U see lah. This pu bor kia..bash WP to suck up to PAP liao. CCB.
$$$$$ "I am paid by the PAP dogs" $$$$$
http://www.publichouse.sg/categories/politics/item/410-wp-should-explain-change-in-position
WP should explain change in position
“Ministers should be rewarded fairly and equitably for their contribution to the country. Ministers’ remuneration should be benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries.”
The above is from the Workers’ Party election manifesto 2011 titled, “Towards A First World Parliament”. The party had campaigned on the set of beliefs contained in the document during the General Election of May 2011.
The WP, led by secretary general Mr Low Thia Khiang, went on to secure victories in one Single-Member Constituency (Hougang) and one Group Representation Constituency (Aljunied). Two of its candidates became Non-constituency Members of Parliament, bringing its total to eight members in the House.
In the recent debate over the salaries of ministers in Parliament, the WP seems to have changed its position on the matter from that declared in its election manifesto.
Its latest position was espoused by Mr Chen Show Mao, who said in Parliament:
“Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point.”
This is an apparent departure from its manifesto position of benchmarking salaries “internationally against the political office of developed countries.” Instead, it now says the "starting point" should be MP allowance which is in turn pegged to the civil service.
People’s Action Party (PAP) MPs have noted this change and have raised questions about it.
Mr Lawrence Chong, writing on his party’s website, said:
“In 2006, it proposed making ministerial salaries 100 times the salary of the bottom 20%. In its GE2011 manifesto, the WP declared that ministers’ pay should be ‘benchmarked internationally against the political office of developed countries’. At election rallies, WP candidates used the ‘million-dollar salaries’ of ministers to whip up emotions against the government.
“After the election in Parliament, the WP proposed paying ministers around $1 million per annum. This is exactly what the WP had attacked so fiercely in the general election.”
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean also noted the change. “For the first time, the Workers’ Party has stated that it accepted benchmarking salaries competitively, similar to the approach taken by the committee, and a fundamental departure from their past proposals,” he said.
“The Workers’ Party has clearly made a fundamental change, and taken a new position, which I hope they will hold to in the next GE (general election),” the DPM added.
The WP, however, has kept silent on why it has apparently changed its position. Mr Low and its party chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, both did not speak during the debate on the issue in Parliament.
Singaporeans will expect the party to be forthcoming and explain why, in just over seven months since the elections, its stand on how ministers should be paid has shifted. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Singaporeans may have voted for the party because of its position on ministers’ salaries as contained in its manifesto. After all, it was one of the issues which were raised by the WP itself during the hustings.
"So what happened to the high quality people from the private sector that the high salaries were supposed to attract? If high quality people from the private sector are turning to the Workers' Party and other opposition parties, it is a sign that good government does not necessarily require high salary," Mr Low was reported to have said during the elections.
The Workers’ Party had urged Singaporeans to vote for it so that Singapore could have a “first world parliament”. At the launch of its manifesto last year, the party explained how a “first world parliament” would benefit Singaporeans. Among other things, it said:
“There will be more thorough public examination of policies, subject to public scrutiny. This will promote greater accountability and transparency, and empower Singaporeans to make informed choices.”
The WP’s shift in policy on the issue of ministerial salaries – of benchmarking it to MP allowance and not “internationally against the political office of developed countries” – is one which is under scrutiny and the party should explain its new position, in the name of accountability and transparency befitting, as the party itself says, a first world parliament.
The public, and its supporters, deserve to know.