's justification - to attract the best, we have to pay salaries which are compatible with the private sector. This makes us competitive etc etc.
When I first heard it, I didn't give all that much thought to it.
I've heard so much propaganda over the years that I have already lose the ability to really hear what is being said.
But just spare a few seconds to think this statement over, and it doesn't make the slightest sense at all.
I cannot deny the temptation of money and the motivation it gives people to do certain things or behave in certain ways.
But to say that high salaries will attract the best is based on the assumption that the best are motivated PURELY by high salaries.
If a highly capable CEO claims to be TRULY sincere about serving the people and then goes "hey, if you don't pay me as much as my current job does, I am not going over to join you" then I seriously doubt his true intentions.
PAP should just take a minute to think. Noone is saying that the goverment should operate like a non-profit organisation. Noone is going to deny that government officials should be paid a salary. And even if it higher than the ordinary office worker, I am not going to deny that they don't deserve it. But studies have shown that their salaries is not simply competitive, the ratio of our political leaders' pay to GDP Per Capita for 2010 is actually ranked SECOND in the WORLD.
How's that for competitiveness. Since we are SO DAMN competitive, why aren't we attracting the very best into politics? Why is there new blood being introduced with a calibre not that significantly superior to any average undergrad I can find at my university?
I think there was even a vague reference to how high salaries will have the effect of preventing corruption in our system. Oh, so now we are incorporating the money potentially earned from corruption into our salaries? Why not double my salary in the future so I won't steal some paper from our company's printer.
I am pretty sure the quality of a person's life is not going to be significantly diminished just because they are going to be paid $20,000 a month instead of their precious $100,000.
And I am pretty damn sure that extremely capable people attracted by our extremely competitive salaries wouldn't be people that can lose both a limping fugitive from a toilet and then proceed to burst the budget on an event I barely noticed
by more than 3 times. The initial budget was $108,000,000 so imagine what 3 times would mean. Sure, every cent MAY have been justified, but then who came up with the initial budget to begin with? If the initial decision made to take up the YOG based on the budget of $108,000,000, how can the new budget be justified?
Capable indeed.
And what's worse about all these?
These capable people are so convinced of their capabilities that they don't even see what is wrong. I would paste links here supporting this but apparently temasek review articles are blocked from singtel users.
But the article titles reads:
Wong Kan Seng: 'Myopic' to focus on escape of Mas Selamat
Dr Vivian “unapologetic” about bursting YOG budget by more than three times
OMG.
Words fail me.
