Just for laughs - M.A.H.A.T.H.I.R

When Dr. Mahathir was Prime Minister of Malaysia...


One lousy day in the middle of the economic crisis, PM Mahathir was feeling extremely frustrated and wondering how a neighboring country can be doing better than Malaysia.

One of his aides said, I heard that the leaders consult Feng Shui masters to ensure prosperity for the country. Dr Mahathir thought if that was the case, Malaysia Bomoh also can, and went to seek the top bomoh's advice in the country.

After reviewing the case, the bomoh told Dr M that there were 2 things that he must do :

Bomoh : Step 1. You must blame the crisis on SOROS for everything.
Dr M : But Why ?
Bomoh: Because SOROS stands for 'Speculate On Ringgit Or Stocks'.
You must blame him, and look at ways to control the ringgit and stock market.
Bomoh : Step 2 - You must get rid of ANWAR.
Dr M: What! Why him ?
Bomoh: Because ANWAR stands for 'A Nation Without Any Ringgit'.
Dr M: But how? This is most difficult to do, he is popular with the people.
Bomoh : Aiyoh, you bodoh lah! Look at your name, MAHATHIR.
Make Anwar Homosexual And Then Highlight It Repeatedly!




The latest according to the trend...
M.A.H.A.T.H.I.R is the new acronymn for...............................


Must Always Hantam Abdullah Till He Is Removed

Constitutional amendment

Looks like the ruling government are making even more dubious decisions after their last pay raise issue (click on the above link to read Molly's take on it - a rather good one I must say). This post is not meant to be a commentary, but rather as a record for myself to come back and look at after some time.

After being out of the country for some time, I've more or less lost touch with the happenings on the ground. Now I'm trying to make up for lost time.

Keep up the good work, fellow bloggers! Our people are learning to read online articles for more news! =)

Pragmatism and the choice to stay out of politics

Life could be predictable, if only you'd believe it to be.

There's a "straightforward" path to success. Study hard in primary and secondary school (get into all the brandname ones without the "negative influences"), get into a top JC (y'all already know which), then achieve the perfect 4As, 2Ds, A1 for GP and an excellent CCA record to boot. (But that's IF you can do it, and a very big IF.) Then of course, hone the interview skills to ace that scholarship interview, and you have it MADE FOR LIFE. Yes, literally speaking.

From then on, as those responsibilities come one by one, so does greatness. Promotions come thick and fast, and before you know it, you're in the top echelons of power, a position which commonfolk like us all can only hope to reach - and that we pin our hopes on our next generation. One of my friends actually said she LIKED that kind of predictability - she felt safe in the knowledge that there was a surefire formula for success. But that's only if you do make it there, or at least somewhere NEAR there.

-----------

Pragmatism in Singapore means to lead a peaceful existence, earn your own money and mind your own business. This necessarily(?) means you do not dabble in politics or engage in alternative views, or does it? Pragmatism tells me I shouldn't be confronting (if at all) the establishment. Yes, looking at what I can potentially lose, it is scary.

While it is not my business who is in charge of Singapore, it is my concern, as long as I am Singaporean and feel such, to want the best to be right at the top, and more than that, to ensure that they do not go unchecked and totally unopposed as they chart the path for our country. I think a government, however bright and capable, will crumble if there is insufficient checks and balances in place. Corruption will set in, regardless of the level of salaries being paid out (of course a higher salary will manage to stave off chances of that happening for a longer time, but still...) That is why, although I favour a limited democracy for its efficiency in policymaking, I also believe that the citizens have a role to play by being watchful over their own leaders.

I am glad to have found an active online community which watches the government's actions closely. While we might be tempted to feel discouraged from time to time (words are only words without action being taken), let us take heart in the fact that maybe one day, the government will take our opinions with more than a pinch of salt.

Bureaucracy at its ugly worst

Well well, what do we say to this?

Alfian Sa'at writes:

"I was told that the school had received a telephone call from the MOE requesting the immediate termination of my services as a relief teacher. He [the principal] was unable to give me the grounds for such a decision. When I queried him as to whether this was based on my performance in school, he assured me, in his own words, that 'professionally and pedagogically, we had no problems with you'.

