Monday, 28 October 2013

Casino, Monk and the Judgment of Capitalist Court

[Will social judgment be different for the same case? It is perfectly alright when we only consider profit and loss and the commercial law. This is really a rich man game.]
This is an interesting case and also a reflection of our value judgment under our capitalist and pro-business environment.

To cut it short, here is the brief story#:

Ø A businessman regularly seeks advices, including gambling advice, from a monk.

Ø The monk then introduced a casino business in Cambodia to the businessman.

Ø The businessmen agreed and handled over US$1 million to the monk.

Ø The monk handed the same to Businessman B for the casino deal.

Ø After pocketed the US$1 million, Businessman B disappeared and so the casino investment went down the drain.

Ø The businessman sued the monk for losses.

Ø The Court said the businessman should sue Businessman B as he took away the money.

Ø The businessman lost the case and is now considering an appeal.

Ø Despite winning the case, the monk also suffered loss in donation money, more than $4 million over 3.5 years.

So, who is the winner? Is it Businessman B? Perhaps, yes, he is now US$ 1 million richer. However, Businessman B claimed he did not receive the money.

(The winners are also the general public who get to read this unusual story. Of course, the newspapers also profit from increased copy sales.)  

Who are the losers?  The businessman lost US$1 million plus legal and court fees. The monk also lost S$4 million donation money. 

Can donation money be considered as income? Yes, by this definition, a loss in income is a loss in revenue.  The monk has expenses to pay but with less revenue, he suffered loss of more $1 million per year.  

So, the monk is considering his temple a business setup. A business with a running cost of $1 million per year is really not a small business.  In GST definition, the business will need to register with the tax department.

No wonder, religion is a big business in Singapore.   It is not surprising some religion activities are multi-million businesses. And so they care not only profit and loss, but also how to invest the multi-million revenue.


# read more about the case from the following links:





Friday, 25 October 2013

治标不治本的中学理财课程

钱不够用,财从哪里来。没有这个最基本的元素 - 钱财,如何理财?从新加坡不断扩大的贫富悬殊,人均所得看来,人口中底层的25%人口,真的的无钱无财可理,这是资本主义的普遍现象,像有美国梦这样的国家,理财对下层人民来说,也是一个别人的梦。

即使是在25% 线上的人,手头上可以利用作为投资,财务规划,人寿保险,医药保险的钱,也很可能是钱不够用。因此,在新加坡,除了强制的公积金,房子贷款,孩子的教育费,还有不幸遇到的医药费用外,一般上的普通人,一般的工薪阶级,是很难可以拥有一个完善的财务规划的。

因此,行动党的理财课程,就像曹操叫士兵们,看着树上的梅子,望梅止渴一样。这样说,是否理财课程一点都不需要。那倒未必,悟性好的学生,记忆好的学生,将来或许会用到,会懂得如何变通把理财知识,为自己所用,发挥‘后发’的功力。因为,学校里学习的知识,有很多都归还给老师,真正用到的真的是太少了。

理财课程的问题是过于理性。一个人收入多少,要拨出多少作为房屋贷款的分期付款,多少医药保险,多少孩子教育保险,多少人寿保险,甚至安排多少钱作为了旅游开支,作为日常的衣食住行,学生看了这些数目字的安排,心理面对人生的会产生什么看法,感想?在做梦的日子里,少年不知滋味的时候,他们会如何对待理财的概念,对待这些未来数目字?

理性之外,最好能够强化学生的心智,心理素质。看到这些数目字,如何告诉自己对将来的要求是什么?做不到怎么办?是否一定要照着理财课程的安排,样样事情都是这么做。样样事情都依着行动党的教条一步一步的跟着做,跟着理财的规划走。

行动党政府是基于一般人都不善于理财这个概念,而考虑为年轻学生开办理财课程。但是,更加重要的是,信贷的容易取得,信用卡的随意花费,电子货币的出现,人们对钱财的概念出现了戏剧化的变化,很多人对于金钱,由于没有握在手中,没有看在眼里,因此在花费的时候,就会有时不知所措,有时心花怒放,最后不知道自己到底花了多少钱,划了多少张信用卡.

