.jpg)
I just got this pair of running shoes, spurred by the fact that I had,ONCE AGAIN, failed by IPPT test..jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
That was our finding after trolling through all the birth dates we’ve collected on the world’s wealthiest. So far, we have confirmed the birth dates for 613 of our 793 billionaires. Of those, more than 70, or roughly 12%, were born between Aug. 23 and Sept. 22, making this earth sign the most common among billionaires.
It’s a bit ironic that top astrology honors for this male-dominated billionaires list goes to the sign symbolized by a virgin, but it actually isn’t too surprising. Virgos are known to be hardworking, determined, detail-oriented and analytical. They are driven more by their desire to achieve excellence at whatever they do than by the pursuit of riches, according to astrologer Michael Lutin.
These utilitarian types are happiest when they can produce things or services that are useful to others. Two of the richest and best-known American billionaires are both Virgos: Berkshire Hathaway's
But don’t fret if you or your children are not Virgos. Forbes found examples of billionaires born under all 12 zodiac signs. Aggressive Aries, who account for 8% of our list, include Microsoft's
"Scorpios always do well because they use all of their seductive powers to sell. The goal of Scorpio is to make you do what they want you to do, whether you want to do it or not," Lutin says about this sign, known for its passion. "People hate Windows, but they buy it."
The least common sign among billionaires? Sagittarius, which represents just 6% of the world’s wealthiest. Folks born under this sign are sometimes described as unorganized or even sloppy, and more focused on the big picture than on little details. “Counting on their luck and the grace of God, adventurous Sagittarians can act like tourists in the marketplace," explains astrologer David R. Railey. But what they may lack in business acumen, they make up for in creativity. Thus it's no surprise that Sagittarian billionaires include Hollywood director Steven Spielberg and producer Arnon Milchan.
Our report was compiled with the help of four astrologers:
Jeff Jawer has written daily and weekly horoscopes for AOL.com and Cosmogirl.com and is co-author of Your Astrology Guide 2006.
Michael Lutin has been the astrologer for Vanity Fair since 1984. His forthcoming book is called Sunshines.
Tad Mann has been a professional astrologer since 1972. His expertise in architecture, design and feng shui has led him to lecture at universities worldwide.
David Railey has been a professional astrologer since 1976 and is author of The Soul Purpose.
After all the track jumping incidents, I think SMRT need to embark on a PR campaign.
Maybe they can consider using the following slogans to make Singapore's Mass Rapid Terminator sound hip and happening:
1) SMRT - World class transport to die for.
2) SMRT - A hit with the locals!
3) SMRT - Our efficiency will knock you off your feet!
4) SMRT - (Re)Moving Singaporeans come rain or shine!
5) SMRT - Sending you to a better place.
6) SMRT - Mowing People, terminating life.
It’s easy to get caught up in the grand chase of accumulation that we’re told marks our success as humans on this planet; to always be wanting more, instead of sitting back and thanking the ether for how damn lucky we are to live in this country, be safe, eat daily, drink a beer if we want.
Gratitude is a good habit to get into because all of us, no matter who we are, have something to be thankful for, whether it’s just being able to walk on two legs or see our friends’ faces with two working eyes.
1. Singapore Prime Minister US$1,100,000 (S$1,958,000) a year
2. United States of America President: US$200,000
3. United Kingdom Prime Minister: US$170,556
4. Australia Prime Minister: US$137,060
Annual salaries of heads of government:
1. Singapore Minister: US$819,124
2. UK Minister: US$146,299
3. US Cabinet Secretary: US$157,000
(Source: Asian Wall Street Journal 10 Jul 2000)
ST Nov 29, 2006
Ministerial pay 'lags behind benchmark'
But decision on whether to relook salaries rests with PM, says SM Goh
By Sue-Ann Chia
BRATISLAVA (SLOVAKIA) - MINISTERS' salaries are pegged to that of the private sector, but they still lag behind the benchmark.
It is therefore likely that when civil service pay is reviewed, ministers' salaries will also be looked at, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong yesterday.
Last week, the Government indicated that salaries of civil servants are likely to go up as it must keep its wages competitive to recruit and retain talent in a tightening labour market.
At an interview yesterday wrapping up his visit to Europe, Mr Goh was asked about the likelihood of the pay increase, including for ministers.
He replied: 'Since the year 2000, six years have gone by with very good growth rates in some of the years, so it's time to have a look at the salary of the civil service as a whole, including the salary of the ministers.'
Right now, he said, ministers' pay packets are at 50 per cent of the benchmark, when they should be at two-thirds level.
According to the formula agreed upon for over a decade now, ministerial pay is benchmarked to the salaries of the top earners in six chosen professions. It is set at two-thirds the median income of the top eight earners in each of these six professions - that is, the pay of the individual at the mid-point of the list.
Monk uses machete for unkindest cut
Bangkok - A Thai Buddhist monk cut off his penis with a machete because he had an erection during meditation(???) - and declined to have it reattached.
A doctor and a newspaper stated yesterday that the monk said he had renounced all earthly cares.
The 35-year-old monk, whose name was withheld, allowed medical staff at the Maharaj hospital, about 780km south of Bangkok, to dress his wound, but he refused reattachment, hospital chief Prawing Euanontouch said.
"We cleaned up the wound and gave him some stitches, but he declined to have his penis reattached because he said that he had abandoned everything," Prawing said.
Indifference: The 'in' thing?
More means of communication now, yet HR has become less personal. Don't close mind to the suitability of contract workers for permanent jobs
Thursday • November 23, 2006
Letter from Zarina Jaffar
Letter from He Xiu Yun
MS CINDY Lit-Tan's observation of the indifferent attitudes towards job applicants ("Not hiring? Let job hunter know", Nov 21) rings true.
However, I would like to assure Ms Tan the practice of not informing applicants of the outcome is not an "archaic HR practice".
In the 1980s, when I was a fresh school-leaver, job interviewers were more caring and reassuring. There was no such thing as telling us to wait for a call and giving us that sense of false hope.
I received letters by post thanking me for my time and interest and telling me the company would keep me in mind for any other suitable post. Each time I received such a rejection letter, I felt glad the wait was over and grateful that the company had been courteous enough to respond. Such a company would always have my support and good wishes, despite the rejection.
When I applied for a job through employment agencies, it was a pleasant experience — a consultant would interview us personally to match us with suitable jobs.
Thus, when I accompanied my sister to register for a job recently, I was surprised to find that all the indifferent consultant had given her was a card with the website address. She was told to apply online. It all seems so cold and unwelcoming.
After 15 years as a homemaker, I intend to return to the working world now that my children are all independent. The job market and HR practices seem to have changed drastically — and for the worse.
