The Board of Directors of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited (“Temasek”) today announced an agreement with Mr Charles (“Chip”) W. Goodyear not to proceed with his CEO appointment.

Mr Goodyear was appointed a Member of the Board on 1 February and CEO-Designate on 1 March. He was to succeed Ms Ho Ching as CEO on 1 October 2009.

I guess this news is rather timely as 9th August approaches. Maybe we can give our $4.6B heroine more accolades on the National Day or even pay tribute to her outstanding contributions thur far, and in time to come too.

Well, I guess this is one of the most common trait of governance at work again: Reversal of policy/U-turn Rethink.

They hoped that in the 4 months, a change in the name of the boss will bring about a geomancy change in accordance with his name.

In tightly controlled Singapore, the appointment of Goodyear, an American, had been seen as a sign that the government was loosening its grip and acknowledging the need for specific expertise from abroad. Now just five months later, that experiment appears to have been derailed.

Tightly controlled Singapore huh. I find that adjective rather redundant. It’s akin to calling a midget short or a skyscraper tall.

Anyway, it’s rather shocking to see that the government had been treating the changeover of leadership as an experiment. $84B of assets to experiment with. Wow, that’s really reassuring.

Nonetheless, I would still have given my full support as I have far greater optimism and relief the “expertise from abroad” would have brought about, as compared to the previous CEO.

The government probably thought that loosening its grip wasn’t such a great idea after all, since the economy is steadily recovering, albeit slowly.

Why allow a foreigner to claim the credit? Even though it is due to the circumstance of a global market revival. No need to say, when Temasek starts to earn money, the ex- (and present) CEO will be glorified and revered substantially by the media. Even though it is due to circumstance.

However, when bad investment decisions are made, it is never her fault. Because it is due to circumstance.

Temasek said the decision to part ways was in its and Goodyear’s interests.

“The Temasek Board and Mr. Goodyear have concluded and accepted that there are differences regarding certain strategic issues that could not be resolved,” the fund said in a statement.

Obviously, it is in both parties’ interests. There is only one scenario for disputes. He is unable to say YES. They need a YES-man for the job, and he’s not the man.

Strategic differences… In investment?

Goodyear has a masters of business administration from the Wharton School of Finance, University of Pennsylvania while graduated from the University of Singapore with a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical, First Class Honours) and Master of Science (Electrical) from Stanford University, USA.

Hmmm, I really don’t know which one is more suited to lead a Sovereign Wealth Fund.

FYI, Goodyear was a Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, Chairman of the Office of Chief Executive for BHP Billiton, the world’s largest diversified resources company with operations in 25 countries and a market value of approximately US$125 billion.

Too bad the differences were unresolved. Maybe if he’d learnt to say YES more often… But then again, maybe he shouldn’t bother with somewhere where he cannot showcase his proficiency and prowess of managing multi-billion corporations.

KUALA LUMPUR – THE Malaysian government did not extradite terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari to Singapore because he posed a threat to Malaysia and its neighbours and also put the people’s safety at risk, Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein said on Thursday.

The head of the Singapore cell of the Jemaah Islamiah (JI) terror network, which is linked to Al-Qaeda, escaped from the Whitley Road Detention Centre in February last year.

Datuk Seri Hishammuddin said Mas Selamat was arrested under the Internal Security Act (ISA) as he was a threat to the country, as well as its neighbours Singapore and Indonesia.

Mr Hishammuddin told reporters: ‘We did not extradite Mas Selamat as we are concerned it will undermine the country’s peace and put the people’s safety at risk.’ 

Read his statement again:

 ‘We did not extradite Mas Selamat as we are concerned it will undermine the country’s peace and put the people’s safety at risk.’

Okay, the main word of the statement is bolded above. ‘As’ here is used as a conjunction which has the same meaning as ‘because’, which is used to explain cause and effect, reason and consequence.