因此,行动党再次出手,提早告诉年轻的学生,要珍惜钱财。

公积金最初的目的 为你打算

还记得很多年前,行动党把公积金的缴交率提高,同时又限制使用时,它是怎么为自己的立场说出合理的解释的呢?很简单,多数的人是不会理财的,多数的人是不会为将来打算的。因此,公积金的计划,就是要为国人规划将来的住屋,医药和生活日常开支的费用。政府为你规划,多少用于房屋贷款,放多少在医药户口,养老户口,还有一些作为投资,孩子的教育费用等等。

但是,国家发展到今天,有超过50%以上的年长公积金会员是达不到最低的存款,这就意味着他们的生活起居,如果没有获得家人,福利团体,政府的救济,
生活素质就会下降,甚至落入贫穷线下。

现在,回过头来想一想,国人相信行动党政府,相信公积金制度,会为未来的养老做出规划,会有一个‘当初放弃理财,将来会有一个好的养老’的信任,信念。可惜,行动党政府,现在告诉你,你自己理财,当初的公积金存款是拿来作为国家建设的,现在建设好,你们自己管理自己的钱财,有多少就吃多少, 其他的个人费用,行动党政府管不了,也不会替你付。

公积金制度还在,但是,它已经背离了当初的约定,不能为公积金会员的未来规划作出合理的安排,达不到最低存款,养不起老,你自己想办法解决。

因此,现在,行动党政府提早理财的规划,让学生早早就学习理财,在还没有工作前,在还没有开公积金户口前,就让学生理解财务规划,理财的不容易, 珍惜眼前的钱财和小心日常花费。

行动党政府再次的把理财概念提前,从公积金的年龄提前到中学的年龄。当初假设国人不会理财,钱都交到公积金局去管理。现在提前到中学,又是害怕国人不会理财,随意的花钱,行动党政府真的是用心良苦。

心理素质,理性判断和冷静日

心智,心理素质和理性判断相比,前者更为重要。兀兰巴士转换站的恶男,乌节图书馆的恶男,还有很多国人的恶行,到底是心理素质出问题还是不够理性?但是,他们都口口声声说自己有理。不论有理无理,他们都要对自己的恶行付出代价,有些还是惨痛的代价。反映在理性的理财上,也是如此。心智不成熟,心理素质不够,怎么合理的理财,最后还是理得不好。事实上,很多理财出问题的人,并不是收入不高,而是收入相当,也懂得理财规划,但是为何还是出错呢?

因此,理性判断外,还需要冷静思考,心智成熟下决定如何做。

行动党政府推出理财课程的目的,上面说了,就是希望学生能够理性判断自己的钱财,不要做出不合理的花费。理财的规划,按照个人的财务能力和所需付出的承担,做出合理的安排。这是理性判断,但是,由于每个人的心智,心理素质的不同,往往很容易做出非理性的决定。

在这样的情形下,为了避免错误决定的出现,错误几率的居高不下,行政部门就往往推出冷静措施。例如:檸檬法Lemon Laws)的出现。买了东西,付了钱,可以有宽限期,后悔还来得及,可以取消合同。

这些冷静措施,保障了消费者的利益,尤其是一时兴起,就下决定买下东西的人。这让他们有机会清醒,有机会冷静下来,重新思考自己的决定。也让心智得以冷静下来。

因此,行动党也不落人后,在2011年的大选和总统选举,推出冷静日。


结果呢!新加坡选民还是做出正确的冷静的心智明确的选择。因此,2011年的大选和总统选举成绩不是一时的冲动,而是冷静,理性判断,心智成熟的结果。可惜,行动党判断错误,以为选民会冷静思考行动党的过去成绩,会心智成熟的再投行动党一次。结果证明,选民对行动党的不满进一步深化,更多人对行动党不满。这不是一次意外的结果,而是心理素质成熟的合理表现。

Monday, 21 October 2013

Intellectual Critics Not Enough!

Everyone knows about ‘money not enough’ in Singapore. How about intellectual criticism? So do the intellectual critics not enough in Singapore.  Considering the controversial withdrawal statement of Ngiam Tong Tow about his comments on the PAP government, it just shows the level of ‘not enough’ in Singapore.

Let consider the following questions:

Are the critics of former senior civil servants same as the critics in social media?  If there are the same, why are they treated differently? Why do people and mainstream media only believe in critics of the ex-senior civil servants and down play (or discredit) the critics of social media?

Let draw a matric to see the evolution of critics and ask why critics from both ex-senior civil servants and social media come into convergence.

