Politics of Salary Review

[Varuna]

In 2007, Singapore’s ministers gave themselves a 60% pay increment, with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean using the justification: “If we don’t do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse. We don’t want pay to be the reason for people to join us. But we also don’t want pay to be the reason for them not to join us.”

Warped logic. Even with huge pay, I think we are not getting value for money. And doesn't mean with lower pay, we cannot get genuine and competent talents to serve the people. They have pushed the scale to the extreme end thinking we are morons. Those who do not agree with them on getting huge pay but wish to join politics will automatically deemed as not talented or incompetent.

 

[Conqueror]

Dragon Boy And PAP Dog Joke

Listen to what the SDP is saying about this so called discount,.............

"This is because in 2007 ministers approved a 27 percent hike in their salaries. The following year they accepted another 15 percent increase a jump of 42 percent in two years. During this period PM Lee took home an annual income of $3.8 million and ministers between $2-3 million.....This is the classic sales tactic. Jack up the price and then tell your customers that you are giving them a discount. This is the same strategem that the HDB and Restructured (public) Hospitals have been using on us all these decades. Prices and fees are first raised with the Government stepping in to announce that the payments will be subsidised. The upshot is that the state still comes away with a tidy profit."

I wrote this before in a form of a joke between Dragon Boy and PAP Dog. I'll go and search this posting.

 

[Fook Seng]

Were all these knowledge in public domain or dirty PAP secrets now publicised????

In the Straits Times 5 Jan.

 

[freedalas]

I stated this at another thread but since there's quite a huge following in this thread as well, thought I just say it here as well as my 2 cents worth. In this ministers'(taken to include the president, speaker of parliament, etc) pay review, there would only be real sacrifice if that minister had come into politics from a job that paid much more than what he would get as a minister. The most classic case of a real sacrifice was Dr Richard Hu who was paid much more as Chairman Shell before he entered politics. Another form of real sacrifice would be if that minister were to leave politics and join the private sector, he would have earn much more than now. Now looking at these definitions of real sacrifice, how many in the current parliament are making any sacrifice? Except perhaps for Dr Ng Eng Hen and Shanmugam, none of this current crop of jokers are making any form of real sacrifice. If you are the head of a MNC for instance, would you pay the likes of Lim Swee Say, Josephine Teo or even Khaw Boon Khaw more than what they are getting now or even for the proposed cut salary, and that's assuming you would want to recruit these clowns in the first place.

So don't be misled by all these talk about sacrifices and the related discount. It's a red herring meant to distract us from the real issue, which is that even after the proposed cut, the ministers are still earning very very much more than those in other countries.

One more thing. You can tell just how independent the review committee is by the way Gerald Ee answered the journalist if the proposed cut meant that the ministers had been overpaid all along. Now if he was truly independent, he would had said yes because that what it really meant with the cuts, what else can it be? Instead he fumbled through his reply without answering the question at all, despite that the journalist repeating the question. Lucien Wong in seeing Gerald struggling to find an answer tried to help out but instead said something that no one knew what the hell he was talking about. It's all for show as the committee had already been told what the range of cuts are to be and their job is not to determine the quantum of cuts but to find justifications for the cuts. A high-sounding name for this is called "reverse engineering". We must always remember that in S'pore, the PAP had never and will never appoint a review committee that is truly independent.

 

[Fook Seng]

No. That's where most people make the mistake. The $1.2mil refers to their basic salary excluding their bonuses (national, performance and annual).

No you are the one who make the mistake. Look at the details.

 

[HorGauGan]

i wonder wat is going thru Tan Jee Say's mind now. "HENG AH! I NEVER TIO AH!"

 

[scroobal]

Bro,

When I saw your post, I had to read it again. I then thought my endearing love of the PAP might have skewed my initial assessment. So I thought I will wait to get some views from the usual circle of pundits. Unfortunately their views are that the review was not a review but an exercise in dressing it up in more palatable colours but with little or no foundation for the new colours chosen.

I have no doubt that anything of this nature needs deft handling but they seem to have actually taken the trouble of removing any purchase for the previously raised criticisms.


Singapore political leaders continue to be one of the best paid, well above the size of the GDP and far far removed from the median income of the middle class. And our middle class is not a tiny segment. Magnitute of the deception best indicated by the fact that the deep, generous and charitable discount of 40% already factored in.