So he was explaining why he did not give up the jurisdiction of Mas Selamat. But to whom? Logically speaking, it would be back to where he initially belonged right?

From what I understand from his statement, the reason for keeping Mas Selamat with them is because they feel less safe with him being in the hands of another country. Which is perfectly understandable. Certain ministries have a knack for screwing up.

To paraphrase him:

We did not extradite Mas Selamat (to Singapore) because we are concerned it will undermine the country’s peace and put the people’s safety as risk

What it essentially means to our dear Wong Cant Sing is, “Your Ministry of Home Affairs suck lah, mine can do a better job”.

From our ever reliable ST,

A $26 MILLION decision by the National Heritage Board (NHB) has been called into question by a parliamentary committee.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has rejected the board’s reasons for giving a $26 million contract to an existing contractor instead of putting it out for open competition.

Another was at the Ministry of Defence (Mindef), which gave a contract to a sub-contractor that had been blacklisted by the public sector 

This was among 11 lapses at ministries and statutory boards that were probed by the PAC after they were spotted by the Auditor-General, Mr Lim Soo Ping.

Other lapses probed

 

A 16-year delay in the liquidation of a cooperative society by the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office

Failing to keep up-to-date the name list of people who can access the computer systems at some ministries, state organs and statutory boards

Accumulation of $39.42 million in unused grants by a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry. The Public Accounts Committee did not name the statutory board but said the amount was more than what it had spent in the ensuing six months, during which it continued to ask for and receive monthly grants. 

A $435,000 electronic parking system in Temasek Polytechnic that was not used as intended. The barriers were kept in a lifted position all day and did nothing to stop unauthorised vehicles from entering.

What is so heartwarming about this? It’s rather encouraging to see some parliamentary committees actually doing their job! They should be revered and worshipped! But that’s definitely not going to happen. We’ll probably hear some sweeping statement from a random minister that dismisses these “lapses”, or maybe none at all! We all know how things goes – it is the same story every time.

Yeah, like the ST, I don’t think such trivial news reflecting the incompetence of our government are important at all. It definitely doesn’t warrant a position even in the Home section. The rightful place of such news should be in the trash bins of the Home section office, where news of bogus degrees are so much more impactful and consequential than news of poor management of finances by the government again. (Read the ST on Thursday 25/6/09)

Also, it is also rather regrettable that my arithmetics is outrageously atrocious because I can only count 6 instances of these lapses whereby the headlines said 11.

One could reason that the other 5 instances of lapses are probably too insignificant to be mentioned, however, I think that there is no such thing as too insignificant. If a body can prove itself incompetent in managing millions or billions of taxpayers money, I think that they have the capability of losing much more. However, if you can rid yourself of the befuddling from the government-controlled media that you have been intoxicated with, it isn’t too hard to say that the other 5 instances are TOO significant to be mentioned. Such cold, hard revelation of their ineptitude is bound to undermine any moral high ground or beguiling statements they possess.

As we all know, losses from Barclays and BoA weren’t revealed by our own media in the first place. Foreign agencies had to break the sad news to our people. Thanks to our ever reliable media.

So I wonder what are the other 5 instances… Mas Selamat made off with a couple of million worth of gold bars too?

As for the cases themselves, obviously it isn’t that much of an exaggeration to bring up the word cronyism. Giving the contract to existing contractors and giving to sub-contractors blacklisted for corruption? There isn’t much to argue there when the facts are all laid bare.

Sigh.

I guess I probably won’t be too appalled when the total sum of lapses is revealed. If ever. NHB: $26m + MTI: $39.42m. Wow. No wonder Temasek losses don’t even raise an eyebrow for them. It’s all a matter of relativity.

The next thing PAC should do is to audit the national reserves. Perhaps they might find minute lapses of a few billion here and there. (:

Excerpt from TOC:

The Chosun Ilbo, a leading South Korean newspaper, reported that when Finance Minister Yoon Jeung Hyun asked Mr Lee “why the leader of an affluent country (doesn’t) use a private or charter jet”, Mr Lee responded by saying that he did not think Singapore was an affluent
country.

