Someone commented that the KTM has recently come out of the woods out of nowhere guns blazing. Hehe. Perhaps. :-)It is indeed true that the KTM has taken quite a long hiatus from blogging. But truthfully, the main reason is this: the KTM didn't find anything he wanted to blog about. The KTM isn't paid to blog (at least not anymore), so it really doesn't matter. Perhaps it was a writer's block? Perhaps Singapore is just really boring? Who knows, but these last couple of days has been interesting because the KTM now has three questions swimming in his head. :-) Inspiration? Perhaps. Why does the KTM care about these questions? 'cos there are no easy answers. :-) What investment policies are acceptable for our reserves? How can we judge if the Government is doing the "right thing" with the reserves? This is not a question about whether we should use the reserves to subsidize the price of rice. The question we are asking here is the following (and in a vacuum): suppose GIC has $xx billion dollars in the reserves, what sorts of risks should GIC be entitled to take? The point here is the following: even for individual investments, this question is not easy to answer because different individuals have different risk appetites. Two individuals who have the same nett worth may decide to invest in two different portfolios and they may both be "optimal" if the risk appetites of the two individuals are taken into account correctly. This question is hard because of a number of reasons: (i) the money doesn't belong to one individual, but to a collective entity of 3 million people. How do we ensure that the final decision is really what these 3 million people want? Should it be a democratic process and we have referendum? (ii) SWFs attract unnecessary attention and often become political problems when we invest our money in foreign countries. Foreign countries are often enamoured with the idea that we're buying and controlling key assets (e.g. ports). (iii) Investments will entail downside and in cases like Shin Corp and to a lesser extent UBS/Citibank, these downsides can become political issues - so SWFs are quite different from regular funds and hedge funds because they are susceptible to public pressures. While one may argue that the PAP has successfully brushed aside all such concerns, the KTM doubts this is a viable strategy in the long term because there is certainly a political cost. Next, there is the question of how we can and should define accountability. Why is this complicated? Because there's risk and it's very hard to measure. First we need a "target" - GIC definitely shouldn't under-perform compared to the market average, but what is the "correct" premium that we should demand as "acceptable performance"? 1%? 2%? 5%? Unless we set the bar really low, some years, GIC will not make it - then what? Fire the Chairman? What should be the people and MOF's response? Finally, there is also question of the relation between our CPF money and the reserves, 'cos presumably our CPF monies constitute a portion of the reserves? So what should be the right interest rate for CPF viz-a-viz the expected return on the reserves? "With great pay comes great responsibility" What does high pay in the public service really mean? While people may think that the KTM is referring to the MSK case, nah. The MSK is really straightforward in the KTM's view and not very interesting to discuss. What the KTM thinks would be interesting to do is to think of an imaginary scenario (or perhaps cite a real one) where things are really screwed up and ministerial liability is clear cut, and then we ask ourselves: how should we be attempting to reconcile the high ministerial salaries with the mistakes.And even before that, it would be interesting to think about what high ministerial salaries mean. The Govt has said that salaries should be pegged to the top dunno 24 people or something and given their reasons. Others have disagreed. The question is: what should be the relation between pay and responsibility? MSK is a really lousy example, but suppose for a moment (and many probably won't have too much trouble with this) that we can find DPM Wong personally responsible for the fiasco, but only slightly so. Slightly only lah. If fully, the answer is obvious and we don't want that. We want to construct a somewhat ambiguous problem here so that we can have something to reason about. Next, we put DPM's pay on a slider start at say $100. There is a school of thought that probably believes that as we move the slider and increase his pay, he therefore becomes more and more "responsible" and at some point, perhaps when the slider reaches $1 or $2 million, he should be sacked? How reasonable is this argument? Why is it reasonable/unreasonable?To what extent should the Government "take care" of its people? What is our response to our old folks cleaning tables in the hawker centres? There was this article today in the Sunday Times on this 83 year old cleaner who is still working and there was this other guy Tired Man who claimed at TOC:I believe it is a duty of the government (of course not the annuities as I see economic component it.) to look after her elderly as they had contributed to the society for the past few decades. I do not wish my mom to pick up aluminum cans for living. Am I watching a movie of my future? It is such a disgrace for a PM to encourage his “mothers” and “fathers” to work at their age. To become a graceful society, the government must be equiped with graceful brain and policies.This statement is probably not new to the reader and many people probably have come across something similar, or even hold a similar opinion.It is a no-brainer that the Government should "take care" of its people, but the question is how do we reconcile the role of Government with the opinion expressed by Tiredman et al. that "it is a duty of the government to look after her elderly as they had contributed to the society for the past few decades"? Prema facie, the KTM