1) NSP Hazel Poa points to the fact that 48 to 1,000 is not meaningful and is 0.03% of the top. So the elite continue to be the benchmark.

2) SDP highlights that the base has risen in recent times so considerably that it is not meaningful but certainly misleading. I thought the committee was clearly disingenuous is not making this clear.

3) Siew Kum Hong points out that TOR has literally handcuffed the committee where it was directed to ensure that market rates of the private are to considered. Interestingly no TOR mentions comparing with similar political positions across the world and even for the biggest countries in terms or GDP. It like asking worst looking girl in Ms World Singapore pagent to take part in another beauty pagents where the rest of the contestants are from the Canine world and asking who will win the contest. If you read the report, no comparison was made to with any other political office in any country. I am sure you would agree that apples were not compared with apples. I can now understand why Mercer did not want to disclose its fees. I am actually surprised they agreed to release their name.

4) Gerard Ee needs to go to Church and renew his faith. At the start of the review, he clearly said that the same model would not be used. I thought he was bold and brave. If we are dealing with patents and intellectual property protection, I can assure that a lawsuit would be in works as the model is identical with the 1 variable in terms of size have been changed minutely and a discount has been applied to the end result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOcgBgzQIM

5) The pension was not outlined in the TOR but it seems to have a life of its own. One of the pundits has said that this was the result of the extensively circulated email post GE2010 on George Yeo's pension which Teo Chee Hean stuggled immensely to explain and the written explanation published in the press by a Govt official was less than satisfactory. They took the review opportunity to clean up what was an embarrassing and politically damaging pension scheme for political appointment holders.

By the way, 2 of the committee members are Board Members of Tiger Airways when it was suspended by the Australian Govt in an unprecendeted move. Their position and standing has already being damaged and no longer can stand as independent and sadly these were only 2 committee members that were not as aligned to the Govt as others are.

Dear Scroobal

I thought Lucien Wong was a PAP man to :_)). Personally having being against the high salaries and the manner in which the salaries was computed. I have found the latest report refreshing and less of a white wash then I thought previously. As much as it sticks to the same old principles advocated by his father and reinforced by GOH, the manner and evolvement of the methodology shows a slow but distinct erosion from a fetish for market based solutions and seeing high ministerial pay as the only means of recruiting the political talent they need.

Locke

 

[TracyTan866]

Bro,

When I saw your post, I had to read it again. I then thought my endearing love of the PAP might have skewed my initial assessment. So I thought I will wait to get some views from the usual circle of pundits. Unfortunately their views are that the review was not a review but an exercise in dressing it up in more palatable colours but with little or no foundation for the new colours chosen.

I have no doubt that anything of this nature needs deft handling but they seem to have actually taken the trouble of removing any purchase for the previously raised criticisms.


Singapore political leaders continue to be one of the best paid, well above the size of the GDP and far far removed from the median income of the middle class. And our middle class is not a tiny segment. Magnitute of the deception best indicated by the fact that the deep, generous and charitable discount of 40% already factored in.

1) NSP Hazel Poa points to the fact that 48 to 1,000 is not meaningful and is 0.03% of the top. So the elite continue to be the benchmark.

2) SDP highlights that the base has risen in recent times so considerably that it is not meaningful but certainly misleading. I thought the committee was clearly disingenuous is not making this clear.

3) Siew Kum Hong points out that TOR has literally handcuffed the committee where it was directed to ensure that market rates of the private are to considered. Interestingly no TOR mentions comparing with similar political positions across the world and even for the biggest countries in terms or GDP. It like asking worst looking girl in Ms World Singapore pagent to take part in another beauty pagents where the rest of the contestants are from the Canine world and asking who will win the contest. If you read the report, no comparison was made to with any other political office in any country. I am sure you would agree that apples were not compared with apples. I can now understand why Mercer did not want to disclose its fees. I am actually surprised they agreed to release their name.

