Don't worry. Heart bypass in Singapore $8 nia. If you want gold-plated heart, can look for T T.
BTW, how is TT enjoying the Middle East? I hope he is not bending over too often. I hear the people there like to give it long, hard and rough.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Gerald Ee to chair review committee on obscene PAP salary practices
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
BTW, how is TT enjoying the Middle East? I hope he is not bending over too often. I hear the people there like to give it long, hard and rough.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,039
- Points
- 0
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
The FAP is panicking because the bulk of those who voted against them are SG youths. Five years down the road they will continue to vote against them and the new young will follow the footsteps of their seniors. The FAP could jolly well lose another 6 to 10% (oops!). But make no mistake about it. The FAP is not really intent on reversing their primary aim of perpetuating one Familee rule, but to stall for time for New Citizens to overwhelm Sporeans. When this day happens, do you think the the FAP will give a hoot to Sporeans' 'noises'? There is only one way out for true blue Sporeans to secure their future and that of their children and that is to vote out the FAP because they are only really interested to build a de facto monarchy rather than to build a nation. What Singapore needs are leaders with the passion and capability to serve and pull the nation ahead together. And there are no lack of such Singaporeans in our midst.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Absolutely spot on - this Gerald fella was Chair of the transport committee which approved fare rises in the midst of declining oil prices. Also, too close to establishment.
They should get Leong Sze Hian on the committee.
Agree. We are all amazed but watching at the same time to see if the leopard indeed changes its spots as you rightly point out.
Gerald Ee comes from an illustrious background via his father and is a strong catholic. He is his own man and has never relied on any PAP handouts. Unfortunately he has been flying too closely to the PAP that he is seems to have lost touch with objectivity. As the chair of the Public Transport Committee(PTC), he failed miserably and allowed SMRT to run roughshod over the PTC.The fact that Raymond Lim was sacked for his work in Transport is a material indicator that all is not well in the sector and as the chair of the watchdog, he did not raise anything. Singaporeans did not hear a squeak from Gerald Ee when the dragon lady was talking about crush load as though Singaporeans are cattle and I can't recall anything that he said good or bad since he took office.
Gerald Ee has to understand that he was being used as political fodder and he has surely certainly fell into it. First the NKF rescue, than PTC and now the salary review. Next they will ask him to deliver old man's eulogy.
Gerald Ee has to understand that he was being used as political fodder and he has surely certainly fell into it. First the NKF rescue, than PTC and now the salary review. Next they will ask him to deliver old man's eulogy.
I rather that opposition not being involved as they will be tainted by this. I don't see how they are going to fix this in the material sense. The whole salary scheme includes the upper echelon to the civil service and all stat boards and even NTUC. Its too big a monster and the entire apparatus is predicated on the scheme.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 89,718
- Points
- 113
I've known that for a long time and it has always made me uncomfortable. :o
Another thing that made me uncomfortable was seeing her armpits when she raised her arms in victory after the election result. How come all the other pappy women candidates including Tin Tin, FMH, Lily, Grace, Indranee, Sim Ann etc all wear short sleeve shirts but only Amy wear sleeveless blouse har?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2008
- Messages
- 2,116
- Points
- 83
What exactly has Gerald Ee done to be so highly regarded? Just because he's 'Father of Charity' Ee Peng Liang's son?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 89,718
- Points
- 113
I'll be totally shocked if the committee comes out with a significant decrease.
My bets would be on
1. no change (due to the high salaries top corporate executives are geting),
2. small dimunitive decrease, and
3. slight increase
in order of likelihood.
And if the committee headed by Gerard comes out with any of my expected outcomes, he will really be better off spending his time getting NKF in order and eating wanton mee.
On another point, this turnaround and "changing and listening thing" all seems raher surreal to me.
How did we get from "Repent for five years" to "Possible reduction in salaries"?
Could it be just discontent from the people, loss of votes and loss of a grc?
My bets would be on
1. no change (due to the high salaries top corporate executives are geting
), 2. small dimunitive decrease, and
3. slight increase
in order of likelihood.
And if the committee headed by Gerard comes out with any of my expected outcomes, he will really be better off spending his time getting NKF in order and eating wanton mee.
On another point, this turnaround and "changing and listening thing" all seems raher surreal to me.
How did we get from "Repent for five years" to "Possible reduction in salaries"?
Could it be just discontent from the people, loss of votes and loss of a grc?
Last edited:
The PAP is speculating that in the 2016 GE, in all probability, old man would not be around (due to old age) and it is also doubtful if LHL would there to lead (due to his cancer). Many other ageing PAP leaders would also have migrated to the other dimension. Hence, there is a strong likelihood WP would capture power. To forestall WP ministers earning the astronomical amounts PAP ministers are now getting, GE has been asked to review the current salaries. After all incumbent PAP ministers have already made millions, so any reduction will not dent them.
