[GPGT] GOH MENG SENG criticise Chen Show Mao speech + responses from netizens

[Thick Face Black Heart]

By Janice Heng


The Workers' Party (WP) proposals on ministerial pay fail to improve on what the Government already intends to accept, several People's Action Party (PAP) MPs pointed out in Parliament on Monday.


Its call to peg the salaries to civil service pay results in a high base salary that is 'still market-based' - just like the recommendation it is opposing, said Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang GRC).


The WP's proposed monthly pay for an entry-level minister is $55,000, the same as the committee's figure.
But the WP also wants bonuses to be smaller, yielding a lower overall salary.


Mr Zaqy was among at least five PAP MPs who critiqued the WP's proposals in on Monday's parliamentary debate on the recommendations of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries.


He noted that as civil servants are executives, their pay must be competitive.


This means the WP has not managed to escape a market-based pay system.


'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' he said.


Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah North) similarly observed that as the civil service has competitive salaries, the WP approach links ministerial salaries to market pay - but in a less straightforward way.


It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health.


And as the MP allowance is a percentage - 17.5 per cent - of an entry-level minister's salary, this means the minister's salary is already a multiple of the MP allowance, she added.


The WP had proposed that an entry- level minister's pay be five times an MP's allowance.


'I do not see how their (the WP's) proposed formula is an improvement over the committee's recommendation,' Dr Khor said.


She argued that the WP formula does not 'account for the burdens and responsibilities that come with the job'.
Political service 'is more than public service' as civil servants are not subject to the vote and do not need to 'carry the ground' in policymaking, she said.


Meanwhile, Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang GRC) said the review committee 'was not seeking to monetise the value of public service' - which he said was suggested by WP's Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied GRC).


Instead, in pegging ministerial pay to the private sector, the committee was looking at the talent pool from which the Government seeks to draw future leaders.


He acknowledged that income-earning ability, academic qualifications and lofty corporate posts do not determine 'the qualities to be a leader'.


But Singaporeans demand top performance from ministers. And ministers are in turn drawn from 'what is considered to be the likely pool of top performers'.


Mr Chen's own entry into politics illustrated this point, said Mr Yeo, when it generated 'considerable excitement in political circles'.


Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr Yeo.


Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'.


The importance of talent was highlighted earlier by Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs and Community Development, Youth and Sports) Sam Tan.


'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin.


He noted that talent is important to any successful government, but it is even more important for government to have a heart. Lacking either would spell disaster.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Siew Kum Hong

I am posting this instead of working because this article made me so fed-up. It is ok for politicians to engage in politicking, and it is entirely expected that PAP MPs would line up to try to rebut Mr Chen Show Mao (and probably told to do this, when they were scheduled to speak after him). But I cannot stand poorly-reasoned arguments, which are replete here.

1. "'The difference between the proposal accepted by the PAP Government and the WP's proposal is that the latter leaves out the principle of sacrifice (and the) discounts to reflect service to the people,' [Zaqy] said."

An odd conclusion, because the PAP-accepted proposal pays more (on an annual basis) to ministers than the WP proposal. How you get there (the formula) is important, but where you end up (the amount) is also important. If the WP proposal omits sacrifice, then how much more so the PAP-accepted proposal which pays even more?

2. ""It would be 'more transparent' to peg ministerial salaries to 'the competitive salaries that the calibre of people we are looking for in ministers earn, or have the potential to earn', said the Minister of State for Health [Amy Khor]."

Surely Dr Khor is not suggesting that the WP proposal is non-transparent. Whether or not you agree with it (I myself am not completely sold, because we would probably see the MX9 benchmark creep upwards), it is simple and transparent. The WP proposal was constructed using a bottoms-up approach, based on principled reasoning on how ministerial salaries should be determined. You may disagree with the approach, but calling it "less or non-transparent" is misconceived.

3. ""Such excitement 'was not because Mr Chen was considered to be a 'median-income' sort of guy, or somehow an emblem of the lowest income quintile of society', observed Mr [Alvin Yeo]. "Rather, with his 'sterling qualifications', Mr Chen 'was proof that opposition parties could also attract the sort of top talent, that one day perhaps may form the Government'."