4) Gerard Ee needs to go to Church and renew his faith. At the start of the review, he clearly said that the same model would not be used. I thought he was bold and brave. If we are dealing with patents and intellectual property protection, I can assure that a lawsuit would be in works as the model is identical with the 1 variable in terms of size have been changed minutely and a discount has been applied to the end result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOcgBgzQIM

5) The pension was not outlined in the TOR but it seems to have a life of its own. One of the pundits has said that this was the result of the extensively circulated email post GE2010 on George Yeo's pension which Teo Chee Hean stuggled immensely to explain and the written explanation published in the press by a Govt official was less than satisfactory. They took the review opportunity to clean up what was an embarrassing and politically damaging pension scheme for political appointment holders.

By the way, 2 of the committee members are Board Members of Tiger Airways when it was suspended by the Australian Govt in an unprecendeted move. Their position and standing has already being damaged and no longer can stand as independent and sadly these were only 2 committee members that were not as aligned to the Govt as others are.

TCH is a disgrace. Despite the obvious disdain of Ministerial salaries and pension, he proceeded to champion increase after increase.

Didnt he have a sense of proportion or ground feel?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Well, this is my response, in Chinese. I will get some translation done later:

部长薪金调整 – 换汤不换药的政治秀
历时超过半年的《政治职位薪金检讨报告》昨天终于出炉，建议大幅削减总统、总理和部长薪金达28% 至53% 。这双位数字的减幅看来大刀阔斧，但是仔细研读当中的魔鬼细节后，就不难发现检讨报告只是一场换汤不换药的数字游戏。

去年大选之后，李显龙总理为了“顺应”民意，成立了政治职位薪金检讨委员会，检讨多年来被批评为过高的总理及部长薪酬，这也被普遍视为大选失利而重新笼络民心的动作。然而委员会到头来所作出的薪酬计算建议，显然是令人大失所望，因为它缺乏大胆改革薪金制度的决心。

首先，委员会建议把部长薪金基准与新加坡300万劳动人口中最高薪的48人，增加至与1000人挂钩，这种改动没有实际意义。单单把薪酬与高收入人士看齐，却忽略中层和基层人士薪金的变动，得出的结果是狭隘和有偏差的。

以2007年为例，当年我国基层人士的薪金呆滞，中产阶级的加薪幅度也不高，但是部长薪金却因为跟高薪人士挂钩而水涨船高，一口气飙升了60%！在贫富悬殊日益严重的新加坡，这种荒谬的现象更突显了薪金计算机制的不合理。

此外，委员会建议沿用花红制度，并作一些无关痛痒的小修小补，即使改革后的最高花红从以往的27.5个月降低至14.5个月，但对国人来说，这仍然是个天文数字。

在计算表现花红方面，若纯粹以总理的主观意愿来决定，而完全缺乏客观的理据，那又如何避免官官相护呢？虽然国家花红的水平是依照包括经济增长、失业率等四方面的因素而定，但是报告所设的门槛过低，根本无法准确反映政治官员对国人福祉的贡献。

再者，新加坡作为一个开放型的经济体，取得的经济增长主要是受到外围经济环境的左右，不能直接跟部长的表现扯上关系，更遑论以此作为制订花红的指标。

不过，最重要的还是身为服务国家的公职人员，竟然采用私人机构的薪酬配套，以所谓的“工作表现”来决定花红的多寡，未免偏离了公共服务人员应有的献身精神。

其实，就算不计花红在内，我国最初级部长减薪后的年收入，也大幅超越美国总统薪酬多达20万新元，并与香港特首的薪酬看齐。如果这样才能吸引人才，甚至确保高薪养廉，国人所付出的代价恐怕会是另一个“世界第一”。

诚然，检讨报告的确削减了政治官员的薪金，但是问题的症结未解，薪酬计算方法仍然不合理。我建议简化计算方法，取消花红，综合高、中、低层人士的收入作为官员基本薪金的指标，把官员和整体国民的收入全面挂钩，从而加强总理和部长对民众问责。

如果执政党天真的以为这次薪金检讨能成功化解民怨，那未免过于低估国人的政治智慧了。国民期望的是更彻底的改革，而不只是单纯的减薪。但是从执政党声明接受检讨结果来看，他们显然是缺乏政治决心去实行认真、彻底的改革了。