Mr Lee also reportedly said: “Besides, as a government official, I have to lead by example. Singapore’s senior officials fly economy class, not first class, for flights under six hours.”

Read the rest here.

I couldn’t have said it with any more euphemisms. If you manage to wade past that thick layer of niceties, what the article is basically trying to say is “Gosh, what a goddamned hypocrite”.

Mr Lee’s assertions of “leading by example” seem rather hypocritical, given the pay he receives as a minister.

Eh TOC, you seriously don’t have to give face. Credibility is an issue — yes I know, but being frank is too. The way I see it, leading by example probably applies for flights to Korea only. I see he still have the officer blood in him. Leading by example is one thing, following the leader is another. How many ministers actually do as he says.

For practical reasons, will a PM of a country actually sit in the economy class with other ordinary random citizens? I bet the economy class also swarmed with bodyguards and his manservants until it’s almost like first class. Probably the only difference is the spacious seat, but hey, it’s only a short flight. Logically speaking, the flight attendants would also all have been briefed beforehand already.

Even in some organisations back home, certain groups of lucky offsprings called “white horses” are subjected to tons of ‘wayang’ by their superiors, much less a PM of a country.

In a nutshell, he thinks Singapore is not affluent and he is leading by example. And what’s puzzles me even more is the Korean Finance Minister’s blatant balls-lapping. Either he is really ignorant, in which case he should study abit more about country leaders’ salaries, as he should, or he got paid to say that or it is purely balls-lapping.

If he is really leading by example, take a pay cut, and make all ministers do likewise.

If Singapore is not affluent, all the more his salary should take a cut, and actually try doing something to make Singapore affluent. Only when Singapore is affluent then a reversion to the previous salary is justified.

Say one thing, think and do otherwise. Talk is really cheap.

Maybe next trip he might even comment “My pittance of salary is rather miserable even though I think it is the market rate. If my ministers were to take a pay cut, the sacrifices would have been too great and all of them will up stakes and join Morgan Stanley” (because none of them wants to do it for the nation but for the money instead)

If nothing constructive or sensible will be coming out of the mouth – my advice: shut up and sit down.

Now that the preamble is over, I would like to turn back the time to 5 years ago and rake up the pathetic embarrassment of our wise and eminent leaders.

What is the difference between Ong Teng Cheong and the 3 other former presidents who have passed away?

Ong wasn’t given a state funeral.

While Ong was President, he requested for information about the national reserves, since the elected president was supposed to safeguard the reserves.

However, the government was, for some reason, unwilling to share this little bit of unimportant news to the Head of State of our nation. They only said, 3 years after he asked, that it would take 56 man years to produce the intricate report, which I’m sure they do not have the talent nor the manpower for to compile.

But of course, the government being magnanimous, will share the listing of all properties that they own! But it took a few months to produce the list and it was incomplete. Luckily it was incomplete! Because Ong was only given one admin staff and two part-timers from the auditor-general’s office. So they would not have finished checking even after his term was over, so having an incomplete list would save everyone from more troubles.

Well, PM Lee’s press secretary released a statement saying that “Singaporeans who have made truly exceptional contributions will receive a state funeral”. I don’t know if they are insinuating that Ong did not contribute or that those weren’t exceptional enough. But fact is, he did not receive any.

Anybody who has worked before or even served National Service knows what is meant by handing-over/taking-over. Before you hand over anything to someone, both parties have to make sure that the stipulated quantity or item is physically there. And not blindly sign documents, because you will end up signing extra duties instead.

That was then, and now, the memory of the episode has faded from people’s minds (as always).

Since 1996 where compiling the report of national reserves would require 56 man years, our people have evolved superior cognitive and psychokinetic abilities that will enable them to work 5 times as efficient as before.

