According to Chinese proverb, the success of wealth or financial management on a micro and macro level respectively lies behind two keys – resourcefulness and austerity (Mandarin: 开源节流). Briefly explained, the Chinese believe that financial discipline avoids profligacy and contributes to deficit reduction, whereas the diversification in income sources sustains massive spending appetite, and more importantly help steering a financial state from toxic to healthy, commonly known as growth.

To any Chinese language learner, Chinese proverbs are famous for the attentiveness in construction. In the aforementioned proverb, the Chinese prioritised resourcefulness over austerity because they believe the former is a more effective financial management tool.

Now, when we look at the West currently engulfed by the abundant misery supplied by the sovereign debt crisis, we also see that apart from the United States, governments in the troubled areas have resorted with a vain hope to financial discipline, or the clichéd austerity, to improve their credibility and then to stimulate the much needed financial support from market to fund their ever ballooning debts.

The Chinese proverb certainly disagrees with the austerity focus. However, I am not discrediting the intelligence of policy makers in the beleaguered countries. It’s no easy job at this economic tough time. Potential financial pipelines everywhere have been so firmly shut it is now near impossible to diversify income sources.

Bearing in mind also is that with individual finances so tightly squeezed, no political party struggling to receive devoted support would ever fire the most powerful financial ammunition of a government – raising tax. Nonetheless, the dire economic situation has forced governments to tactfully experiment this instrument with caution. One domestic example would be the VAT rise by the UK government.

And recently, there was a new addition to this tax raising episode – the Hungarian government is considering the introduction of  Hamburger Tax.

My personal scepticism and general public consensus reckon that the introduction of a fat tax like this is more than just the Hungarian government’s concerns over its citizen health issues. It essentially is a new form of budget revenue. It is a legally intolerable deprivation of personal freedom. And frankly enough, it is indirectly speaking to its citizens that they are not intelligently capable in distinguishing what is harmful to them.

However, buzzing apart, in this example, like it or not, the Hungarian government’s approach has demonstrated the spirit of our Chinese proverb perfectly – generating alternative (tax) income via the introduction of new tax and at the same time driving the population to a healthier living that would eventually reduce the monstrous national health care expenses. Brilliant!

Given the intricacies in implementing such tax – which food to tax, how much to tax, people’s reaction (through the ballot boxes) – I very much doubt its future success. However, if miracle does occur, I am almost certain the UK government would be the first follower.

The number of people severely overweight has tripled over the past thirty years in the UK. This has prompted a costly revamp on the ambulance fleet in the country to up to a whopping £90,000 per fleet so that obese patients could be ferried safely. No kidding! If you were the government policy maker, surely this would be an attractive incentive for the imposition of similar Hamburger Tax.

Forget about whether this is a long term solution to a long term obesity problem or a short term solution to a medium term insolvency hardship, I personally do support such tax to a certain extent. It’s challenging to punish individual’s misbehave as it’s very subjective, especially when it involves liberty right. But if this really does raise the awareness on the health risks associated with obesity, then perhaps this shouldn’t be interpreted as an extreme tax harvesting deception. And if we still remember our Chinese proverb, it could induce saving at micro level too.

Nevertheless, like my friend suggested, I still want to be able to pick up a pack of crisps when I want to, without having to feel guilty, or worry financially.

Read More »

Directed by David Cameron and supported by the coalition production crew, with Theresa May as the lead female verbal puppet, set off by muted Nick Clegg in the name of comprises-made-to-coalition-government, together had presented the latest episode of the long-winded austerity drama, Cut in what most business leaders and political correspondents are at odds over – the immigration cap (on highly skilled and skilled workers).

They claimed it as a vital approach to curb the country’s rising unemployment rate currently stands at 7.9% or 2.5 million and a patriotic move to return British jobs to British workers. They further emphasised the imposition will duly reduce the pressure exerted on immigration-related social welfare including schools, hospitals, council housings and other public services, which will ultimately helps the coalition government to achieve its target on fiscal tightening policies.

Undeniably the Tory has been charged with the duty to materialise what it promised in the general election – to reduce net immigration. But, in my opinion, the proposition serves not as an effective formulation to deal with successfully the upward spiral of immigration but merely a brainchild of political gimmick.