I asked if there had been any complaints made against me by any student or parent. Again, I was told that the school had been very satisfied with my performance, and based on feedback from students and teachers, acknowledged the fact that I had often gone beyond the minimum expectations for a relief teacher—including producing extra classroom material and marking the examination papers. He acknowledged that the school was in a very difficult position, because they would have problems procuring the services of another relief teacher at such short notice. "

If the person were me, I would be extremely indignant. I'm sure this guy is very angry too, but he manages to stay cool and fire off a cool-headed letter to the MOE, but the reply he got was another TYPICAL dodgy governmental answer. No Alfian, I did not have fun reading your correspondence. I was boiling with rage.

Why is the Civil Service like that? Is it that they have a standard protocol to follow (and again, this begets the question on WHO sets this policy) and that this practice is pick one of several "standard" replies and send it back to any letter writers, regardless what the matter at hand is?

The administration who are in the Civil Service are those with a handicap in the language - is that it? I'm wondering if the Government has a reply about this postulation, what with their INCREASE in Civil Service salaries to attract talent and retain existing ones. Are you equating talent to those equipped with the skill to write inane replies which "communicate maximum bureaucratic reticence", in Alfian's words? If so, their salaries really need not be that high - you could hire any JC kid on summer vacation to fill in those posts.

So where are the people who are actually equipped with the proper command of grammar and vocabulary and who are able to better answer queries than... an advanced robot with pre-set generalized replies to respond to ANY kind of situation? Note that I am not even talking about verbal sparring or debating, most people just want a decent reply that actually ANSWERS the questions swimming in their heads!

To me, what Alfian has asked is plain and simple. I reproduce his questions.

"I am thus writing to you to seek some answers.

1) What are the reasons for my termination as a relief teacher? I have satisfied the eligibility requirement as stated on your website, which stated a minimum of 5 'O' Level passes. As a matter of fact, I had garnered ten A1 distinctions for my 'O' Level results. I do not have a criminal record. To the best of my knowledge, I have not committed an infraction during the course of my teaching so grievous as to warrant such abrupt termination.

2) Today I received a letter from the Personnel Division informing me that I have not been 'successful for (my) applicaton'. This of course came after the fact; I had already been teaching for a month. Obviously, I would like to know why this letter is sent to me only after my employment.

3) When your directive arrived at the school, I was in the midst of marking the first semestral exam papers for 16 classes. I would like to know why you had urged my termination with such alacrity, without considering how this would affect the school and the student population. I felt a natural responsibility to review with the students the papers that I had marked. In light of these considerations, would it not have been more humane and less disruptive to provide me with a grace period so as to tie up loose ends before my departure?

4) I can only speculate that I have been somewhat blacklisted—as a relief teacher for now—by the MOE. I do not know the basis of this blacklisting, and whether it was generated via any kind of inter-ministerial communication and information-sharing. Does this mean that I will not be able to enter the teaching profession, and that an avenue for possible gainful employment in the civil service has been forever closed to me?"

To MOE's credit, they DID manage to answer one of his questions - q2! WOW, wonders of an automated generalized reply!

Quote:

"In the processing of relief teacher applicatons, we will usually give provisional approval due to the urgency of need at school level, pending further registration formalities. This is why you were initially appointed by East View Sec from 16 Apr to 11 May 07. Upon consideration of your application, we were not able to approve your registration as a relief teacher. Unfortunately, due to an oversight, the school has appointed you again on 14 May 07. We would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused."

But I think, maybe it's just me, or did I see points 1 - 4 neatly organized into paragraphs, and all waiting to be answered?

However, I read one of the comments at the bottom. And it was enough to chill me to the bone. Next, just to convince myself, I googled for Alfian Sa'at - sure, I've heard of his name, but I'm just not familiar with what he does. And here might be a more plausible reason (although not necessarily palatable) which MOE neglected to include in their reply to Mr Sa'at - reputed in Wikipedia to be Singapore's enfant terrible -that people who are known to be anti-establishment/have alternative views might not be suited to teach our young and malleable minds. Goddamn it, I'm cold, I'm shuddering at the thought of the insidiousness of it all.

If anyone would like to clarify my conjectures with me (I only put two and two together), I will oblige and will be more than happy to answer any queries to my best of my knowledge. I will not be dodgy because... I'm not a "Civil-ized Servant".

Singapore, Forever a Migrant City?