Hence the current President has knowledge of how much reserves our nation has. With that premise, there will be no dispute on him using the presidential second key to unlock the reserves to draw SGD 4.9 billion.

Here is what he has to say!

Q: When you made the decision, did you have the information on like how big our reserves, how much of a draw this would be on the reserves…

President Nathan: Of course I have. Of course I have.

Yes I heard you the first time.

Q: You mentioned that it took 11 days, this whole process. Does that include PM approaching you?

President Nathan: Yes, yes, of course.

Q: Was that enough time, 11 days…(given this is) the first time that they’re going to draw on the reserves?

President Nathan: No. As I told you, the urgency was quite evident, and I think 11 days was reasonable. If it had to be, it could have been even shorter. But I don’t think that’s going to be a norm.

Q: Having gone through this process, are there any areas in process or procedures leading to unlocking the reserves that you needed to fine-tune?

President Nathan: I think the process, whether you take it for 11 days or one month, will be the same. Only it takes a longer time to deliberate, and whether it’s necessary. If we had the luxury of time of course we’d have taken a longer time. But the circumstances were such, people’s confidence had to be restored. We could have waited longer. It would have been much (more) difficult to fix anything at that stage.

Seriously, for such an unprecedented action, surely it would have warranted more careful consideration? After all, from the formal request to draw the reserves by Tharman on January 19, he gave his approval on January 21, one day before Budget 2009 on January 22.

You see, our civil service can be very efficient! (If it wants to) So 11 days to reach a decision after PM Lee approached him is a reasonable period, according to Nathan, because the “urgency was quite evident”.

The urgency I can make out here is the urgency where the Budget was to be held in less than two weeks time? I don’t think it’s an urgency to help the citizens? But thanks to Nathan, I’m once again enlightened by his wise answer!

He would have taken a longer time to consider “but the circumstances were such, people’s confidence had to be restored”. See, take out money to restore people’s confidence, if not next elections they won’t vote for the People Abusing At Power.

In reality, I think my confidence has actually decreased. A people’s elected President was supposed to be given a mandate by the people to stand up against the government should the need arise. However, the proponents fail to understand that it is the People At Power who put them into office in the first place.

Nathan, our (non)elected President, has no complaints and no questions, which I can truly understand given his sweet salary.

Probably the President should have a pay cut to a figure less than 6 digits. Perhaps only then, will he be encouraged to do some tedious work like opening of the mouth to ask questions for knowledge of the reserves which he is rightfully privy to.

Let’s start with MM LKY’s favourite daughter:

The same attitude influences the choice of attire and accessories. I still find it hard to believe that there are people carrying handbags that cost more than thrice the monthly income of a bus driver, and many more times that of the foreign worker labouring in the hot sun, risking his life to construct luxury condominiums he will never have a chance to live in.

My family is not poor, but we have been brought up to be frugal. My parents and I live in the same house that my paternal grandparents and their children moved into after World War II in 1945. It is a big house by today’s standards, but it is simple – in fact, almost to the point of being shabby.

Her house is shabby. Do take note of that. My godmother was living in a Chinatown room living together with two other families and three floors of families sharing one common latrine 30 years after World War II. I’m pretty sure that’s as shabby as her house.

Alright, so her house is shabby, that’s why she needs a SGD 2.76M condo on the 18th story.

But don’t chastize her! She has stated very clearly in her article that:

Being wealthy is not a sin. It cannot be in a capitalist market economy. Enjoying the fruits of one’s own labour is one’s prerogative and I have no right to chastise those who choose to live luxuriously.

and

To a considerable degree, our happiness is within our own control, and we should not follow the herd blindly.

So she’s telling you that being wealthy is not her fault, and she’s got her own choice. The average citizen stays in a HDB flat so she doesn’t want to follow the herd blindly.