Actually, the excitement was because Mr Chen gave up a big job and a big salary to join the Opposition (no parachute for him, no near-guarantee of a win) and then become a regular MP -- with nary a whine or moan about his pay-cut. Until the PAP understands that Singaporeans loved that because it exemplifies the spirit of public service (and the uncomplaining sacrifice that the PAP likes to talk about so much), they will NEVER get it.

4. "'Pay should not be the reason for entering politics, but neither should it be the reason for losing talent,' said Mr [Sam] Tan (Radin Mas) in Mandarin."

Actually, it should be, if the so-called talent in question is so overly-concerned about money, that a salary that can support a very comfortable lifestyle is not enough.

 

[brocoli]

Ah, the potent combination of ignorance and stupidity was never more amply demonstrated than this thread. ...What makes it truly potent is a good helping of hubris, arrogance of WP die hard slaves.I don't know about you but I am not surprised. In fact, I would have been surprised if there was no hysteria by the mindless madness of WP supporters.I would not subscribe to the "I am luckier and I put up with stupidity". First, never put up with stupidity as it only encourages the behavior.

WOW you start calling names!!! AND MORE VOCAB Than meng seng

disclaimer: I am not affiliated with WP but wan to join SF

 

[Nice-Gook]

, I mentioned your momma because it rhymes with Obama - just to appease you and your obsession.

I will not bother responding to your followup because it is incoherent trash. It is rambling, confused, pointless, irrelevant, illogical, and downright silly. The more one read what you wrote, the more one got convinced that your political intelligence is way way below average. Perhaps,you were not running on all cylinders. But ahh,your mother's crocodile underwear intrigues me.

Awww,come on fella; why deny me the opportunity to know what your mum been wearing all these years...which begets the question how you became a privy to that.Be a sport lah.Since you threw the ball,I only bounced it back it to you.You see,unlike Christ ,I live by the adage if some one slaps you on the right or left cheek--slap him 10 times exactly.Nothing more nothing less.

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

I will not bother responding to your followup because it is incoherent trash. It is rambling, confused, pointless,
irrelevant, illogical, and downright silly. The more one read what you wrote, the more one got convinced that your political intelligence is way way below average. ..

Thanks for showing everyone what a loser you are. I knew all it would take was a slight nudge and you would fall all over your pitiful self. If you weren't so pathetic, this would have been more funny.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Thanks for showing everyone what a loser you are. I knew all it would take was a slight nudge and you would fall all over your pitiful self. If you weren't so pathetic, this would have been more funny.

Ok,I shall play the pathetic loser if it pleases you.Shall we now get down to the nitty gritty about your mother's crocodile underwear?

 

[3_M]

Politics is an art of compromise and WP is striking a balance somewhere in the middle.

While I agree with the principles of WP's proposal, the figures cited is still too high. In addition ministers bonus should directly be pegged with what the civil service are getting.

 

[jiakhongleow]

This benchmark and bonuses is before tax or after tax?

In private sectors, bonuses and CEOs paycheck are base on after tax profits. Gahment revenue come from tax payers monies to pay ministers. When tax payers moneys are use for developments and revenues collected from the developments should go back to tax payers account.

If I am not mistaken, bonuses (extra money) are from excess profit margins make in the year, and may I ask do ministers (so call talented ones) (must) make profits for the Stat boards and gahment depts with tax payers monies or from borrowing money from priviate insitutions or banks. If bonuses are included in the ministers paycheck then there must be accountablilty and open books from GLCs and TH that public can access and check on the company P/L and performances.

If want to talk about bonus, then money for developments ministers should be responsible to go borrow money from private sectors and banks and don't touch tax payers CPF bank account. From this you can see how good they are making profit or liable for their borrowings.

All crap talk about money at this stage is useless unless the parliment should discuss on accountbalility of GLCs and TH to be transparents and access by pulbic.

When this is done, then can talk about bonuses is easy and simply to resolve this dispute.

