I have been meaning to write on this for some time but being rushed I missed the facts and procrastinated. But, I now have the facts in hand and want to say something about this issue which I just can't accept.
Have you read recent reports on what CEOs in Malaysia earn? Well, I am sure CEOs in other countries earn perhaps more, but, within the Malaysian context, I think, they earn too much which is disproportionate to what work they do!
Let me give you some figures: The CEO of Genting, Tan Sri Lim Kok Thay earned about RM7.2 million per month or RM 86.5 million in 2007. The CEO of Bumiputra-Commerce Holdings (CIMB), Datuk Nazir Razak, had a disclosed earnings of RM9.35 million.
Other highly paid CEOs and top executives in Malaysia include Teh Ah Lek (Public Bank – RM6.2 million), Rozali Ismail (Puncak Niaga – RM5.2 million), Ralph Marshall (Astro – RM3.4 million), Amirsham Abdul Aziz (Maybank – RM2.7 million), Ahamad Zubir Murshid (Sime Darby – RM2 million), Yusli Mohamed (Bursa Malaysia – RM1.97 million) and Lodin Wok Kamaruddin (Bousted Holdings – RM1.85 million). (These facts were taken from the SKORCAREER website.)
Now I know why Malaysia has such a high per capita income! According to the United Nation's Development Programme's Human Development Index (HDI), Malaysia's GDP per capita in 2007 was US$ 13,518 (RM 46,495). We are placed in the upper income developing nation category. Now, how many of us earn that much?
I am quite sure that our per capita income is inflated because of what a few CEOs earn! I think it is too great a divide between the haves and the have-nots when CEOs earn this much and yet there are people in this country who take home a salary of less than RM 1000! And, I don't think those in the lower income brackets form a minority. I think they are in the majority.
The top income earners are definitely the exclusive minority but they are the ones who are doing all the spending because the rest of us don't have that kind of money to spend!
It is no wonder that the thriving markets are those which sell high-end goods because only the exclusive few have the funds to buy them. The rest of us can't spend. Do you see the supermarkets full like they used to be in the 1990s? Do you see the pasar malams bustling with surging crowds? Do you see RM 100,000 properties? All the properties you see in the ads are RM1 milllion and above!
What bothers me most is not that CEOs earn such exorbitant salaries. If it were their own businesses where they invested their own money and resources, I think it is fair that they earn whatever dividends they get. But, if you are a GLC which is partly financed by public funds, then, I don't think its CEO should earn that much -- because the peons who work in the same organisation may be getting pittance in comparison!
What is truly obscenely sinful -- ya, sinful -- is when you are the chief of an organisation which is funded by members and you earn an outrageously high salary in comparison to the lowest rung of workers in the same organisation -- without the approval of your members.
That is totally unacceptable! Yet, such organisations exist. They do not have a proper remuneration scheme nor a retirement scheme which implies their staff can work indefinitely at their current salaries!
Don't get me wrong. There is nothing wrong in the above if that is what the members want. But, in some of these organisations, the members are in the dark. They have no idea how their leaders got to earn that much!
And, what is really bothersome and worrying is that the leaders see nothing wrong in what they earn. I just can't believe that! Whether you are a GLC or a voluntary organisation or a non-government organisation where the finances are coming from a public source, you are accountable to the people who provide you with the funds. They need to know what you are earning and why. Infact, they need to know everything that is being done with the money they are giving. Nothing should be hidden. Everything should be revealed.
Where such high salaries are concerned, I, personally, feel that the leaders should subject themselves to at least a 30% cut in salaries, and their organisations should come up with a proper remuneration package and retirement plan which should be presented to the AGMs for discussion, amendments and approval by the members.
If the members approve, there's nothing anybody else can say. Until then, the integrity of the leaders earning such high salaries will always be suspect.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Leaders in Crisis
That best sums up what is happening in the MCA! But, I don't think it is a problem specific to the Malaysian Chinese Association, which is a partner in the ruling Barisan Nasional government. It is a problem with nearly all the political organisations, or, maybe, even with all established organisations!
The issue isn't a leadership crisis -- that would imply that leaders are scarce. The issue is that the existing leaders are in a crisis, meaning something is wrong with their leadership or leadership styles or their personalities and their followers want them to take stock. Existing leaders need to take a good look at themselves to see if they are fit to lead or serve, whether they have overstayed their leadership, whether they can see the errors they are making, whether it is time to step down and move on and, more pertinently, whether their followers want them to lead them.