Whilst I do not attempt to hit out wildly at the government, I do have my fair share of criticism for certain policies they uphold. Sure, the government is doing at least SOME of the things right, because our country is growing from strength to strength. But look at our people, they are getting increasingly disgruntled. The leaders are stunned. Why, should they not be happy for us we are drawing million-dollar salaries? Why, is Singapore not having consistent growth? Why, are we not worth our weight in gold? Really? Then find us someone who can do our job, and we might quit. Foreign talent, anyone?


As I commented in the Young PAP blog (reference the link above, please) on EOC's post, our country has made good on its progress and has attained first-world status. Now after our basic physiological needs have been met, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs actually suggests that we might have moved on to the next level, and what's that? Yes, safety. What safety? I quote excerpts from Wikipedia: of body, of EMPLOYMENT, [...] of health and property.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs - every business student knows this by heart. (Disclaimer: I am NOT from Business.)

Which brings me to...

The Foreign Talent policy. Sweet. Don't we all have a love-hate relationship with it?

No, actually I know of people who only love it. Our leaders. Don't they? They only proclaim the positives of this policy, and conveniently sidestep the problems that this policy can bring about.

Business students anywhere and everywhere would know, that globalization and diversity are inevitable in this era, and our government has so cleverly tweaked immigration and work policies to make it easier for an inflow of, what we now know as, foreign talent. Yes yes yes, of course, Singapore only has one resource, foreign talent. Oops, I actually mean Singaporeans, our human resource. And now that resource is unhappy that it is being used, but not given remuneration commensurate with the amount of time spent studying, or serving National Service, or the number of upgrading workshops they have attended. So they leave. And get labels like traitor, quitter and the like.

So that's how our government leaders are worthy of their salaries. They invent names! They do not squirrel down to the root of the problem, but think they can hold people back by publishing their faces in our very own well-loved and widely-circulated Shit Times. Oooh, dangerous territory I am wading into.

So as to protect myself, I would like to have you and the whole world know, I agree with many policies that PAP has made, I am happy with how the country has been run so far, but that does not necessarily preclude me from speaking up about those policies which are quite clearly disadvantaging Singaporean citizens now, and well into the future.

Whilst I am NOT a low wage-earner (or maybe, who knows), nor someone who is not internationally mobile (after being endowed with a world-class education from 18th-in-the-world NUS, yayness!), I feel for these categories of people. Nowadays, I go out and I try to spot the old men and women who are picking up cans from the streets, from the rubbish bins, the dishevelled old man who sits by the wall begging for money, the cleaners! (OMG this should really be another post.) The cleaners in the food courts, or the hawker centres, or the coffeeshops are more likely than not to be our senior citizens, 65 or older, supposed to be enjoying their twilight years. Hey they could be your grandmas or grandpas for all you know.

OK, I shall not deal with the topic that these elderly folk should be resting at home, playing chess at the void deck with their friends or jetting off to see the world, but now I shall more pertinent to the point. Have you guys noticed a paradigm shift? Now what did I just say earlier? Did you spot something wrong? Were you sharp enough? I specifically point you to this statement. "The cleaners in the food courts, or the hawker centres, or the coffeeshops are more likely than not to be OUR senior citizens..." Anything wrong?

No, wrong. That was in the past. Now, the cleaner cleaning your table is likely to be a "foreign talent" - many from India/Bangladesh/Timbuktoo, and more recently, more from China. OMG really, you surely need talent to clean a table! Then the not-so-talented elderly folk have no money to retire, no job to work and a rather supportive government providing them with $290 per month. Wait, that's just slightly more than my monthly pocket money - $200 - and I did not have to pay for my transport fees, or utility bills. I only had to pay for my school lunches. And guess what, $200 was just about enough for me. So pray tell, does the government need anymore proof that $290 per month is not enough? Darn, I strayed from my main topic again!

Rehashing Nicholas Lazarus's point (read his comments from EOC's post), the locals should not suffer because of replacement by cheaper substitutes. The government says, upgrade lah! Eh, upgrade to what? What other skills does a cleaner need to have besides being able to clean stuff? Oh yeah, maybe being able to paint walls, use Microsoft Word, and being fluent in 3 other languages besides English and Mandarin might help you to snare the cleaner position. Then other problems remain, what about those who are not academically inclined? I mean, they couldn't do well in school that's why they ended up in menial jobs in the first place, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

All in all, my point is, Singapore has to develop into a more compassionate society. If foreign rubbish is going to balloon our population to 6.5 million, then I can say with confidence (and maybe a little flourish) that I will be saying bye bye Singapore! And then after leaving Singapore, "YES, NO MORE RESERVIST!" I do not want to see the little red dot we love so much turn into a huge rubbish dump.

