The details are of course a little more complicated than that. It does not apply retroactively, but only to distressed companies seeking help in future. It also applies only in cases of "special assistance", not those tapping broadly available help schemes. Examples of companies that have received special aid so far include carmakers Chrysler and General Motors, insurer American International Group and banks Citigroup and Bank of America.

This move was in response to public outrage over the way executives of failed companies were rewarding themselves handsomely even as they sought taxpayer money.

In announcing the new policy, Obama said, "We don't disparage wealth. We don't begrudge anybody for achieving success. And we believe that success should be rewarded. But what gets people upset -­ and rightfully so -­ are executives being rewarded for failure, especially when those rewards are subsidised by US taxpayers."

Citigroup recently had to be shamed into cancelling a US$50 million order for an executive jet, while Merrill Lynch paid out about US$5.8 billion in bonuses a month ahead of schedule. As mentioned above, Citigroup had been bailed out with government aid, while in the case of the Merrill Lynch, help was in the form of government money for Bank of America to buy it over, saving it from extinction.

* * * * *

 
Singaporeans too have been rumbling for years about executive pay, with a twist. The one that sticks in our craw is ministers' pay, but that too is related to private sector executive pay through a formula. In recent years, as executive pay soared like a rocket, so has ministers' pay. Now we know that much of what had been presented as "objective" benchmarks were little more than indicators of short-term greed. Obama's half-million cap brings it back into line with ordinary people's sense of proportionality.

But surely, you might argue, Singapore Inc cannot be compared to companies on the verge of collapse like AIG and General Motors? Can the case for bringing ministers' pay into the half-million dollar range be made?

Well, to begin with, all ministers' pay comes from taxpayer money, so yeah, it can be compared to how government aid is used in such companies.

Secondly, the government now thinks that our economy is tanking so badly that the case for raiding the reserves is justified. That's like seeking bailout, is it not?

After all, as former Prime Minister, now Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong said last month, "The weather is so bad, and we’ve always said the reserves are for a rainy day. If this is not a rainy day, I don’t know what is a rainy day."

It's not that the cabinet is oblivious to public perception. When they announced whopping salary increases for themselves and their senior civil servants last year, there was a huge public outcry. It made very little difference, of course, since this government, having decimated opposition parties through measures fair and foul, remain confident of staying in power. Yet last month too, the minister in charge of the civil service, Teo Chee Hean, announced with some fanfare that annual salaries of our ministers and senior civil servants can be expected to fall by 12 to 20 percent this year in line with the shrinking economy.

Even so, senior permanent secretaries and entry-grade ministers will likely receive S$1.54 million, while younger officers in the elite Administrative Service -- typically top performers in their early to mid-30s -- will receive S$351,000, according to Teo's statement.

How will these levels compare with Obama's half-million benchmark?

© Yawning Bread