And they need to have the courage to stand down if their time is up -- as it should have been with the MIC, the Malaysian Indian Congress. Because the leaders didn't make way for a new crop of leaders, see what has happened to the MIC -- it has become a dead duck.
In MCA's case, the delegates have sent a clear message: They have rejected the existing status quo. The alternative is plain for all to see: Have fresh elections to elect the leaders the members want.
The MCA political gamers took a huge risk in going for an EGM. They lost and their own political futures are at risk. But, you have to give them credit for going to their members to find out what the latter really wanted. That, indeed, is democracy at work -- even if politically manipulated. A leadership without the support of the people it wants to lead is really a dictatorship.
The issue isn't a leadership crisis -- that would imply that leaders are scarce. The issue is that the existing leaders are in a crisis, meaning something is wrong with their leadership or leadership styles or their personalities and their followers want them to take stock. Existing leaders need to take a good look at themselves to see if they are fit to lead or serve, whether they have overstayed their leadership, whether they can see the errors they are making, whether it is time to step down and move on and, more pertinently, whether their followers want them to lead them.
And they need to have the courage to stand down if their time is up -- as it should have been with the MIC, the Malaysian Indian Congress. Because the leaders didn't make way for a new crop of leaders, see what has happened to the MIC -- it has become a dead duck.
In MCA's case, the delegates have sent a clear message: They have rejected the existing status quo. The alternative is plain for all to see: Have fresh elections to elect the leaders the members want.
The MCA political gamers took a huge risk in going for an EGM. They lost and their own political futures are at risk. But, you have to give them credit for going to their members to find out what the latter really wanted. That, indeed, is democracy at work -- even if politically manipulated. A leadership without the support of the people it wants to lead is really a dictatorship.
Byteful!
Next Monday, the new semester begins and I will be back to the grind -- with the hectic schedule and all! So, it is going to be difficult to update on a weekly basis, but I will try to post something fortnightly. I hope that won't disappoint you who visit this blog. Meanwhile, today, I am going to give you my insights in small doses!
I can't get my updated editor post to appear so I have to write my "doses" as individual posts -- short, but they'll be sweet!
I can't get my updated editor post to appear so I have to write my "doses" as individual posts -- short, but they'll be sweet!
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Spectre Over A. Kugan Rises Again
No one made any hooha about it but it is, indeed,odd that only one policeman -- and that an Indian -- is being charged for A. Kugan's death under police custody. It is common knowledge that when a suspect is taken under police custory, more than one policeman attend to him to "get" information. But in A. Kugan's case, only one policeman is being disciplined. Now, why is that?
It looks a bit fishy. Something is not right here. How many policemen were involved in the "handling" of A. Kugan? It might have been that only one man actuallly "handled" him but who gave the approval? And, did any of his superiors urge him to increase the severity of the "handling"? These are questions that need to be answered to show that more than one policeman must be held responsible for A. Kugan's death under custody.
But, why is such information not forthcoming? Without these answers, it would appear that the sole Indian policeman has been set up to take the fall for his colleagues and superiors who do not have his courage.
The public has the right to know the true circumstances that lead to A. Kugan's death and the policemen who actually "handled" him and the policemen who approved the "handling" and who may have approved the increase of the severity of the "handling" must all be held responsible and charged.
If they are not, questions will always remain in the public's mind as to the sincerity and willingness of the authorities to ensure justice for the oppressed. As long as such questions remain unanswered, unstinting support for the BN government will remain questionable.
From the way the BN has been handling Indian issues, my prediction is that the BN government will never ever get the block Indian vote -- not until it is seen as ensuring justice to the oppressed, Indians included.
It looks a bit fishy. Something is not right here. How many policemen were involved in the "handling" of A. Kugan? It might have been that only one man actuallly "handled" him but who gave the approval? And, did any of his superiors urge him to increase the severity of the "handling"? These are questions that need to be answered to show that more than one policeman must be held responsible for A. Kugan's death under custody.
But, why is such information not forthcoming? Without these answers, it would appear that the sole Indian policeman has been set up to take the fall for his colleagues and superiors who do not have his courage.
The public has the right to know the true circumstances that lead to A. Kugan's death and the policemen who actually "handled" him and the policemen who approved the "handling" and who may have approved the increase of the severity of the "handling" must all be held responsible and charged.
If they are not, questions will always remain in the public's mind as to the sincerity and willingness of the authorities to ensure justice for the oppressed. As long as such questions remain unanswered, unstinting support for the BN government will remain questionable.
From the way the BN has been handling Indian issues, my prediction is that the BN government will never ever get the block Indian vote -- not until it is seen as ensuring justice to the oppressed, Indians included.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