Firstly, the cap was ill-targeted. A friendly reminder to my dear readers, the cap is aimed at reducing the admission of non-EU economic immigrants under the Tier 1 (highly skilled) and Tier 2 (skilled) points based system, which represents a derisory 27,000 out of all the massive 406,000 approved visas, or 6.5% in the first three months of 2010 (Source: ONS). I am bewildered. Just how significant the impact of a cap like this will have on improving the jobless figure and on easing the pressure of public services? Neither.

Under the point based system invented by the Labour government, Tier 1 visas are granted to migrants without a guaranteed job because they are likely to generate wealth and expand the economy. And my profound confusion expands uncontrollably over the logic to restrain workers of this type to enter the country and to stimulate the growth of, if not rescue, the economy from the aftermath of an unprecedented economic disaster. And for no other reason, highly skilled workers are imported for a good cause – to fill up the talent fissure the country has failed to seal. The saying on returning British jobs to British workers is thus simply ill-founded and unjustifiable.

And the ability of these talented individuals to secure employments leads me to question on why they are blamed as the parasitical recipients of social welfare including social housing. If we scrutinise the provision of social housing and other welfare benefits currently burdening the indebted government, it is not challenging to realise the claimants are, of course the British, and an enormous population of Eastern European moved from their respective countries under the European Free Trade Agreement after being enticed by the UK’s generous welfare system. And in fact, immigrations within the EU forms more than a third of the total immigration into the UK each year.

But then of course, many would argue since British are allowed to purchase assets and take up employments in mainland Europe, it is only fair if their European counterparts enjoy similar privilege. Moreover, for jobs which the British deemed themselves to be too conceited to commit, for examples, construction, cleaning, or even in coffee shops, which in my humble opinion are all British jobs, the reliability of their European peers is indisputable. So will tossing them back when you are in the midst of a crisis sound a tad inglorious?

On the topic of an effective (cost) cut, I compare it with domestic cost saving and corporate restructure. If you want to save on domestic expenses significantly, you do no bet on reducing the purchase of food that supplies you with immense energy to work, you move to a simple and crude house in tinier size. If you plan on downsizing an organisation, you do not only reduce the amount of workforce, but also make non-contributory departments redundant via corporate consolidation. And if you are BP endeavouring to contain oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, you know in the long run, the more effective and permanent solution is not to capture oil spilled through containment cap but to seal the source with relief wells.

So now, if you were the leader of the coalition government, and you were determined to reduce net immigration, are you going to eat your own words and go around violating your own promise for the creation of an open business environment  that would help stimulate economic growth, by limiting the import of highly skilled and skilled workers this country badly needs? Will you revolve around the peripheral of immigration border? Or will you contemplate a more radical reform that may allow a generous chuck of unmanageable immigrants?

Read More »

The roasting summer heat currently permeates the streets of London accentuates the obscenity of remembering the prolonged winter blizzard just a couple of months ago. And just when my body is teetering on the brink of a complete melt, the merciless human-induced heat wave originated from down under engulfed my struggling effort to stay intact and had completely liquefied me.

In just a night, my already cruising prevailing neighbourhood was bombarded by the most blatant and effective advertising agenda I’ve ever witnessed. And just when I confined the coverage to the vicinity of my gay-dominated village, Aussiebum, the international underclothing manufacturer from Australia famous for its broad gay fan base, and evidently also the mastermind responsible for this sexually unreserved campaign, has erected identical advertisement literally across the entire London town. 

Leaving aside the discussion on whether the company has pushed the boundary too far to challenge the legal allowance for public display of raunchy images, I doubt if anyone has failed to notice, let alone to resist the erotic temptation to follow the hunky model’s chiselled chests down to his washboard abs before reaching at the dangerously skimpy black swimming trunk that houses almost unsuccessfully his well-endowed manhood that is screaming noisily to escape from its casing. Ugh, I need a napkin to wipe the saliva drooling down my chin off!

Despite of all the careful nurture of conservative oriental virtues, I give no reprimand to this unpretentious marketing campaign. In fact, for no other reason, I welcome it with open arms for it has at least motivated me to go out from my house more often than I would be. A minor but significant gesture that might help trimming away my body fat and fit myself into one of these trunks.

But do I want to rush my head to the departmental store immediately for an impulsive and lustful purchase? As much as I am lubriciously seduced by the model, I remain adamant that there is ought to be mega body sculpting construction before my confidence braves me for an equally impactful public showcase of my own shell.