I have already said, WP's fundamental point of pegging the pay to the civil servant is oxymoron. i.e. there will be conflict of interests if ruling party wants to increase civil servant pay. It is not just simple dollar value.

Listen carefully to Gerald's speech. On one hand, he admitted that very very few government around the world give bonuses to political appointees (except Japan) BUT in the end, WP still agrees to bonuses of maximum 5 months! I have already made myself very clear that political appointees should not be awarded bonuses; if they don't perform, it is the job of voters to vote them out next round.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[jiakhongleow]

People are willing to pay minsters more if they can make more money for CPF members at 12% compound interest rate. So far commoners are getting 3.2% for their CPF monies and they dare to ask for bonuses, knn.

I am glad even among the forumers here, there are sensible people who can see the bigger picture.

What PAP has given us is bad medicine but we don't want to change it just for the sake of changing it mindlessly. Changing bad medicine into poison will make us die faster.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Nice-Gook]

If I am not mistaken, bonuses (extra money) are from excess profit margins make in the year, and may I ask do ministers (so call talented ones) (must) make profits for the Stat boards and gahment depts with tax payers monies or from borrowing money from priviate insitutions or banks. If bonuses are included in the ministers paycheck then there must be accountablilty and open books from GLCs and TH that public can access and check on the company P/L and performances.

You raised a very penitent point.How to measure the measurement ...or who shall adjudicate the judges.

But leaving the yardstick to profitability per ce gives rise to the likes of SMRT CEO....profits over the safety of it's passengers .In fact that's how LKY wants to run some of his ministries.Public transport and public health care should never come under this prerogative.Which begets the question;what than is the yardstick of measurement?

That is why I rather go with the SDP proposal.Let the lowest 20% income bracket determine the KPI of all ministers.If there is an overall improvement let everyone in the cabinet gets a cut out of it.Hence the incentive to work as a team and not as individual players....Since if the finance ministry does not play ball with the health ministry than no point having an A grade health minister.

What we overlook here is that a bonus is an exception whereas salaries are norm in public sectors.Whereas bonuses and stock options are the very reason why some public listed companies attracts top talents.It like a salesman who rather take less salary with higher commissions...and if you put the same excellent salesman with a fixed higher salary than chances are that he quits.But you cannot work on the same basis for say a traffic police man,the more summons higher his pay.

 

[Forvendet]

Benchmarking, even with discount, to top earners, whether top 6 professions or top 1,000 earners, is still benchmarking to the top. All incentivizing arrows point towards helping the top to help themselves. The benchmark should be the bottom 1,000 earners with a factor of markup. Then will the government help the poor.

 

[Leongsam]

Benchmarking, even with discount, to top earners, whether top 6 professions or top 1,000 earners, is still benchmarking to the top. All incentivizing arrows point towards helping the top to help themselves. The benchmark should be the bottom 1,000 earners with a factor of markup. Then will the government help the poor.

That's a really ridiculous suggestion. It would be like measuring the performance of countries in the Olympic games based on how the 2nd last and last places performed instead of basing it on the medal tally. The country that tops the Olympics would be the one with the fastest losers rather than the fastest winners.

I know some of you are left wing liberals but many of the ideas tabled here are should be kept within the confines of a lunatic asylum.

 

[Perspective]

That's a really ridiculous suggestion. It would be like measuring the performance of countries in the Olympic games based on how the 2nd last and last places performed instead of basing it on the medal tally. The country that tops the Olympics would be the one with the fastest losers rather than the fastest winners.

I know some of you are left wing liberals but many of the ideas tabled here are should be kept within the confines of a lunatic asylum.

Have to agree with this. A bad idea whoever are the people suggesting this. But benchmarks should include this group, in other words be across the board. Widening income gaps will affect your salary since the top few increase salaries, the bottom many will pull it down more.

 

[kingrant]

It is idiotic to compare this way, bcs the countries are not in an Olympics for the best salary.

Singapore is already tops and world nr. 1 pay Olympiad.

That's a really ridiculous suggestion. It would be like measuring the performance of countries in the Olympic games based on how the 2nd last and last places performed instead of basing it on the medal tally. The country that tops the Olympics would be the one with the fastest losers rather than the fastest winners.