Now for the serious stuff. I know that it is not a sin to be able to buy a 2.8M condo. You could say that I’m jealous but so are you. Don’t act out to be a saint. I have nothing against her living a lavish lifestyle because I accept the destiny that each person is born with.

However, what is the point of her writing article after article pointing out her strong points? A simple search on Google on her name and the word ‘article’ will give you a long list of results.

On closer scrutiny, the articles that she wrote have the effect of portraying her to be an exemplar.

She wrote about how she dislikes the elitist attitude in the upper socio-economic class and she is a doctor and director of National Neuroscience Institute with 300 staff including 100 doctors, about how more people are getting more materialistic, about how she worries for the poorer people that will be hit hard this recession, about how life is not easy and she will treat setbacks as challenge, about why she chose to remains single, about how our people should accept adversity like her.

If you go and search for her articles which are plastered all over the web, you will find that it is all about her. HER HER HER. The most used word is “I”.

When one has truly stellar qualities and sound moral character, such praise doesn’t have to be dished out from oneself. Such flattering glorification is disgustingly repugnant to people who had an overdose of such articles.

What is more irksome is that people actually fall for such flamboyant stories. I see comments like “Oh, finally someone up there who knows the hardships of the commoner”. Please. If she really does know the hardships of the commoner, she is doing nothing to alleviate them. Mere words function as a tickle to the brain, to make oneself feel good with the false impression that his or her grievances are heard. These are probably the people who happened to chance upon her essay and are awed by the resplendent use of linguistics and her impressive background.

She never fails to mention something that happened while she was studying at whatever prestigious college, or some anecdote while being the director of NNI. I really question what’s the point of writing all these?

An insight in the mind of the daughter of LKY? If she wasn’t, I bet people won’t even start singing praises after falling victim to the hypnotic effect of the articles.

Talk about hardship of commoners, the arrogant attitude of the elitists towards “lesser mortals”. What does she know about that? Has she been subjected to affronts by bureaucrats or elites before? Does she know what’s it like to be struggling to survive amid mounting debts and bills? Has she even lived the life of a low income family before?

The answers should be quite obvious. What understanding does she have about hardships which she only learn about through sight? What has she done to show her empathy through actions, rather than lamenting about their plight?

Instead of just writing on and on about how much of a Mother Theresa she is and brag about it, why not DO SOMETHING and then brag about it? Or maybe she doesn’t have the intention to. Why would someone periodically write on and on about her emotions and her mentality, which is designed to appeal to the masses and somehow or rather, manage to sneak in the fact that she is LKY’s daughter somewhere. Trying to build up a reputation for herself to attract a husband? Or to distance herself from the oppressive totalitarian impression of her dad? Or perhaps just purely to show off?

Another notable instance would be our dear SM Goh. Remember the National Day Rally where he talked about stayers and quitters and how our people should stay here and fight for our country? Talk about a quintessential hypocrite. His own daughter has migrated to London.

These are the things that will teach us not to take words at face value and firstly understand the context it was being said in.

It’s interesting to hear what they have to say.

When we invest, we are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. You may look as if you are making a big loss today, but you have not borrowed money to invest. You will ride the storm, the company recovers, your shares go up.
- MM LKY

Temasek is a long term investor, not a short term trader of assets.
- Minister of Finance, Tharman Shanmugaratnam

I’ve learnt to stop relying on ST, the government’s trumpet, to obtain any information or figures, though they’re good for the comics and the melange of entertaining quotes from our highly reputed leaders.

I’ll cut the story short. Temasek Holdings lost 58 billion SGD from March 08 to November 08. Well, this is not inclusive of our familiar Bank of America USD 4.6billion loss in May 09 and the not-so-familiar Barclays loss of more than 800 million pounds in December 08 and January 09. And that may even be the tip of the iceberg as these news are obtained through foreign news agencies.

Let’s slowly list and make out how senseless everything can be.