Nevertheless, I suspect there are already plenty of advocates. And to be honest, I can’t wait the sights for sore eyes. Summer days are too warm to stay indoor but we all need a reason to stay out. And if there is no other reason, perhaps a vain hope in meeting a guy as in the advertisement who will make you scream out: f**k me!

Read More »

British Airways (BA), the so-called “World’s favourite airline” has clearly dropped the crown in recent years when passenger volumes plummeted down the valley and dragged the airline to a record lost of £401m last year, plunging from £800m profit the year before. Sensing the urgency to rescue the airline out of financial turmoil, the chief executive of BA, Willie Wash, had desperately introduced a series of radical measures to save the airline, including his infamous salary waive for July at a whopping £61,250.

For a man whose monthly salary is the total annual income of four cabin crews, it’s quite impossible that his grand gesture does not generate profound irritation from within and outside the BA. But of course, Willie’s hidden agenda behind the move couldn’t be more evident. A company-wide pay cut or to make compulsory redundancy is inevitable for the struggling airline. Last week, BA pilots had overwhelmingly accepted on a 2.6pc pay cut and a 20pc reduction in some allowances, saving the airline £26m. The move generated a ripple effect on the cabin crews who also offered to accept a similar deal where pay is cut by 2.6pc and in addition to two years pay freeze.

However, I am wary and oppress by the possible deterioration of the customer service quality offered by BA staff after their wages are reduced. Already I had witnessed BA cabin crew made clamorous complaint on customer behaviour, an exacerbated scenario is likely inevitable.

I reckon the supportive atmosphere found amongst BA staff wasn’t driven entirely by the sympathy or loyalty shared towards the airline, but is driven by the realisation that in the currently dire economic climate, it is more sensible to keep a lower paid job than joining the dole queue.  Moreover, it is reported that BA is paying twice as much for its staff than its rival airlines Ryanair and Easyjet. A measly 2.6pc pay cut is therefore still looking pretty optimistic in the industry. Besides, sharing the pain by accepting lower pay to save some jobs is after all a principle worth embraced.

Reduced wage bill will undoubtedly save the airline considerable amount of operational cost. But BA needs to dig in deeper and find its ways to stretch even further and achieve leaner operation besides generating more revenue. But of course, this doesn’t encompass the ludicrous suggestion made by a shareholder in the recent AGM that BA should stop painting its planes to reduce the weight of aircrafts, and hence saving on fuel cost.

I wonder if the following measures will help alleviating the financial strain and save BA a penny of two.

Reduced carried load is the crux to save on volatile fuel cost. But of course, it will disastrously reduce the already declining passenger numbers if BA reverts its traditional carrier offer for passenger to check in luggage up to 23kgs. Fortunately, it’s possible for BA to introduce a rebate system for passengers who do not or check in baggage no heavier than 10kgs to enjoy, say a 5pc fare reduction the next time the they fly with BA. Not only this approach will lead to lower operational cost by reducing weight, but will also encourage return business opportunities. Of course, BA could stretch an arm further by introducing a list of tick-off items including flight meals and on-board entertainment that could all fall under the umbrella of rebate system.

If weight is the real culprit that contributes to soaring operational cost, I suggest BA to introduce similar system for male and female passengers weight less than 60kgs and 45kgs respectively to enjoy the same 5pc fare reduction, again, the next time they fly with BA. I am certain that the weight watch group in Britain will back this measure up as commendable since it indirectly promotes a healthy diet amongst the increasingly obese British population. The government will also surely raising both hands in support to the campaign as it will spare the NHS from wasting millions of pound a year just to treat obese patients.

Although imitation is the best form of compliment and BA certainly has no the slightest intention to be a copy cat, and it is synonymous to accepting defeat if BA follows its rival, Ryanair’s suit in introducing on-board lavatory charges, I reckon, however that it is desperate time for desperate measure. But of course, charging for loos is condemnable. But suppose BA can raise the environment placards advocating the decreasing use of paper to help saving the planet, and then install a vending machine outside the toilets and charge for toilet papers! Or perhaps Ryanair’s brilliant idea to make passengers stand is also plausible?

Nonetheless, if BA determines to eliminate its seemingly protracted struggle to pull its balance sheet out of the red territory, I reckon the only sensible measure is to focus on its core premium class business and get the white collars fly with the so-called ‘World’s favourite airline’ again. Maybe also to improve on its notorious luggage handling system and reduce the ‘reputable’ nine lost luggage per jumbo jet record to effectively zero?

Read More »