Critics
Good
Bad
Good
Both are good
One good one bad
Bad
One bad one good
Both are bad
In the past, the PAP would clearly declare any criticisms from the oppositions; independent individuals and the social media were bad. However, moderate criticisms from ex-senior civil servants were good. Mainstream media would give positive remarks on these criticisms as feedbacks to the government.

So, the public will receive a message of ‘one good one bad’ image of different criticisms - good for positive and constructive suggestions from ex-civil servants and bad for oppositions and social media.   

As more and more ex-senior civil servants (due to civil consciousness?) give different opinions and criticisms on the government, the government is in the dilemma: how to continue playing the ‘one good one bad’ game.

The option is either ‘both are good’ or ‘both are bad’? The answer is quite obvious. If both are good, then the government is wrong or bad. So, the only action is to classify both are bad or withdrawing the bad statements/criticisms made by ex-senior civil servants.
   
Only by doing so, with the help of mainstream media, the PAP can stop the evolution and maintain the position of ‘one good one bad’. But with more and more people are educated and aware of the political, social and economic developments in Singapore, it will be very hard to retain the old position.

So the future strategy of the PAP will likely to define them as ‘both are bad’.  Or in a certain way, the PAP will down play the importance of ex-civil servants and the mainstream media will report less of such criticisms from them. In fact, Ngaim’s interview is published in a medical journal.   

The outcome will go back to the old Singapore – any criticisms about the PAP are bad.  Depending on who you support, you will see ‘one good social media one bad mainstream media or alternatively ‘one bad social media and one good mainstream media’.

It is back to status quo and one distrusts the other. And there is no progress for Singapore.

One will have to ask why do criticisms of ex-senior civil servants so close or similar to social media. Why do opinions from ex-senior civil servants always have a better credit rating than those in social media or the oppositions? Even there are of the same quality, why are opinions and criticisms of the oppositions and social media considered as second class?

How well will the evolution of public opinions and social media change the political criticisms in future Singapore?


It is an interesting development that the PAP will find ‘time not enough’ to react. 

Thursday, 17 October 2013

《洋人不准进入》,新加坡日弄巧反拙。

新加坡可是越来越威风了,在洋人的地盘竟然不让洋人进入新加坡日的庆祝会。真想不到,新加坡政府在澳洲的一小片短暂的不到一天的租界,竟然表演出一幕《洋人与狗不准进入》的种族歧视风波#1

行动党政府真的是流年不利,做好事竟然变成坏事,我们的副总理张志贤还特地的赶到新加坡日大吃会现场,拉近与海外新加坡人的感情,与新加坡人同乐,却不与澳洲人同乐,难怪一些澳洲人,感到为何在自己的国家,竟然会有当年上海租界的《华人与狗不准进入》的同样感觉。

你说,新加坡威风不威风。我们有钱,有能力把小贩飞到澳洲去,短暂的借用你们的公园,和国民一起玩乐,一起怀念新加坡的美好日子。虽然说是短暂的经济建设,但对澳洲经济来说,不也是一小庄贡献吗?为何说我们歧视澳洲白人,看不起你们,不让你们进入会场,还向电台投诉,新加坡人忘恩负义,忘了澳洲人曾经为保卫新加坡做出牺牲#2

或许,我们真的忘了二战,我们真的忘了(英澳纽新马)五国联防,我们真的忘了洋人还真的有过为了保卫新加坡做出牺牲,为了新加坡经济出过策划做出贡献。因为,50多年的行动党政治,好像只有行动党在做牺牲,行动党在做贡献,连辛劳的新加坡人都没有贡献,怎么会轮到洋人呢!

澳洲洋人白人感觉受到歧视,不能到新加坡日大吃会上吃到新加坡美食,心里愤愤不平,因此投诉澳洲电台,觉得这是不公平,其他国家在澳洲办大吃会,欢迎澳洲白人,目的是推动主办国的美食,欢迎洋人参与,为何新加坡人的想法与人不同,还拒人千里之外?