I know some of you are left wing liberals but many of the ideas tabled here are should be kept within the confines of a lunatic asylum.

 

[kingrant]

It all boils down to what is politically palatable to the electorate. As long as the people are poorer, hungrier, needier and didnt seem to be cared for, and the results are not convincing vis-a-vis the pay scales, then whatever pay the PAP Cabinet ministers get will be an issue.

There should be a national referendum with the proper options.

 

[Leongsam]

It is idiotic to compare this way, bcs the countries are not in an Olympics for the best salary.

Singapore is already tops and world nr. 1 pay Olympiad.

Economic success is like the Olympics. It's a very competitive world out there and all countries are fighting for limited resources. Governments therefore have to run a country so that it can compete at the top level of this competition. To do this, it has to give its ablest citizens the best opportunities possible.

If, instead of investing and nurturing the top talent and rewarding them accordingly, it ignores the smartest people and concentrates all its efforts on the least talented, the smart ones will simply move somewhere else where their talents are appreciated and the country will be poorer overall as a result.

 

[Forvendet]

That's a really ridiculous suggestion. It would be like measuring the performance of countries in the Olympic games based on how the 2nd last and last places performed instead of basing it on the medal tally. The country that tops the Olympics would be the one with the fastest losers rather than the fastest winners.

I know some of you are left wing liberals but many of the ideas tabled here are should be kept within the confines of a lunatic asylum.

Politics shouldn't be about who earns the most, unlike Olympics where it's about who finished first. Politics should be about helping those left behind to catch up to a decent line. If earning more and more and the most is the objective, the fellow should be an entrepreneur, not a politician. There's a process of law of averages and natural selection. Not everyone capable is eyeing or dying for money. Look at opposition. The most they could get with a win is about $15k pm only.

 

[kingrant]

I really wish the world is as you say. Then we could select our leaders from a world pool, then we'll get the best talents for a fraction of what we pay now for idiots.

If our Ministers think they can get top dollar for their skills, then let them move on to NZ, US or Oz where they can mess up their lives and extort them while doing so.

Economic success is like the Olympics. It's a very competitive world out there and all countries are fighting for limited resources. Governments therefore have to run a country so that it can compete at the top level of this competition. To do this, it has to give its ablest citizens the best opportunities possible.

If, instead of investing and nurturing the top talent and rewarding them accordingly, it ignores the smartest people and concentrates all its efforts on the least talented, the smart ones will simply move somewhere else where their talents are appreciated and the country will be poorer overall as a result.

 

[Leongsam]

It all boils down to what is politically palatable to the electorate. As long as the people are poorer, hungrier, needier and didnt seem to be cared for, and the results are not convincing vis-a-vis the pay scales, then whatever pay the PAP Cabinet ministers get will be an issue.

Many here seem to have a topsy turvy view of what it takes to manage a country or a company for that matter.

Let's do an analogy. You are a manager in a factory. You have been told by the CEO that the salary you earn is set at 10 times that of your worst performing production operator so if she earns $800 per month, you get $8000.

You have many talented engineers in your team too but their performance and their salaries don't affect you at all because you aren't measured according to how well they perform. Your salary review every year is based solely on the performance of that dumbest and laziest member of your team.

How would you manage the situation? Would you reward her with a nice increment?

 

[kingrant]

Firstly, a country is not like a company. So a government is not like a board of management. The production operator is also not like a citizen. A company is in it for profits. A country has many more externalities and stakeholders.

Production operators do not vote for the CEO. If so, then there is some analogy.

Many here seem to have a topsy turvy view of what it takes to manage a country or a company for that matter.

Let's do an analogy. You are a manager in a factory. You have been told by the CEO that the salary you earn is set at 10 times that of your worst performing production operator so if she earns $800 per month, you get $8000.

You have many talented engineers in your team too but their performance and their salaries don't affect you at all because you aren't measured according to how well they perform. Your salary review every year is based solely on the performance of that dumbest and laziest member of your team.

How would you manage the situation? Would you reward her with a nice increment?