You see, at the end of the day, I am still proud to say I am Singaporean. What about the foreigners?

Flagellate that dead horse

Refer to this post on the Young PAP blog.

Refer to K Shanmugam's speech in Parliament during the ministerial pay hike debate (link above). Yes I know this is coming late, but it's better than never.

I take issue with point 21 and 22. My comments are as follows.

Yeah true, US politicians are well sought-after after they leave the public service, but are our own scholars not well-taken care of after they leave public service?

The way I see it, it's like these academically elite have their WHOLE future mapped out for them already, right from the day they got confirmation of the scholarship award.

I can even spell it out for you.

Study hard in university -> get first class honours (this is probably the hardest part - but they are academically bright, so is it really THAT hard?) -> get inducted into the organization they are bonded to -> rise up very very quickly -> "retire" from their organization, get seconded to another organization to "get more experience" -> join PAP become a minister/minister of state/perm sec after sufficient rounds of exposure.

After "graduating" from public service serving more than 8 years to ensure they get a lifelong pension, they go on to serve in a GLC, often serving in positions like executive vice-president, or CEO or the like. This goes even for non-scholars who join the public service mid-career. Show me a ex-minister that is sitting in a kampung, fishing for a living (or doing something along those lines) and I will close down my blog for good.

And someone was drawing a parallel between US politicians and Singaporean ministers?

My toes are tickled, thank you very much.

The political blogosphere

Ever since I made my first "serious political blog post", I've been getting quite a lot of hits from some "very obviously political" blogs. I'm not sure to be worried or not, after all, I'm not a regular "political post-er". My mum said, "You better not get into unnecessary trouble" after she learnt that I was "trying my hand" at making political posts. That's it for her, getting into trouble. The very mindset that PAP wanted(?) to inculcate in the general public, so that policy-making would be an easier task (they've really succeeded for the older generation). I believe that whatever I say here makes sense (at least to me) and I am not getting involved in brainless slandering, so I have nothing to fear. After all, PAP would not be so dumb to arrest me for something so small. Singapore is not yet that scary a police-state as foreigners would have you believe. For me, writing about these issues are more of an exercise in my language and ability to debate on serious stuff. I'm not sure, but it could also be an awakening in my political senses, whatever.


After blog-surfing with one blog referring to others, I chanced upon a blog which Chee Soon Juan wrote in. Wasn't really interested in his writing, cos his posts were not bite-sized (I have "Attention Deficit Disorder" =P). From that blog, you can link to many other political blogs, so I guess I do have some reading material whenever I am bored.


But it's quite heartening to see that there are many locals who share a deep interest in reigning issues in Singapore. Ministers' salaries aside, there have been quite some other issues out there too, like neighbourhood upgrading (a mindless posting written in appalling English - well at least it looks like English - with interesting comments by others), a blogger's reply to this, and others. I think the leaders should be proud that their wishes have come true, that the young are no longer as politically apathetic as they once were. It's what they wished for, didn't they? (That's why I am a firm believer of "being careful of what you wish for".)


This might actually bode well for Singapore as a whole, because more Singaporeans feel more strongly about many issues, which only goes to show that they regard this land as their home and they actually want to make things work properly here. Of course there will be people so disillusioned that they decide to leave for greener pastures, but I think it's about the same everywhere. The saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" goes for EVERY government in power, the degree of which is reflected in the balance of power in the ruling government's favour.


For me, I will definitely be making Singapore my home, at least for the foreseeable future. I do not indulge in absolutes now, after observing first-hand what happened in other countries, and because the world is so wide. At this stage in my life, I am more mobile than most other older people, because I have not bought a house or car (which requires you to sink a substantial part of your finances in, therefore giving you a firm "rooting" to Singapore.) I hope my 6-month overseas stint will give me something to think about. For me, pure democracy is a stupid system, simply because in general, I believe majority of the people are stupid, and they do not know what is good for them. It takes someone with foresight to lead a nation, and the notion of "majority wins" is something best left to a group of friends deciding on where to eat for dinner.