为何在国内,口口声声说我们是一个包容的 inclusive  社会,到了国外,就改变嘴脸说这是一个exclusive 大吃会。

洋人白人可能根本不知道资本主义的运作。他们又怎么知道新加坡行动党政府是如何操作资本主义的。有没有听过美国运通的会员是有特权的。当那一片小地方成了新加坡暂时的小租界时,新加坡人就有这个特权。

这里再举一个特权的例子。每年F1在新加坡的会期,不是在市区圈出一些地方,让跑车跑圈圈吗?你要到圈里去吃喝玩乐,你就需要买票入场,不论洋人黑人还是其他人,没有买票就不能进入。买了票,你就有普通权进入会场。但是,澳洲白人还是不甘心,我们想买票,还是不行,新加坡方面不卖票。对了!即使在F1会场,你只有VIP特权,才能进入VIP的招待所,这些地方是不卖票的。明白吗?这是商业运作。

洋人白人还是不明白,你们新加坡日哪里是什么商业运作?明明白白就是让人大吃大喝,让新加坡人高兴而已。如果是这么简单,那就不是行动党政府。行动党绝对不相信免费的午餐,哪里有理由给人家吃免费,让新加坡人在澳洲免费吃喝玩乐?

澳洲洋人白人或许根本无法想象行动党政府是结合商业运作,政治活动,包容保外的高手。行动党所花的每一分钱,都要考虑回报的。什么回报?洋人还是不明白。大选的时候,洋人或许就会明白。

不论是大选,补选,还是总统选举,在关键的决定胜负的最后关头,或许有一天行动党必须要依靠海外选票才能赢得选举的胜利。因此,在海外,行动党并不对洋人inclusive, 而是对国人inclusive。洋人是应该被exclusive 对待的,因为他们手中没有新加坡选票。
没有这个特权,怎么能够来新加坡日免费的大吃大喝呢! 
在榜鹅东补选中,行动党候选人在海外选票中胜出。在27张海外选票中,行动党得19张票,工人党只有7张,另一张为废票。#3

新加坡日的成本不轻,以上回在纽约的集会来看,每个人头成本大约1000元。这回出席澳洲新加坡日的人数超过6000人,你说这要花多少钱?因此,花钱搞新加坡日活动,是要讲商业运作,讲投资回报的。希望你们吃喝玩乐后,告诉自己也告诉家人未来怎么做,在关键时刻,做出正确的政治经济判断。

洋人白人这么单纯,他们怎么会想到这么多,如果要想这么深,他们可能就不来了。不只是不来, 他们很可能反对在市区画圈圈,阻止跑车在他们认为的公地跑动,搞商业活动,吸引外来投资。

哎呀,洋人白人如何能够了解行动党政府,说白了,就连我们新加坡人又如何看得透行动党的居心。免费的午餐,门都没有。


#1

#2

#3
Of the 27 votes, 19 went to the People's Action Party and seven to the Workers' Party. There was one spoilt vote.

Monday, 14 October 2013

From sex to tarts: a drop in corruption quality?

From spiritual sexual favours to bicycles, wines, and pineapple tarts #1, does it mean the quality of corruptions in Singapore drop to a new low level for civil servants?

This shows and proves corruption can happen in every level to every one whether senior or junior and whether high pay or low pay. When the PAP government designed the high compensation system for ministers and senior civil servants, they certainly underestimated how low the corruption standard and level could go.

So, the next time, when you hear about corruption cases, it may involve toilet papers, pencils, A4 papers and many other small items.

However, for this corruption case of pineapple tarts, I am particularly interested to know what is the duty and responsibility of a Chief of Protocol?  Chief of Protocol is the most senior officer to give first hand advice and knowledge to the government for a right diplomatic protocol.

Why is he just arranging small things like pineapple tarts and serving the right wines? These jobs can be easily done by a junior staff.  So, are we overpaying our senior civil servants for performing junior staff’s job?

Or, is it a case of putting talents in small uses? (大材小用). 

And how serious are the situations in Singapore civil service for underutilizing talents and over paying them? (Is the high salary policy just to keep talents in civil service and make sure they don’t join the private sectors? But in fact, in practice its aim is just under use their talents.)

If the Chief of Protocol is only good at arranging tarts and wines, then I am very worry about the right arrangement of diplomatic protocol at MFA. 

Let’s take a look at the US and see what happen there:

[The Office of the Chief of Protocol seeks to advance the foreign policy goals of the United States by creating an environment for successful diplomacy. Our team extends the first hand that welcomes presidents, prime ministers, ruling monarchs, and other leaders to our country. By serving on the front lines of diplomatic engagement, we promote cross-cultural exchange and build new bridges of understanding between people and governments around the world.]http://www.state.gov/s/cpr/


If our Prime Minister is getting few times higher salary than President Obama, I think our Chief of Protocol should not be getting a lower pay than the US Chief of Protocol.   And their Chief of Protocol is not arranging pineapple tarts or wines but to seek a ‘successful diplomacy’.  