事实上，部长薪金过高只是民怨的其中一个诱因。多年以来，我国部长在领取世界第一高薪的当儿，却没有为自己的各种政策失误负起应有的政治责任，反而以各种理由搪塞，这才是引发民怨的真正原因。如果行动党不认真对症下药，切实执行政治问责制，相信民怨将继续累积，选民必然会在下届大选中以选票表达不满。

吴明盛

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroo,

The scale has just went from, obscenely well paid, to very well paid. Perhaps in time to well paid, then to just paid. The TOR limited the extent of change, but fiddling with definitions allowed a cut and they have started removing some sacred cows.

a. Hiriechial link, Presidents pay has to be above that of PMs, a political pecking order defined by pay. Now a good PS can earn more than an MOS.


b. Defining urself to the super rich and the best well paid in the profession automatically recession proofs ur salary maximizing the upside limiting the down side. The best top ten well paid surgeon in Singapore, and the gulf to the next 100th is very wide. the expanded list to top 1000 irrespective of professions and limiting it to Singaporeans means in effect a benchmark against the best versus the very best and is in effect an admission of failure in a benchmark against the super elites.


c. it's simple, PAY and Performance or perception of performance are linked. Pay would be less of an issue if performance was not so lacking. The cries of we are paying MBT YACOOB and WKS for............They will continue but for them hopefully with the cut some of the edge would be taken of.

d. Rhetorical sacrifice for public service, theoretical sacrifice for public service, and pratical sacrifice for public service. How much that sacrifice will be can only happen when the opposition draws together a team filled with more CSMs talented Singaporeans who can tell NEH and GRACE FU I have earned my millions or tens of millions but I serve my country for less.




Locke








When I saw your post, I had to read it again. I then thought my endearing love of the PAP might have skewed my initial assessment. So I thought I will wait to get some views from the usual circle of pundits. Unfortunately their views are that the review was not a review but an exercise in dressing it up in more palatable colours but with little or no foundation for the new colours chosen.

I have no doubt that anything of this nature needs deft handling but they seem to have actually taken the trouble of removing any purchase for the previously raised criticisms.


Singapore political leaders continue to be one of the best paid, well above the size of the GDP and far far removed from the median income of the middle class. And our middle class is not a tiny segment. Magnitute of the deception best indicated by the fact that the deep, generous and charitable discount of 40% already factored in.

1) NSP Hazel Poa points to the fact that 48 to 1,000 is not meaningful and is 0.03% of the top. So the elite continue to be the benchmark.

2) SDP highlights that the base has risen in recent times so considerably that it is not meaningful but certainly misleading. I thought the committee was clearly disingenuous is not making this clear.

3) Siew Kum Hong points out that TOR has literally handcuffed the committee where it was directed to ensure that market rates of the private are to considered. Interestingly no TOR mentions comparing with similar political positions across the world and even for the biggest countries in terms or GDP. It like asking worst looking girl in Ms World Singapore pagent to take part in another beauty pagents where the rest of the contestants are from the Canine world and asking who will win the contest. If you read the report, no comparison was made to with any other political office in any country. I am sure you would agree that apples were not compared with apples. I can now understand why Mercer did not want to disclose its fees. I am actually surprised they agreed to release their name.

4) Gerard Ee needs to go to Church and renew his faith. At the start of the review, he clearly said that the same model would not be used. I thought he was bold and brave. If we are dealing with patents and intellectual property protection, I can assure that a lawsuit would be in works as the model is identical with the 1 variable in terms of size have been changed minutely and a discount has been applied to the end result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOcgBgzQIM

5) The pension was not outlined in the TOR but it seems to have a life of its own. One of the pundits has said that this was the result of the extensively circulated email post GE2010 on George Yeo's pension which Teo Chee Hean stuggled immensely to explain and the written explanation published in the press by a Govt official was less than satisfactory. They took the review opportunity to clean up what was an embarrassing and politically damaging pension scheme for political appointment holders.

By the way, 2 of the committee members are Board Members of Tiger Airways when it was suspended by the Australian Govt in an unprecendeted move. Their position and standing has already being damaged and no longer can stand as independent and sadly these were only 2 committee members that were not as aligned to the Govt as others are.[/QUOTE]

 

[aurvandil]

Article from the Wall Street Journal which hits the nail squarely on the head. It seems that knowledge of the PAP's decline is not limited to Singaporeans. It has become obvious enough that even foreign newswires are able to write resonably good articles on what is happening.

http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/01/06/singapore-leaders-cut-pay-but-win-few-hearts/

Singapore leaders may be slashing sizeable chunks off their world-beating salaries, but it appears they aren’t winning the hearts of the many critics who want their government to do more to honor its promises of change.