Quote from CNA: "Mr Ee added that the committee will not rush matters. However, any changes to the salary scales will take effect retrospectively from the day the ministers were sworn in. "You can expect, that in all probability it will be a cut," added Mr Ee".
Knowing Mr. Gerald Ee is a well known and honest Accountant by profession, and I hope he will maintain the ICPAS motto "Without Fear and Favour"
Knowing Mr. Gerald Ee is a well known and honest Accountant by profession, and I hope he will maintain the ICPAS motto "Without Fear and Favour"
Whatever Gerard Ee and his team recommend will be brought into Pariliament for debate. The WP team will definitely not let it go so easily. If the final adopted package still do not appease to the logic of the people, it is still an election in 2016.
The bottomline analysis is that PAP is not doing this because they think their current remuneration is too high BUT just that they do not want that their support to be eroded further. This review is politically motivated.
A crude approach is to list out all the the ministers and MOS, what on the average (smoothen out aberration) they are getting before they join political office and what they are getting now based on their political appointments.
for example TSL as ex-gm of DHL Singapore is probably in the $300K (estimate) range but will be drawing more than $1million with pension as MOS
The bottomline analysis is that PAP is not doing this because they think their current remuneration is too high BUT just that they do not want that their support to be eroded further. This review is politically motivated.
A crude approach is to list out all the the ministers and MOS, what on the average (smoothen out aberration) they are getting before they join political office and what they are getting now based on their political appointments.
for example TSL as ex-gm of DHL Singapore is probably in the $300K (estimate) range but will be drawing more than $1million with pension as MOS
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 6,086
- Points
- 63
I've known that for a long time and it has always made me uncomfortable. :o
Another thing that made me uncomfortable was seeing her armpits when she raised her arms in victory after the election result. How come all the other pappy women candidates including Tin Tin, FMH, Lily, Grace, Indranee, Sim Ann etc all wear short sleeve shirts but only Amy wear sleeveless blouse har?
Why? If she ever wriggles your prostate with that 6th finger of hers I bet you will be in 7th heaven! Ever tried the health club in Great Eastern Hotel in the 80's?
Substantial discount, reports the New Paper....
http://www.tnp.sg/content/substantial-discount-ministers-pay
http://www.tnp.sg/content/substantial-discount-ministers-pay
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2011
- Messages
- 12,187
- Points
- 113
maybe you come back down to earth in the 1st place......................
S'pore is like the Japs already.......................we also have a monarchy.....................except ours is an absolute monarchy !
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 28
- Points
- 0
Pension for ministers – more disclosure, please
Posted by theonlinecitizen on May 14, 2011131 Comments
60Share
Leong Sze Hian /
The Prime Minister’s Office and the Minister in charge of the Civil Service have both sought to clarify and explain the issue of ministerial pension. (See links below.)
Whilst the clarification on Ministerial pensions is welcome, I would like to suggest that more details be given. Otherwise, Singaporeans may still be in the dark about how much exactly ministers receive in their pensions.
For example, the Today report says, “When a cabinet minister retires, the maximum annual pension that he is entitled to would be about 10 per cent of his annual salary while he was in service.” So, what are the annual salaries of cabinet ministers?
Otherwise, it may be akin to saying its 10 per cent of $X, but what is X?
Another question is whether this applies to other ministers as well, who are not cabinet ministers.
The Today report also says, “Ministers have to serve a minimum of eight years to qualify for a pension.” How many and who are the ministers that qualify according to this criteria?
Why is it that a minister qualifies after eight years, whereas a civil servant like Administrative Officers are only eligible after 15 years?
Why is it that Members of Parliament (MPs) elected after January 1995 are not eligible, whereas ministers appointed after 1995 are still eligible?
We are told that the “pensionable component has been frozen since 1994” but what was the amount frozen?
The Prime Minister’s Office’s statement says that “over time the pensionable component has shrunk as a proportion of total monthly salary.” What is the pensionable amount as a percentage of the annual salary?
The PMO explains that “[the] Parliamentary Pensions Act also provides for an office-holder to receive a pension at the age of 55, should he qualify for one, while he continues to hold office.” The obvious question which Singaporeans may have is: how many ministers are now receiving a pension?
The PMO’s statement says ‘[this] provision is being reviewed.” I agree that it should be reviewed as I do not see why a current minister in office who is already earning more that $2 million a year should be given a pension at the same time.
How long is this review expected to take?
After all, this is not the first time that this issue has been raised over the years.
In the spirit of PAP transformation, as espoused by ministers George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua (my former MP as I live in Aljunied GRC) in their respective press conferences after the elections, actually, it may be much simpler to just disclose to Singaporeans the amounts of pensions that each eligible minister is getting, instead of a long statement of clarification, which may leave citizens with arguably even more doubts and questions.