Why is PSC not making an official statement on the bond breaking issue?

I still cannot understand why a PSC’s scholarship matter#2 is not clarified by the Public Service Commission?  Can an MP represent PSC and issue a statement?

What kind of protocol is this?

Is PSC also acting like the Chief of Protocol caring only small things like pineapple tarts and wines? Talents working in PSC are again only for small uses (大材小用). And they leave the ‘small talent for big job’ (小材大用) to the MP.

Is using MP to make a PSC’s clarification a right protocol? Perhaps I don’t know the meaning of protocol, and the big or small uses of talents.   

#1

#2

Friday, 11 October 2013

贫富交际下,蓝宝基尼进入百姓家。

新加坡人真的很富有,连世界顶级的豪华跑车蓝宝基尼,法拉利等都出现在普通老百姓居住的组屋区。我们的阔气真的又有一大进步。我们已经从奔驰,宝马进入到蓝宝基尼,瑪莎拉蒂,法拉利的时代。

这也凸显组屋区的人口结构出现变化,组屋区其实也出现贫富悬殊。

蓝宝基尼出现在组屋区,代表了什么?难道这就能证明组屋区没有贫民吗newnation.sg

为何这么说?或许说,我们新加坡人出现不同的价值取向。以往,建国初期,奔驰宝马可不是普通人的交通工具,很少人会把这些豪华车停在组屋停车场。接着组屋贵了,奔驰宝马也贵了,但是,组屋停车场却出现越来越多的奔驰宝马,当然,也有富豪立胜等豪华车。

曾经有一度,当拥车证很贵很高价的时候,也似乎没有出现组屋价格低于一辆豪华车。当时,一间新组屋(五房式)单位,最少也要20, 30万元。但是,一辆奔驰或宝马售价应该不会超过30万。因此,组屋屋价还是高过奔驰宝马。

物以稀为贵

但是,蓝宝基尼是什么概念呢! 如果说奔驰宝马是五星级酒店,那么,蓝宝基尼和玛莎拉蒂就很可能是七星级酒店了。七星级酒店当然价格也就要高出很多。因此,一辆新的蓝宝基尼的价格就很可能高过一间组屋的价格。因为,它们的售价通常都超过一百万元。

根据维基#1的资料,蓝宝基尼在意大利的工厂2011年才出厂1711辆新车。而2012年,全球的销售量为2083辆。因此,物以稀为贵,而拥有一辆蓝宝基尼的快感对有些人来说,的确是高于一间组屋。

一辆蓝宝基尼和一间组屋,一个的价格高于另一个。人们的价值取向到底出现了什么变化?拥有一辆车所得到的快感竟然高于一间温室。或许,连行动党政府都没有想到。

因为,组屋区的停车场竟然无法安全的停放一辆蓝宝基尼!所以,建屋局在考虑把停车位加大加高才能满足蓝宝基尼车主的停车要求。建屋局的这个举动,也提升了组屋车主的身份,想想看,我们的普通车和蓝宝基尼停在同一个停车场,一起过夜。

因此,不是人人都开得起蓝宝基尼。但是,不知道车商和住在91011邮区高级豪宅的蓝宝基尼车主又有何感想呢?组屋区的老百姓开得起蓝宝基尼,虽然可能是二手,但毕竟是蓝宝基尼和你们新的贵的大的蓝宝基尼停在一起,别人又会怎么说呢?

组屋区的贫穷没有显现出来

蓝宝基尼停放在组屋区,对行动党政府来说,有着宣传作用。政府可以和国人说,现在组屋居民都买得起蓝宝基尼,不要再投诉组屋价格贵了。

事实是否如此,组屋区难道没有贫民吗?为何,香港大约每56个人,就有一个贫民,而新加坡没有贫民呢! 
香港特区政府首次为香港制订“贫穷线”,并将“主线”定为家庭入息中位数的50%。根据2012年底数字估算,香港共有131万贫穷人口,贫穷率为19.6%。不过,若计算综援等现金福利收入后,贫穷人口将降至102万,贫穷率亦减少4.4个百分点至15.2%http://www.chinanews.com/ga/2013/09-29/5334952.shtml

我们保守一点,人家香港是每5个人就有一个贫民,而我们比他们进步,每10个人,就有一个贫民好吗? 这样算起来,以540 万人来计算,就有54万人。以300多万新加坡公民来计算,也应该有30多万人。在《新加坡有没有贫民区?》#2一文中,我已经提出贫民如果集中起来,就会大过几个集选区。