1.
Firstly, our wise and eminent great leader asserted that we will ride the storm and are investing for 10, 15, 20 years. Wise words, great leader. But your subordinates do not share your wisdom. Temasek Holdings bought the 13.7% stake in Merrill Lynch in late 2007 and 2% stake in Barclay in 2007. Unless I have been inoculated in stasis, I do not think that even 5 years have passed.

Granted, Merrill Lynch was bought over by BoA and the investment thesis has changed. So the thesis has changed and we decided to sell all the shares just before the rally in April 2009. Well done. Is this called panic selling or speculation which is what the coffee shop aunties do? Of course not! It’s to “position itself to take advantage of opportunities elsewhere“. But I won’t be unfair here. Temasek suddenly found itself with shares of BoA, and that was not their choice.

But Barclays is a different story. Temasek Holdings did buy into Barclays directly and there were evidences of it being able to avoid being nationalized. So why “position to take advantage of opportunities elsewhere” after 1 year? Can’t wait?

To make things worse, Abu Dhabi made USD 2.5 billion from the sale of stake in Barclays.

And of course, they had to release a press statement to feign ignorance or vindicate themselves of any blunder saying that such reports were “inaccurate” and “misleading” and “advise the public to take steps to verify the information independently”. Which brings us to the second point…

2.
The Sycophantic Trumpet was then required to portray our beloved leaders and their corporations in a good light. Naturally, they will have to find something. Given their impressive ability to educate our people, as opposed to the foreign news agencies (well, they got lucky with the BoA & Barclays news), there was a ranking of Sovereign Wealth Funds! Definitely a god-sent. Temasek was ranked top with 10 points, whereas GIC only got 6. But don’t be so surprised, it shares the top spot with 3 other SWF’s.

Cool. Our Temasek Holdings is very transparent! So transparent that foreign news agencies got wind of the loss faster than our own ST. Poor GIC got only 6. Maybe that’s why we didn’t hear much about their losses — not as transparent as Temasek.

From Wall Street Journal,

Mr. Tharman said the S$58 billion fall also includes “all unrealized losses” including mark-to-market losses from Temasek’s investment in Merrill Lynch.

He said the full-year accounts to end-March 2009 shouldn’t be fundamentally different from the losses disclosed given the lack of major changes in global equity markets from the end of November to March of this year.

We all know that Temasek has made a loss of 58 billion SGD from March 08 to November 08. What about from December 08 to March 09 then?! Is this what they mean by transparency? Our dear Finance Minister said that full-year accounts “shouldn’t be fundamentally different from the losses disclosed“. Wow. A mere statement like that justifies the non-disclosure of further losses after November 08? What kind of transparency is that? If they are truly transparent, please publish the figures for the full spectrum and not give selected details which highlight the gains and downplay the losses.

From what he says, I am inferring that since there is a lack of major changes, the losses will be projected to be consistent with that of Mar 08 – Nov 08. SGD 58 billion loss within 8 months then, and by extrapolation, meaning we’ll see another SGD 29 billion loss in the following 4 months?

I know that Temasek is only accountable to the government or more specifically MoF, but if MoF doesn’t want to release the information, Temasek will be running rampant to lose more money and be safe from all scathe.

With regards to the Barclays loss, Temasek “advise the public to take steps to verify the information independently”. Pray tell, how do we do that?

Even with a transparency rating of 10, why must 3 MPs call for more transparency?

Despite maintaining that the investments are for the long term, the actions have shown otherwise.

Contradictory actions and mere words – salient traits of our leadership.

From TOC,

However, this masks the huge gap between Temasek and the index’s leading fund – Norway’s Government Pension Fund (PGF). For example, the latter makes quarterly reports, while Temasek’s last report (released in August 2008) used data from March 2008. The PGF discloses how much it pays its managers, Temasek’s report carried a length discourse about how it compensated its staff but did not actually reveal the amount.

