Professor Lim Chong Yah, who rattled many economists and businesses with his wage shock therapy in April, on Thursday addressed the two extremes in Singapore's salary and wage system in his "Shock Therapy II".
In his latest paper presented at the Singapore Economic Policy Forum 2012, Professor Lim said the National Wages Council (NWC) should continue with the issuance of quantitative wage increase guideline for those earning less than S$1,000-S$1,500 a month for the next two years.
He reiterated his suggestion for NWC to call for an across-the-board temporary three year moratorium on salaries of the very top executives both in the private and public sectors.
Professor Lim added that should the wages of the lowest paid resident workers remain stubbornly very low in two or three years' time, serious consideration should be made to introduce a compulsory minimum wage scheme with, say, S$1,000 a month as the start-off quantum.
In April, Professor Lim created a stir with his proposed wage reforms which included a wage freeze for top earners while raising incomes for the poorest by huge quantums - 15 per cent in each of the first two years and 20 per cent in the last year.
The proposals reignited debates over Singapore's widening income gap. Shortly after, in May, the NWC recommended that the pay of workers earning below S$1,000 a month be raised by at least S$50 a month.
Quote:In one instance, I recall 4 top family-related directors of a publicly listed company paid themselves between $2 million and $3 million each, when the company did not see it fit to pay a single cent dividend to its shareholders. When a very brave shareholder at the AGM asked the Chairman of the Board of Directors for an explanation of this dichotomy, he replied to the effect, “If you do not think this is a good company to invest your money, you are of course free not to invest in our company.” The shareholder walked out of the AGM.
Well.. those who are familiar with SGX stocks should know this company.
Quote:In one instance, I recall 4 top family-related directors of a publicly listed company paid themselves between $2 million and $3 million each, when the company did not see it fit to pay a single cent dividend to its shareholders. When a very brave shareholder at the AGM asked the Chairman of the Board of Directors for an explanation of this dichotomy, he replied to the effect, “If you do not think this is a good company to invest your money, you are of course free not to invest in our company.” The shareholder walked out of the AGM.
Well.. those who are familiar with SGX stocks should know this company.
i seldom AGM, can share which shity company is this? I wonder if sgx can play a more significant role in such unfairness to minority shareholders
Quote:In one instance, I recall 4 top family-related directors of a publicly listed company paid themselves between $2 million and $3 million each, when the company did not see it fit to pay a single cent dividend to its shareholders. When a very brave shareholder at the AGM asked the Chairman of the Board of Directors for an explanation of this dichotomy, he replied to the effect, “If you do not think this is a good company to invest your money, you are of course free not to invest in our company.” The shareholder walked out of the AGM.
Well.. those who are familiar with SGX stocks should know this company.
Is really a nightmare. I think they can even hold the banks hostage.
Quote:In one instance, I recall 4 top family-related directors of a publicly listed company paid themselves between $2 million and $3 million each, when the company did not see it fit to pay a single cent dividend to its shareholders. When a very brave shareholder at the AGM asked the Chairman of the Board of Directors for an explanation of this dichotomy, he replied to the effect, “If you do not think this is a good company to invest your money, you are of course free not to invest in our company.” The shareholder walked out of the AGM.
Well.. those who are familiar with SGX stocks should know this company.
i seldom AGM, can share which shity company is this? I wonder if sgx can play a more significant role in such unfairness to minority shareholders
25-10-2012, 11:01 PM (This post was last modified: 25-10-2012, 11:01 PM by pianist.)
Is $1,000 a month too high or too low? This reminds me of a Chinese proverb, “比上不足，比下有余”, which means “better than some and worse than some”. As compared to Australia, France and Japan, S$5.25 is about one-quarter of the Australian minimum wage of A$15.96 (or approximately S$20.10), about one-third of the French minimum wage of €9.40 (or approximately S$14.95), and about one-half of the Japanese average minimum wage of ¥744 (or approximately S$11.70). But as compared to the other 3 Newly-Industrializing Economies (NIEs), S$5.25 is slightly lower than the South Korean minimum wage of 4,860 won (or approximately S$5.40) but higher than the Taiwanese minimum wage of NT$103 (or approximately S$4.33) and the Hong Kong’s minimum wage of HK$28 (or approximately S$4.40). S$1000 is also three times the Malaysian minimum wage of RM800 – RM900 (or approximately S$322 – S$362). One must bear in mind the median wages of these countries are not the same as ours, and so are their per capita incomes and their income distributions, besides changing exchange rates, productivity concepts
Does the company mentioned starts with a letter 'M'?
Quote:In one instance, I recall 4 top family-related directors of a publicly listed company paid themselves between $2 million and $3 million each, when the company did not see it fit to pay a single cent dividend to its shareholders. When a very brave shareholder at the AGM asked the Chairman of the Board of Directors for an explanation of this dichotomy, he replied to the effect, “If you do not think this is a good company to invest your money, you are of course free not to invest in our company.” The shareholder walked out of the AGM.
[/quote]
The moral of the story is always wary in investing in family runs small SME. And i think SGX has no rules on this if not ........
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Homepage
PR Newswire