包装做得好

新加坡看不到贫民区,应该归功于行动党政府的包装,包装做得好。国大社会学者蔡明发#3就指出:把一房,三房和更大的组屋单位放在一起,几种大小不同的组屋捆在一起,贫民和社会不公就会“看不见”,变得无影无踪了。这样一来,对于贫穷,协助人们脱离贫穷的构想就会往往被‘忽略‘了。也只有到最近,这个问题才明显化。

蓝宝基尼给组屋区带来荣耀,这个短暂的快感和满足感,再加上些许的虚荣,是否是长久的,而蓝宝基尼进入百姓家,对于行动党来说,又是多了一个包装。因此,我们有必要认真的看待这个新包装。


#1
In 2011, Lamborghini's 831 employees produced 1,711 vehicles. 2012 sales 2083 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini


#2


#3
Professor Chua Beng Huat of National University of Singapore (NUS) also noted the move to mix all public housing types - one-room, three-room and above - so no ghetto developed had the unintended consequence of making inequality "invisible".
This, he said, resulted in a "neglect" of the "idea of poverty" until recently, when the inequality problem grew more pronounced.

Monday, 7 October 2013

High Pay Not Only For Teachers - Think Correlation

Our teachers are overpaid, even though the population still respects the teaching professional. Then, how about the civil servants, and of course the ministers’ pay will come into picture again.

Local mainstream media reported it last week and so do the Guardian:
Teacher salaries are at their highest in Singapore, with an average of $45,755. South Korea, USA, Germany and Japan are all above $40,000. The UK is at $33,377.http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/oct/03/teachers-rated-worldwide-global-survey

Will you be surprised if you link this high pay for teachers to the even higher pay of our ministers and civil servants?

How many times our ministers' pay is higher  than other countries? thehearttruths.com

So, there is a correlation.  High pay from the top will also result to high pay for the bottom.  If you reward a minister with 4 or 5 times higher salary than their counterparts in advanced countries, you should also increase the lower ranking officers' pay to justify your action.

Hence, we see a situation that teachers and civil servants have moderate increase of salary. This moderate increase made them one of the highest paid teachers in the world.

Since teachers and civil servants are paid higher compared to the world average, then how should we reward ministers and senior civil servants? As there is already a support base from the bottom, it is very easy to justify for the top. Being considered as talents, big pay increase should be given to ministers and senior civil servants.

So, now you know why our Prime Minister is the highest pay political leader in the world even President Obama is envy about it.   


The survey of teachers’ pay and respect is conducted by the Varkey GEMS Foundation. In the same survey, even Singaporeans also think there should be a cut in teachers’ pay: 
[However, while Singaporeans thought highly of teachers in most regards, respondents believed that the fair wage for a teacher should be 14 per cent less than the average actual wage of US$37,144 (S$46,400).]
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/teachers-in-singapore/835670.html

If teachers should be paid 14% less, then should there a cut in pay for ministers and senior civil servants? Teachers enjoyed small increase and ministers enjoyed big increase in the past.  Now if there is a small cut in teachers’ pay, there should a corresponding big cut for ministers and civil servants.

Is this possible?  The answer is quite obvious.  This is PAP government. They have yet to listen to the people. In fact, indirectly, the survey also points to a demand for a further cut in ministers’ pay through the 14% decrease for teachers’ pay.


Survey always tells many different stories and their correlations.  With selective reporting, you only see one side of the story.  

Friday, 4 October 2013

从新加坡公司到新加坡跨国企业,公信怎能不流失。

【从Singapore Inc. Singapore MNC,雇员从国内扩大延伸到国外,当然 Public Trust也跟着流失到国外去。】
当李显龙在高谈政府公信,公务员的清廉,限制进入赌场次数时,他难道不知道,新加坡政府的整个企业心态,雇员心态,已经发生很大的变化。而这个变化直接影响人们对政府的信任,对政府的政策,对行动党政府的所作所为起了根本的动摇。