The ruling People’s Action Party this week accepted proposals to slash ministers’ million-dollar wages by about 30% annually from 2010 levels, hoping to placate residents who accuse Singapore’s longtime political masters of shortchanging taxpayers on the quality of governance – especially in the face of a widening gap between rich and poor, rising living costs, and immigration pressures in the city-state.

But the move, the latest in a series of PAP remedies aimed at recouping support lost in a bruising general election last May, has attracted more brickbats than plaudits so far. Many citizens have expressed reservations, even derision, about the depth of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s reform pledges, saying the PAP hasn’t departed from its philosophy of elite governance, in which it emphasizes paying top dollar for top talent.


Opposition parties led the rhetorical assault. The Reform Party pulled no punches, saying the government “may be in danger of scoring an own goal,” as the proposed pay structure still offers “obscene” wages and could “entrench the public view of ministers as overpaid and the PAP leadership as an uncaring elite, out of touch with the needs of the majority of Singaporeans.”

After the cuts, Prime Minister Lee would get about US$1.7 million a year – about 40 times Singapore’s gross domestic product per capita in real terms. U.S. President Barack Obama earns US$400,000 a year, less than nine times his country’s GDP per capita in real terms.

Observers also criticized the government’s approach to reviewing political salaries for being too narrow in scope. By asking how ministerial salaries can be more appropriately linked to corporate pay, instead of formulating a remuneration policy that can win citizens’ support by framing public service as a calling, the government was seeking “technical” answers to a “political” question, former nominated lawmaker Siew Kum Hong wrote in his blog.

Singapore officials have defended the salaries as a way to attract strong candidates and deter graft.

Some residents fear that since ministers’ salaries are still being pegged to incomes of Singapore’s richest – the new benchmark being the median income of the 1,000 top-earning citizens, with a 40% discount applied – the pay system could incentivize policy-making that widens an already yawning income gap, even though attempts were made to link ministers’ bonuses to improvements to the well-being of lower-income citizens.

Local bloggers too joined the chorus of unconvinced voices, mocking the cuts as gratuitous gestures that still preserve the place of Singapore leaders among the world’s best-paid politicians.

“With the proposed ministerial pay cuts, our leaders have gone from obscenely well-paid to damn well-paid,” said Singapore’s most-read blogger, known as “Mr. Brown.”

Singapore began pegging ministers’ pay to incomes of top corporate earners in 1994, on the insistence of former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, who believed the policy would draw the best and brightest into politics and cut risks of government corruption. Many supporters of the policy – including some foreign investors – believe it has played a key role in promoting a clean and efficient government, especially compared to many other Asian nations.

Some PAP politicians have warned against further pay cuts, including junior minister Grace Fu, who said on her Facebook page: “It may not be wise to call for the tradeoffs to be tilted further to an extent that it dissuades good people from coming forward in future.” But her views, following earlier comments on her decision to join politics, drew hundreds of critical responses; some alleged her views betray ignorance of the concerns of lower-income Singaporeans, and show that the PAP hasn’t truly embraced calls for change.

Such public shows of discontent, analysts say, stem mostly from widening perceptions of subpar governance by the party, and a push for greater political accountability here, rather than the baser impulse of envy.

“Singaporeans didn’t express huge objections to the salaries, which have been around for about twenty years,” said Manu Bhaskaran, an academic at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. “One suspects that the real issue is not high salaries per se, which practical-minded Singaporeans didn’t begrudge for so long, but issues related to the delivery of the ‘goods’ Singaporeans desired,” Mr. Bhaskaran added.

 

[aurvandil]

Previously I had made some predictions on the salary cuts. This was based on then available empirical evidence. I had also predicted the likely public reaction to the most likely outcome.

If you want to bet money with your friends and colleagues, follow the smart money and bet the cut will be a modest 20% to 30%. The Singapore msm will trumpet this as a HUGE drop. If you look at the statistics of the table on the left, PM Lee will probably still be earning 5 to 6 times what other world leaders are earning.