I have to say I'm quite impressed with the PAP policymakers' foresight after hearing from my European friends about their own governments back home. The opposition parties in Singapore are, in my belief, not quite up-to-mark yet, they are, at best, only functioning as a check on PAP (so they do not have "unfettered power"). As a blogger said (I'm not sure if it was a Young PAP person), these opposition parties have yet to submit proposals for a Shadow Budget to show how they would allocate national resources for various purposes. I believe that would be a clear indicator of their level of preparedness, if they were able to draft something like that up. Till then, let the opposition "rule" Potong Pasir and Hougang, just so long as PAP doesn't rule over the whole land.


OK that's all for today. Nothing's been too interesting in my life now, so I guess, posts nowadays will mainly consist of what I read in the papers or online.


P.S.: There was a newspaper columnist who called the term "blogosphere" nonsense. Guess he doesn't believe in the evolution of language. Things change (and on a large scale, add up to a paradigm shift), mindsets that don't are best left in the history section of the library.

People with a penchant for idiocy have no business in politics

This is an example of a imbecilic and bigoted response to common people's concerns. Laugh at the absurdity of the whole thing. I'm sure my grandma wouldn't have made a mistake like that if she were a politician.

This lawyer, presumably a rich and arrogant one, makes a VERY LAME case in trying to justify the increase in ministers' salaries on the Young PAP blog. (I'm not sure what Dr Vivian as YP Head is doing, is he even checking their language and the tone they set?) This Nicholas compares top-level civil servants to people in his profession (not a very good analogy to start with), whom we know to be serpents in disguise, two-faced people who are able to lie through their teeth and feel no prick in conscience AT ALL. They're probably the only sort of people whom, even after repenting before the altar, God might still not forgive.

I PURPOSELY put this down, because just as Nicholas Lazarus makes no attempt in being political correct sensitive (being an aspiring politician and sounding like a bumbling buffoon), I don't see why I, as an engineer and totally unschooled in the fine art of politics and politicking, should make comments any less hurting and piercing than his own. (But surely, that's how most people think of lawyers anyway, so go ahead make my day and sue me.) What did this guy learn during university anyway? Only how to lick his books?

I seriously hope for Singapore's sake people like him NEVER get to rise to the top, because this is when we all NEED to start migrating. With people like him on top, arbitrary increases in salaries and taxes are going to come hand-in-hand (with one feeding the other), and lousy excuses which are gloved in political incorrectness will be bandied about. Or maybe they won't even bother with giving reasons and excuses since they have a proclivity for idiocy. They'll just tell you get on with life, peasant folk. "If you're not capable enough to be sitting in my chair, I suggest you just pay your due taxes or I'll get Mr Policeman to arrest you and Mr Judge to keep you in jail for a long time."

I hope the likes of him will be thrown out of the party just so MM Lee's efforts in grooming talent don't go to waste. NUS, NTU and SMU might want to consider opening up "Politics and Diplomacy 101" courses for aspiring politicians just so they don't commit cardinal sins like stabbing their supporters/fellow citizens openly in forums and blogs. Young PAP should actually start screening their members and not allow any Tom's Harry Dicky hobo to enter and commit political kamikaze on its behalf. Or maybe MM Lee himself might wanna actually help school these people in the art of reasoning and common sense. Only then PAP can hope to stand strong once again.

Ministers and civil servants' pay to increase (part 2)

Back on the topic of government salary increases, I found a few interesting articles regarding this issue. Since the ruling government made it abundantly clear that political discourse should belong ONLY to political blogs, which I believe need to have a license(?) and I have NO wish to license this cos I HATE dislike (OK language called for reworking) people whom I dunno reading my blog, so I'll leave this as objective as humanly possible (faced with the amount of money we're talking here, of course.)


(Phew, run-on sentence. My GP tutor would have killed me for this.)


Anyway back to the topic. First I bring you, an extract of our MM's speech and views about raising government pay. He reasons that to keep top people in ministerial positions who are corruption-free, we require to dangle monetary carrots to attract talent and to retain existing ones. And he contends that ministers in Singapore are NOT ordinary people as they have to deal with Singapore's scarcity of natural resources as well as the fact that we have limited human resources. That, he says, makes managing Singapore all the more challenging. I guess MM Lee has good reasoning, and he has the wisdom of years behind him to base his views on. Kudos to him for being able to take unpopular decisions for the good of the country and succeeding. I'm not a big fan of his, but because of him, I believe that a limited democracy is the best system to go.