Given that “the points are already on… public record”, as the PMO says, and if good governance requires corporate officers of listed companies to disclose their remuneration, shouldn’t ministers do the same?
References:
“PMO on pensions for political office and MPs” (ST, May 14)
“Ministers’ pensions: How they’re paid” (Today, May 14)
Visit Sze Hian’s website for a free e-book and more.
Posted by theonlinecitizen on May 14, 2011131 Comments
60Share
Leong Sze Hian /
The Prime Minister’s Office and the Minister in charge of the Civil Service have both sought to clarify and explain the issue of ministerial pension. (See links below.)
Whilst the clarification on Ministerial pensions is welcome, I would like to suggest that more details be given. Otherwise, Singaporeans may still be in the dark about how much exactly ministers receive in their pensions.
For example, the Today report says, “When a cabinet minister retires, the maximum annual pension that he is entitled to would be about 10 per cent of his annual salary while he was in service.” So, what are the annual salaries of cabinet ministers?
Otherwise, it may be akin to saying its 10 per cent of $X, but what is X?
Another question is whether this applies to other ministers as well, who are not cabinet ministers.
The Today report also says, “Ministers have to serve a minimum of eight years to qualify for a pension.” How many and who are the ministers that qualify according to this criteria?
Why is it that a minister qualifies after eight years, whereas a civil servant like Administrative Officers are only eligible after 15 years?
Why is it that Members of Parliament (MPs) elected after January 1995 are not eligible, whereas ministers appointed after 1995 are still eligible?
We are told that the “pensionable component has been frozen since 1994” but what was the amount frozen?
The Prime Minister’s Office’s statement says that “over time the pensionable component has shrunk as a proportion of total monthly salary.” What is the pensionable amount as a percentage of the annual salary?
The PMO explains that “[the] Parliamentary Pensions Act also provides for an office-holder to receive a pension at the age of 55, should he qualify for one, while he continues to hold office.” The obvious question which Singaporeans may have is: how many ministers are now receiving a pension?
The PMO’s statement says ‘[this] provision is being reviewed.” I agree that it should be reviewed as I do not see why a current minister in office who is already earning more that $2 million a year should be given a pension at the same time.
How long is this review expected to take?
After all, this is not the first time that this issue has been raised over the years.
In the spirit of PAP transformation, as espoused by ministers George Yeo and Lim Hwee Hua (my former MP as I live in Aljunied GRC) in their respective press conferences after the elections, actually, it may be much simpler to just disclose to Singaporeans the amounts of pensions that each eligible minister is getting, instead of a long statement of clarification, which may leave citizens with arguably even more doubts and questions.
Given that “the points are already on… public record”, as the PMO says, and if good governance requires corporate officers of listed companies to disclose their remuneration, shouldn’t ministers do the same?
References:
“PMO on pensions for political office and MPs” (ST, May 14)
“Ministers’ pensions: How they’re paid” (Today, May 14)
Visit Sze Hian’s website for a free e-book and more.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 28
- Points
- 0
Pension for Ministers: How much of $11b?
Posted on May 20th, 2011 under Articles, Others 0
Sponsor's link ( Want this spot?)
We refer to the Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office’s letter “PMO on pensions for political office and MPs” (ST, May 14)http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_668430.html and the articles “Pension about a tenth of minister’s pay” (ST, May 14) and .”Ministers’ pensions: How they’re paid” (Today, May 14). http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC110514-0000257/Ministers-pensions–How-theyre-paid
According to the Budgethttp://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2011/revenue_expenditure/attachment/6%20Assets%20&%20Liab%20EE2010.pdf, the Government’s liabilities as at 31 March, 2010, for the Pension Fund is $10.6 billion.
Since this is the provision for the pensions payable to eligible civil servants and political appointees, how much of this sum is attributable to political appointees?
How many political appointees are currently receiving pensions?
To illustrate the sums involved, for example, if a 27 year-old new political appointee becomes a Minister eventually, and steps down at age 50, since the latest available Public Service Division (PSD) figures for 2009, was that an entry-grade Minister received an annual salary of $1.57 million, the annual pension may be say around $157,000 (“Pension about a tenth of minister’s pay”, ST, May 14).
If the retiring Minister lives to 90 years old (life expectancy for a female at around the 20 per cent survival probability), the total lifetime payout is $6.28 million ($157,000 times 40 years), or a present value liability to taxpayers of about $3.6 million, using the current 3 per cent discounting formula applied in computing pension liabilities.
As this example is for just one entry-grade Minister, how much would the figure be for a Cabinet Minister?