believes that most people (even the KTM) can and will agree with this statement. The key issue is essentially: what is the "extent" of this duty?To take this question of what "take care" should mean further, it is perhaps interesting also to also explore this question in the context of local vs foreign workers, as people must be aware of the recent spat between MPs Seng Han Thong and Low Thia Khiang over the employment of locals at our town councils. It is likely that the KTM will blog about these three questions in the days to come. Not exactly sure when 'cos the KTM still hasn't come to a conclusion on what his views are on these issues -- and more importantly, how to even think about these questions. Entries will be published either at Singapore Angle or at this KT stall depending on how polished the final product ends up. :-)Readers are welcome to leave comments for the KTM on what they think. It is unlikely that the KTM will engage in a full debate at this point 'cos his still trying to figure out what he thinks, but he might ask questions and we can have a short preliminary discussion going. :-)The Sunday TimesMay 4, 2008 You're so old. Why are you cleaning toilets?Is it a sad reflection of society that the elderly are in such jobs, asked a readerBy Teo Cheng WeeCleaning toilets. Clearing plates. And many of these cleaners are elderly.Indeed, in the 13 years that Mr Ahmad Aman has been cleaning the toilets in shopping centres, two questions are constantly posed to him.They are: 'Uncle, why are you still doing this job at your age?' and 'Uncle, why aren't your kids taking care of you?'The father of nine is 83 years old. But he says he has to work because he has a family to feed.He has two school-going children with his second wife. The former seaman is divorced from his first wife.He is reluctant to take money from his other seven children, who he says do not earn very much either. With only a basic education from Malaya before he moved to Singapore in 1946, there are few other available jobs for him.The sight of such old cleaners prompted Straits Times reader Anne Chong to write to The Sunday Times last month, saying that the situation was 'a sad reflection of society here'.'During my travels through China, from rural Yunnan to cosmopolitan Shanghai, I never once encountered an elderly toilet cleaner.'This is perhaps because in China, it is considered a stain on the family honour if your mother, grandmother or aunt has to clean toilets to support herself, so the elderly are usually supported by the family network.'The situation is the same in the Philippines,' she wrote.Restroom Association of Singapore (RAS) president Tan Puay Hoon responded in a letter two weeks later. She said RAS was 'looking into the possibility of designing jobs for elderly toilet cleaners'.'With sufficient funding, they can be trained as restroom assessors to audit and rate public toilets (for RAS),' she wrote.Elderly cleaner Chuy Chee Yong, 76, who has worked for eight years as a table cleaner in Lavender Food Court, said he is 'somewhat ashamed' of his job.The father of three would like to retire if he could, but needs money to pay for his heart medication and to take care of his wife, who is also ill. Like Mr Ahmad, he does not want to take money from his children because he feels that they too are struggling to make ends meet.Cleaning contractors estimate that workers aged above 65 make up about 10 to 20 per cent of their total staff. They reckon that, of this estimate, perhaps half - people like Mr Chuy and Mr Ahmad - work because they need to. The rest do so to earn a little more pocket money.Many of these elderly folk, moreover, are illiterate or have minimal paper qualifications. Cleaning is their main avenue of work because the barrier to entry is low.The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) said that 'cleaners, labourers and related workers' make up the biggest number of jobs for people aged 65 and above here, with about 16,000 people employed in such jobs last year.That makes up 35 per cent of the total number of workers for that age group. In comparison, these jobs comprise only 2 per cent of the total number of jobs for Singaporeans aged from 30 to 34 - and the percentage rises with each older age group. Cleaning contractors say that they are not out to look for older workers as the salary is the same - about $500 to $800 a month - whether one is young or old.Mr Jason Low, head of operations for cleaning contractor Sun City Maintenance, put it this way: 'Who are the people who can survive on this amount? It's the old folk, who live frugally and need only to support themselves.'RAS' Ms Tan agreed, saying that the industry will not be able to hire younger cleaners if the pay stays at this level. 'If you are young and need to support a family, you will need to earn at least $1,000 to $1,200,' she said.A few contractors told The Sunday Times that hiring older workers is not a bad thing, even if they may be slower.At cleaning contractor A&P Maintenance, for instance, about a quarter of its workers are aged 65 and above.'What we like about older workers is they don't job hop, they're more loyal and they put in more effort. The young ones will go absent regularly,' said Mr Kenny Tan, executive director of A&P.Mr Alvin Tan, operations manager of S21 coffee shops, said they also try to hire more old people. 'As there are limited jobs for older workers, this is our way of doing public service'.Acting Labour Minister Gan Kim Yong, who is the chairman of the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers, said that 'all workers, including toilet cleaners, make a meaningful contribution to society and should be respected'.Labour MP Halimah Yacob agreed. She said one should not assume that all older workers doing dirty jobs are unhappy.'Many of the older workers I have met in these jobs have a great deal of pride in their work. I don't think we should be too judgmental about whether their work is shameful,' she said.