Check out what else I had predicted and see if they have come true.

http://singstatistician.blogspot.com/2011/05/pap-salary-cut-real-one-or-bluff-one.html

http://singstatistician.blogspot.com/2011/05/dpm-teo-hints-that-minister-salaries.html

http://singstatistician.blogspot.com/2011/05/singaporeans-got-provide-big-house-for.html

 

[TracyTan866]

Warped logic. Even with huge pay, I think we are not getting value for money. And doesn't mean with lower pay, we cannot get genuine and competent talents to serve the people. They have pushed the scale to the extreme end thinking we are morons. Those who do not agree with them on getting huge pay but wish to join politics will automatically deemed as not talented or incompetent.

In fact, sometimes too high pay can deter good people from coming in, because they dont want to be in the company of greedy people who came in for the wrong reasons.

So the pap must recognise that haigh pay may attract some good people..but by the same token, high pay can deter good people too. That may be one of the reasons why the pap cant recruit good people.

 

[ah_phah]

no surprises, the 60% of morons will continue to vote the same way, as they did in the prev GE. the question now is, how many of the remaining 40% will swing in lieu of the recent pay cut, depends if they too have sh*t for brains.

ministerial salary previously was pegged to top 5% salaries on this island. now, they say its a pay cut, pegged to top 1000 salaries of pink IC holders. so, 1000 out of 3.5M pink IC holders is 0.028% of the top sgporean salaries.

and, if being pegged to the top 0.028% of sgporeans warrant ±50% pay cut, do u realise how pathetically underpaid r singaporeans? imagine the tip of our spear is merely drawing wages ½ of what some top 5% mixtures?

so, if we see the votes swing in favor of the pappies... we can be quite certain that there r alot plenty more morons than we thought. and if, the votes swing in favor of the alternatives, we can safely say that more have become enlightened.

 

[rusty]

In fact, sometimes too high pay can deter good people from coming in, because they dont want to be in the company of greedy people who came in for the wrong reasons.

So the pap must recognise that haigh pay may attract some good people..but by the same token, high pay can deter good people too. That may be one of the reasons why the pap cant recruit good people.

High salary won't deters a person from joining a strong ruling party. It is the party discipline and LKY behind the scene that's detering good and intelligent people from joining.
Intellectuals with righteousness also turn away because of the whip. They don't believe saying something in disagreement and be seen practising it like a hypocrites. These are the reasons the PAP find it difficult to attract talents from the private sector and that's why we end up with people from the civil service who see this as a promotion. Cheapskates! The people fail to see PAP is using public money in luring talents to remain in power. Absolute abuse of power!

 

[Conqueror]

PAP Joke

Yah, this is the thread :



LHL : I'm working. I'm working very hard. So, give me some info on what is really going on out there. Why people hate me on the internet ?

PAP dog : No, there's nothing wrong. It's just graffiti. Yah, it's just a few cyber graffiti, that's all.

LHL : I thought the people in general are happy when I was given the honour to be their PM ?

PAP dog : You are the ONLY savior of Sinkingland. They are just jealous that you have the best genes like your father mentioned before. Sinkies just don't want to accept the truth that they are dumb.

LHL : Yawn ... I need more money. My ego is driving me mad. What did my father say about my future paychecks ?

PAP dog : Your father is smart. He jacked up everyone's pay by almost twice the amount. What can that fat man do ? He can only do so much. Halving it will still mean you are getting more than a million bucks for doing absolutely nothing but talking nonsense.

LHL : Please, don't remind me of the "Mee Siam" thing again.

PAP dog : Sorry, but I can't help it. That's what everyone is telling me. They say your analogy always sucks and lack substance or truth in it.

LHL : I will work that out somehow. Now, I find this job is not easy.

PAP dog : Tell me about it. Even I want your job too. You should count yourself lucky getting a pay like this without possessing any real skill for the public sector.

LHL : I'm an elite. That's what my father said. I can survive anywhere. But, I need more FTs to cheat in the next election. Dad said divide and conquer Sinkies.

PAP dog : As long your father is around, you should be okay. Fascism and commies style of governance work well in Asia.