YoungPAP's elaina olivia chong bolsters this view. She says "money is the proverbial carrot" and that even ministers should not be expected to take the "moral high ground". I reserve my stand on this, however, I agree with some of her statements. But the first statement in her second paragraph puts me off. I feel that she, as well as many of the ministers and policymakers should respect the diaspora of views in the forums and on the ground and maybe use their elite brains to try to understand where the common people are coming from. Seek to persuade people to your side, not coerce people into your thinking. In this aspect, I believe that for all its successes, PAP (and by extension, YoungPAP) has one big failing - that in their duty to the public to properly educate the masses on their reasons for numerous policies, not just on this issue. Sooner or later, I predict that it will fall (if it continues on this way), not because it is not a good government, but because the-Singaporean-on-the-street is becoming increasingly disgruntled and perturbed with these "elite ministars" just making decisions on their own. (If you did a double take on "ministars", no, it's not a spelling mistake.)

And then there are of course the people on the ground who are just plain disturbed by the multimillion-dollar salaries that the ministers are taking home. It seems that somehow, some of them got their facts mixed up and some thought that it was a million-dollar monthly salary that the ministers were taking home. Haha. I mean seriously, you want to blog, get your facts right first. That's the annual figure for you, dudes (although it's still frigging huge.)

The opposing camp:
I am Singaporean XX - Singaporeans in Demand?
I am Singaporean XX, cont’d - An Answer. (apparently the same guy.)
And for good measure read the comments below the very first post (the post where MM Lee was quoted). I guess these views are simple enough to digest, and need not be elaborated on.

Then there are others who try to infuse their views with facts: http://samaryn.com/2007/03/05/linking-pay-with-performance-in-singapore-civil-service

For even more information out there, use Google.

Politics, politics, politics.

If there's one reason why we should support this obscene salary, it's because it will help the ministers stay "white" and free from corruption. After all, not many in the world can afford to bribe a million dollars. Corruption in the government is a very serious affair, because it is at the highest level and is very hard to check. Once corruption seeps into the highest levels, it can remain there for a very long time. I mean, look at the neighbouring countries, the ministers are paid lowly salaries, but turn out to be the richest people in their respective countries. Scratching your head? Look no further than Thaksin, or Mahathir. I guess most people here are familiar with them both. I'm not saying they're corrupt, but I just wonder how they got so rich. I bet you are too.

So far, paying out millions has worked fine. But then, when the casinos come rolling in together with the high-rollers and the vice that come along with it, ahhh, then I really wonder.


Edit: Oops after re-reading, I realized I wasn't being very objective (and the post is very messy). But heck, unless some higher powers orders the razing of this blog, nothing will be changed.

Ministers and civil servants' pay to increase

If you thought a $3000/month job was good, wait till you see Singapore government ministers' pay.

Right now, they're earning S$1.2 million annually (I think the PM earns more than that). If we take a normal year (365 days), that works out to be $3287.67/day. That's assuming they even work every day of the year. They should, else their pay will be even more obscene.

And now our dear PM has said it's NOT ENOUGH, since a 1994 ruling pegged ministers' salaries to a benchmark that has been set at "two-thirds of the median income of the eight top-earning professionals in six professions", which includes lawyers, bankers, businessmen, engineers(?!?!) and I can't remember the last two. (Strangely enough, doctors weren't included in the list- aren't they supposed to be pulling in big bucks too?)

Anyway, the government has calculated this benchmark to be $2.2 million now, so I think they're going ahead and PM's gonna say something like, "OK Singapore Inc. is doing quite well now. We've won numerous awards like Best Airport and Best Airline in the world, No.1 Least corrupt government in the world, Top 10 Best Nightlife Spots in the world, yada yada. As your reward, I'm giving you a $1 million increase in pay as a pat on the back, how's that? You guys staying or leaving for the Middle East?"

I think Singapore can get another award: Highest Ministers' Pay in the world.

But then, if you angle it differently, it all begins to make sense. Looking at the level of the ministers' pay, one wonders why there is any need for corruption in Singapore AT ALL.