Also, since the Invest Fund of $469 million, is the provision for the pensions of the Home Affairs (Ministry) Uniformed Services (HUS)http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=NTE=-NZyJ19YOPOM=
, does it mean that the total pensions liability is about $11 billion ($10.6 billion plus $469 million).
For example, in the Health Sciences Authority’s (HSA) financial statements for 2007/8, “In the prior year, a provision of $240,734 was made for 3 eligible officers who exercised the option to return to the pension scheme as offered by the government”. (see attached PDF file)
Since the pensions scheme was terminated many years ago, why are ‘eligible’ officers allowed the option to return to the pension scheme?
Does this mean, for example, that a civil servant who is promoted to the Administrative Service, or becomes a political appointee, may be given this option?
When a pensionable civil servant resigns to stand as a candidate in the elections, does it mean that he or she will lose all service pensionable benefits, or does it mean that they may be transferred or credited in some way, if they become political appointees?
What is the criteria to qualify as an ‘eligible’ officer?
Does this option to return to the pensions scheme mean that past service may also be credited for the purpose of the pension benefits, i.e. like a back-dating of benefits?
If this is the case, is any adjustment made for the employer’s CPF contribution to the ‘eligible’ officer’s CPF account over the years?
By the way, the liability under the Government Securities Fund is $331 billion.
.
Leong Sze Hian and Alex Lew
P.S. We are grateful and indebted to Joey Foo for doing all the research and alerting us to this issue
Posted on May 20th, 2011 under Articles, Others 0
Sponsor's link ( Want this spot?)
We refer to the Secretary to the Prime Minister’s Office’s letter “PMO on pensions for political office and MPs” (ST, May 14)http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_668430.html and the articles “Pension about a tenth of minister’s pay” (ST, May 14) and .”Ministers’ pensions: How they’re paid” (Today, May 14). http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC110514-0000257/Ministers-pensions–How-theyre-paid
According to the Budgethttp://www.singaporebudget.gov.sg/budget_2011/revenue_expenditure/attachment/6%20Assets%20&%20Liab%20EE2010.pdf, the Government’s liabilities as at 31 March, 2010, for the Pension Fund is $10.6 billion.
Since this is the provision for the pensions payable to eligible civil servants and political appointees, how much of this sum is attributable to political appointees?
How many political appointees are currently receiving pensions?
To illustrate the sums involved, for example, if a 27 year-old new political appointee becomes a Minister eventually, and steps down at age 50, since the latest available Public Service Division (PSD) figures for 2009, was that an entry-grade Minister received an annual salary of $1.57 million, the annual pension may be say around $157,000 (“Pension about a tenth of minister’s pay”, ST, May 14).
If the retiring Minister lives to 90 years old (life expectancy for a female at around the 20 per cent survival probability), the total lifetime payout is $6.28 million ($157,000 times 40 years), or a present value liability to taxpayers of about $3.6 million, using the current 3 per cent discounting formula applied in computing pension liabilities.
As this example is for just one entry-grade Minister, how much would the figure be for a Cabinet Minister?
Also, since the Invest Fund of $469 million, is the provision for the pensions of the Home Affairs (Ministry) Uniformed Services (HUS)http://www.mha.gov.sg/news_details.aspx?nid=NTE=-NZyJ19YOPOM=
, does it mean that the total pensions liability is about $11 billion ($10.6 billion plus $469 million).
For example, in the Health Sciences Authority’s (HSA) financial statements for 2007/8, “In the prior year, a provision of $240,734 was made for 3 eligible officers who exercised the option to return to the pension scheme as offered by the government”. (see attached PDF file)
Since the pensions scheme was terminated many years ago, why are ‘eligible’ officers allowed the option to return to the pension scheme?
Does this mean, for example, that a civil servant who is promoted to the Administrative Service, or becomes a political appointee, may be given this option?
When a pensionable civil servant resigns to stand as a candidate in the elections, does it mean that he or she will lose all service pensionable benefits, or does it mean that they may be transferred or credited in some way, if they become political appointees?
What is the criteria to qualify as an ‘eligible’ officer?
Does this option to return to the pensions scheme mean that past service may also be credited for the purpose of the pension benefits, i.e. like a back-dating of benefits?
If this is the case, is any adjustment made for the employer’s CPF contribution to the ‘eligible’ officer’s CPF account over the years?
By the way, the liability under the Government Securities Fund is $331 billion.
.
Leong Sze Hian and Alex Lew
P.S. We are grateful and indebted to Joey Foo for doing all the research and alerting us to this issue
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,985
- Points
- 0
Than you to both Leong Sze Hian and Alex Lew. They can run but they cannot hide. One day the truth will be out if we keep asking or 2016 will be the year of reckoning. Like Aljuneid GRC, they should be scrambling trying to hide where the monies received has gone to. Gross may be in excess of $500 million per annum.
Similar threads