LHL : People in North Africa and the Middle East are having a new era of democracy. Do you think we can can bluff our way through without anyone noticing it ?

PAP dog : Don't worry, Sinkies are coward and they lack the unity to fight against us. There won't be a revolution here.

LHL : Heng ah ! Song ah ! Zho Ong liao ah !


Link To Original Thread

 

[neddy]

Read the White Paper in total when it is released shortly and you will likely come to a single conclusion - this a is not a review that began with a white canvas. It is a review that is highly political in nature and reverse engineered to meet the undisclosed brief.. Here are 2 points that will show;

Singapore?

Everything works towards the ministerial briefs. We start with the conclusions (leaked to the sponsor approved and signed), followed by introductions and then put in suitable facts and figures to justify the true objectives.

In the process, put in nice motherhood statements implying "humble beginnings" and remove sensitive distracting words like "to stop corruption". ("Stop corruption" is like putting Halal Pork into the mix)

Motherhood statements are important to :
1. let the unthinking people think that something is changed.
2. allow the 60% to chant and parrot over whenever they feel uneasy.
3. when in doubt, remember the statements that makes you feel good.

(I have no wish to read this report unless for political reference)

The pain will be well-defined. (Eg Tony Tan is rich enough, and EP will be less of a windfall for future freak candidates like a jobless ex CEO who used donated funds for deposits) But everyone will still be pleased because the underlying structure still remain the same.
Only a graceless greedy Fu will voice indignation publicly because she thought she is $worth it$.
Hail Mary. G Ee deliver the goods and will still remain the patron saint who will be reliably called upon to do the next dirty job.

 

[RandomNexus]

I am curious, very curious of the renumeration of current and recent batches of all ministers, ministers of states and parliamentary secretaries, before and after they join the cabinet. Is there an increase or decrease? Is there a monetary "sacrifice" in renumeration after joining the cabinet?

Could some MP put this question in parliament? Let us see how much "sacrifice" were being made as a whole.

Not to focus on basic renumeration, the past amount of variable bonuses was even more obscene, my goodness!

If money forms the basis for joining politics, why not just cut the hypocrisy about the good intentions of wanting to serve the people at large? I do not see how both can be reconciled. They are in deep contradiction.

I cannot figure out why national servicemen have to be "underpaid" for their real sacrifice in time for public service aka national service, and ministers would have to claim sacrifice when they are "overpaid" for their time in public service.

 

[scroobal]

This review taught me something about myself and I suppose for many others as well.

The salary formula that allowed pegging market rate of 48 in the private sector was introduced over 20 years ago. About the same time, transparency that was norm where salary scale of public office holders are concerned were also affected. None of us know exactly how much has been paid. GY pension issue was never ever revealed despite so much anxiety about it.

It is slowly and surely dawning on us all that despite the recent salary proposal to cut it down by an averge of 30%, it continues to be very high compared to any other govt in the sane world. And that is not something that we were expecting.

And to your point, only Ng and Shanmugam are purporterly earning more before joing the cabinet. Maybe the reservist formula would be more appropriate so that we don't have freeloaders such as Teo Ser Luck and company getting away.

I am curious, very curious of the renumeration of current and recent batches of all ministers, ministers of states and parliamentary secretaries, before and after they join the cabinet. Is there an increase or decrease? Is there a monetary "sacrifice" in renumeration after joining the cabinet?

Could some MP put this question in parliament? Let us see how much "sacrifice" were being made as a whole.

Not to focus on basic renumeration, the past amount of variable bonuses was even more obscene, my goodness!

If money forms the basis for joining politics, why not just cut the hypocrisy about the good intentions of wanting to serve the people at large? I do not see how both can be reconciled. They are in deep contradiction.

I cannot figure out why national servicemen have to be "underpaid" for their real sacrifice in time for public service aka national service, and ministers would have to claim sacrifice when they are "overpaid" for their time in public service.

 

[captainxerox]

This review taught me something about myself and I suppose for many others as well.

And to your point, only Ng and Shanmugam are purporterly earning more before joing the cabinet. Maybe the reservist formula would be more appropriate so that we don't have freeloaders such as Teo Ser Luck and company getting away.

adding on, how much is george yeo getting now in kuok's kerry group. more or gasp, less than his min pay, assuming same level of responsibilities