Do we want to know how much the staff were compensated? Do we really want to know how much bonus Ho Ching got off with on top of her May Day award? Well, they’ll either keep quiet or release statements justifying her big bonus, possibly only rivalled by her husband. If I’m her husband, I’ll definitely have to keep quiet and prepare for trouble. Seeing how my wife the queen lose people’s money like that, there’ll definitely be lots of angry peasants…

The memory of the Shin Corp sale controversy is faint from most minds, and the government continues to act in such manner pertaining to issues of every realm, by quashing dissent with their flawed logic and explanations or legal action, or keep mum and downplaying the seriousness of the matter using the subservient media to keep the reports out of sight of the public until the memory fades from the people’s minds.

It seems that I have learnt alot from our wise leaders. And I will leave you with one more insight: Temasek has bought SGD 437.5 million or 13.76% of Olam International Ltd. Perhaps you should buy in immediately after they sell, before the market turns bullish, and make a killing.

This is a good start, which comes from Times Online top 10 best paid “politicians” which is a misnomer — it should be leaders.

Edit: This is a ranking of world’s top 30 best paid politicians, not a list of the salary of our ministers.

For the record,

1. Elected President SR Nathan (纳丹总统) – S$3.9 million.

2. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (李显龙总理) – S$3.8 million.

3. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (李光耀资政) – S$3.5 million.

4. Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong (吴作栋资政) – S$3.5 million.

5. Senior Minister Prof Jayakumar (贾古玛资政) – S$3.2 million.

6. DPM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng (黄根成副总理) – S$2.9 million.

7. DPM & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean (张志贤副总理) – $2.9 million

8. Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo (外交部长杨荣文) – S$2.8 million.

9. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan (国家发展部长马宝山) – S$2.7 million.

10. PMO Miniser Lim Boon Heng (总理公署部长林文兴) – S$2.7 million.

11. Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang (贸工部长林勋强) – S$2.7 million.

12. PMO Minister Lim Swee Say (总理公署部长林瑞生) – S$2.6 million.

13. Environment Minister & Muslim Affairs Minister Dr Yaccob Ibrahim (环境兼回教事务部长雅国博士) – S$2.6 million.

14. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan (卫生部长许文远) – S$2.6 million.

15. Finance Minister S Tharman (财政部长尚达曼) – S$2.6 million.

16. Education Minister & 2nd Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen (教育部长兼国防部第二部长黄永宏医生) – S$2.6 million.

17. Community Development Youth and Sports Minister – Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (社青体部长维文医生) – S$2.5 million.

18. Transport Minister & 2nd Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim Siang Kiat (交通部兼外交部第二部长林双吉) – S$2.5 million.

19. Law Minister & 2nd Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam (律政部兼内政部第二部长尚穆根) – S$2.4 million.

20. Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong (人力部长颜金勇) – S$2.2 million.

21. PMO Minister Lim Hwee Hwa (总理公署部长林惠华) – S$2.2 million.

22. Acting ICA Minister – Lui Tuck Yew (代新闻、通讯及艺术部长吕德耀) – S$2.0 million.

23 to 30 = Senior Ministers of State and Ministers of State (高级政务部长和政务部长) – each getting between S$1.8 million to S$1.5 million.

Cool. No wonder we have a corruption-free government. It’s quite hard to be corrupted when you are already the best paid in that line of yours. And the fact that you will not be chastized doesn’t help, because everyone else together in it with you are paid equally well.

I’m sure their pay is justified, because we are a meritocratic society.

The decisions that the PM has to make have 5 times more impactful on the global arena than the USA, the money that the PM has to handle is 5 times as much as the USA, the landmass of the country is 5 times harder to manage than the USA, and that is why the PM’s salary is 5 times as much as the President of the United States of America, Obama.

Well, he earned it.

Here is what he has to say about it.

Most important part of all:

BBC: Finally Prime Minister, I read that you’re apparently the highest-paid head of government in the world. Your salary is about four, five times what President Obama gets. Are you worth all that money?