如果说新加坡立国前40年的发展像个公司,那么,它还像个本地公司,会为本地员工着想,当然也会为本地员工的福利着想。

但是,自从李显龙出任总理以来,他就更上一层楼,把公司做大,从本地公司,把它发展提升成为跨国企业。

什么是跨国企业的精神?哪里利益最大,哪里工人最便宜,哪里市场最好赚,就往哪里去。你看一看今天的新加坡像不像个跨国企业。我们的雇员来自世界各地,我们的市场遍布全球,我们要最好的效率,最好的人才,因此,我们更像一个跨国企业,而不像一个国家。

所以,我才会说{总理培训20,不为优雅社会}#1,他想到的是饭盒的经济效率,就像跨国企业一样,哪里便宜,就到哪里投资。因此,新加坡如果成本贵了,新加坡这个跨国企业,就会到其他地方去投资。结果呢!饭盒给别人偷走了。

这样的企业精神,在过去的资本主义辉煌时期,的确是商业的基本准则。近年来,企业的发展,已经开始发生变化。虽然仍然要考虑利益,但是,更注重企业的目的。企业为何存在,难道只是为了钱吗?这有点像儒商,企业开始关心环保,人道,正义,。。。想为社会做出贡献。而刚好《工作和生活平衡》也是企业目的存在的一小部分。

公信低落的真正原因

总理要公务员上报去本地赌场的次数,他认为上的次数越多,就越危险。难道他不知道,赌场也是跨国企业吗?虽然云顶金沙不明说,不光顾本地赌场不要紧,但是,我们还是欢迎赌友到马来西亚和澳门的分店去玩一玩。总之,不论你到哪里赌,开赌场的,哪里有不欢迎赌友这回事。

赌场作为跨国企业,他们的雇员应该效忠企业还是国家?这是一个复杂而又简单的问题。一般上,对于发展中国家来说,由于人均收入比较低,而跨国企业的福利又比较好,在跨国企业工作的人,会倾向效忠跨国企业。即使像新加坡这样人均高的地方,又有着这么多跨国企业,新加坡雇员到底效忠新加坡还是效忠相关的跨国企业?

将心比心,新加坡公司现在已经提升到新加坡跨国企业,这个新加坡跨国企业的雇员将会效忠谁呢?而没有得到好处的非雇员,即使是拥有新加坡公民护照,也没有得到这间跨国企业的照顾,那么,他们的心又会归向谁呢?

当然,不会是这个作为国家的新加坡跨国企业。因为,这个新加坡跨国企业照顾的是它的雇员,不论他们有没有新加坡护照,是不是新加坡公民,只要是企业的人才,就要尽力留住,生怕这些人才为其他的跨国企业竞争者服务。

这就是今天的新加坡。行动党提供给国人的是一个跨国企业的治国理念,我们的饭盒在这样的模式下,很可能被人偷走。因此,总理提醒再加上警告,新加坡人如果不小心,不懂得取舍,竞争者就会把饭盒偷走。在企业经营上,或许,他没有错。错就错在他们国家和跨国企业放在一起,把人民当成是雇员,把真正的国家管理和真正的企业目的给忘了。

他忘了,有些新加坡人,无法无力,又不是人才,不能跟上新加坡跨国企业的要求,上不了新加坡跨国企业这只豪华巨轮。

总理希望和通用电气一样,国民所得年年倍增? money.cnn.com

或许,总理应该投身商界,成为另一个Jack WelchJackGE发展成为超级跨国企业,他的手段就像新加坡跨国企业一样,不理中下层的困境,只注重企业回报,高薪养人才#2。他当然有一批效忠他的雇员,更当然,也有一批不喜欢他的雇员,更有一批不喜欢他的非雇员。

因此,当新加坡跨国企业在李显龙的领导下,继续强大的时候,也会有更多上不了新加坡号豪华巨轮的非雇员,会出来发声,表示不满,对于行动党政府的信任和公信力,当然就不会加分,而只有减分。



#2
Welch has received criticism for a lack of compassion for the middle class and working class. By his actions during acquisitions and wholesale shutdowns of GE business units Welch proved that keeping only the "good" units of your company can maximize ROI in the short term.[citation needed] Welch has stated that he is not concerned with the discrepancy between the salaries of top-paid CEOs and those of average workers. When asked about the issue of excessive CEO pay, Welch has said that such allegations are "outrageous" and has vehemently opposed proposed SEC regulations affecting executive compensation. Countering the public uproar over excessive executive pay (including backdating stock optionsgolden parachutes for nonperformance, and extravagant retirement packages), Welch stated that CEO compensation should continue to be dictated by the free market, without interference from government or other outside agencies.[13]