LHL: (Laughs) I’m not comparing myself and I don’t look at these rankings. We go on a system which is open, honest, transparent. What is the job worth, what is the quality of person whom you want. You need the best people for the job and these are jobs where you make decisions which are worth billions of dollars. And you cannot do that if you’re pretending and you just say, well, we’re all in it for the love of king and country. We wanted to be honest, we want people not to come in for the money but at the same time, their sacrifice cannot be too great. And at times like these, you want the best possible government you can have.

With regards to this, I would like to point out the incompetence and ineptitude of the Straits Times and Today newspapers.

They censored this last question of the interview above.

Either they have conveniently forgotten about reporting it, or their sources were sorely inadequate, or their editor has been slacking on the job. I’m very sure that there was no political agenda to it. Because both papers are such unbiased and objective papers with journalists with integrity and professionalism.

You realise that BBC’s question is a yes/no question. Are you worth or not, lah? Answer leh. I really can’t say for sure whether he feels that way or not. But essentially, his non-answer is very revealing of his opinion of yes/no.

I’m sure the job is worth billions but you’re only paid a meagre $3.8M a year. Yes, you are right, we need the best people for the job but I’m not sure if we have them. Maybe it’s because the salary isn’t $4.6B. Probably only then will we have the best person for the job. No wonder there was a blunder of making a lousy decision worth billions of dollars.

Not paying enough lah. That’s why Mas Selamat escaped! $2.9M only! But it’s okay. Lower pay means higher job stability. So if 10 more detainees escape, no problem, your job is still safe.

He says at times like these, you want the best possible government.

Duh? Is this line an insult to our intelligence? Does he mean that it is alright to have a subpar government when it’s not “times like these”? Please lah, we want the best possible government at every kind of time!

It’s quite plausible to think that they have been slacking off, which is why you get disasters like the Geylang Serai rojak deaths.

The PM says the sacrifice cannot be too great. This line just takes the cake. May I ask what is he sacrificing over here? Well, maybe he has really sacrificed alot. Very tough job. I know it is very compelling on him, to be the PM. He doesn’t want to do it at all, he doesn’t like it, he’s not happy. But bo bian la, still must do. If he really thinks that doing it is requires much loss and sacrifice on his part, just quit. Seriously. Teo Chee Hean could do with the additional $0.9M.

I always thought that serving the people for the interest of the nation was very noble and dignified, but apparently, some people think it’s too tough and lots of sacrifices have to be made, which can be mitigated by the obscene astronomical salary.

Pragmatism
Forward Looking
Transparency
Fairness
Meritocracy

Rather, the discernible principles are these:

Insensitivity
Back Tracking
Opacity
Hypocrisy
Self-Vindication

The above 5 are pretty much evident in all of the faux pas of the People At Power. However, whenever we see a gaffe committed, they are very quick to execute the 5th princple, where any actions or words of theirs are always justified in order to exculpate them of any blame.

Recent events which everyone are familiar with like the Temasek $4.6B loss, STTA fracas, suspension of AWARE’s CSE programme, CDC 8 months bonuses, and less known ones like the absurd events of PothePanda.

In the more distant past, we have French cooking lessons and opposition of Ong Teng Cheong’s request to the value of national reserves. Little random pieces picked up include MM Lee’s daughter’s claims to being not materialistic and Goh’s quitter daughter.

Although it is right that we do not constantly muck around in the past harping on blunders, it would also be sensible for certain individuals to stop living in the past and move on.

Times have changed — we cannot expect the tactics that worked 40 years ago to be effective now. The People At Power are too slow to keep up, because the people are changing even faster.

You can shut me up, but ten more like-minded individuals will spring up to replace me. This is the pace of change.

We want answers. And I will not go down quietly until you deliver.

I will not promise to be objective, because I will be the ardent polar opposite of your mouthpiece that is the mainstream media.