WP's Model - Confusion?

[Perspective]

An important learning point from this session is that there is a need to keep the message simple. WP came up with a fairly comprehensive proposal. They split it up among the different MP's who then took turns to present different aspects of it. Unless you were following all the speeches and saw the big underlying picture, this gave the wrong impression that the different WP MPs were proposing different things.

A very necessary thing which needs to be done is to simplfy the message. They should assume that 80% of the audience have not heard what their other colleagues have said. They should therefore chose the most powerful and compelling arguement (e.g. benchmark to a broad median as opposed to top 1000) and have everyone repeat it so that the point sticks.

I have said in another thread that it would be accused of touching the surface if too simple.

Generally, WP's primary damage was GG who could have articulated better - eloquence does matter a lot of points, look at VN's rubbish but no one saw that it was rubbish. No MP for a long time had stuttered and hemmed in Parliament since Cheo Chai Chen of SDP, and it is made worse and wasted as GG actually had valid points while CCC most of the time did not. (One former NSP chief of course regarded CCC as a treasure but that is another story for another day.)

The bigger "damage" was the WP proposed a high figure as well and on the net mostly people don't like any sign of WP deemed "walking closely" to PAP. I disregard that for several reasons.
1) WP seemingly enjoys using the UK model be it whatever unpopular result it produces among its supporters - this smacks of LTK's pattern. When WP refused to call WKS to resign over Mas Selamat, it was also based on a UK precedence, or rather non-precedence where no country has ever asked a minister to resign over an escaped prisoner. In the end, despite receiving flak, only WP won a GRC in the 2011 election.
2) WP had already proposed a cut - people should compare WP's proposals to PAP's old salary, not compare WP's proposals to PAP's new proposals. We forget WP stuck to its guns for decades, rather than PAP that cut its salaries only recently.
3) Reverse engineering to achieve a methodology to produce lower pay should be avoided. That is not honest.
4) The amount is the same does not forego the fact that methodology is different is very important. You court a girl to marry you by giving flowers or threatening suicide, both methods are different even if the end result is the same that the girl marries you. WP's old proposal - or rather LTK's proposal - to pay minister 100 times the bottom 20% salary comes up to $140,000 - is even higher than all the proposals so far, but at the same time seems even more righteous. So what's the point in going on the numbers/figures but not methodolgy (which was a repeatedly emphasised point made by Pritam).
5) It's just pandering to the likes of the pro-opposition and even all-except-WP types like Joseph Ong and the village insect, which is pointless.

 

[Leongsam]

LHL was right all along. Parliament is now wasting an inordinate amount of time debating issues which are absolutely insignificant compared to the major challenges that Singapore will be facing the future. This is what happens when the opposition diverts attention from things that actually matter.

It would be far better for the PAP to be able to devote all its resources into improving the economy and creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to successful both home and abroad. Singapore progressed far more rapidly when there was little or no opposition in Parliament.

All this bickering about ministerial salaries is a total waste of time.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

LHL was right all along. Parliament is now wasting an inordinate amount of time debating issues which are absolutely insignificant compared to the major challenges that Singapore will be facing the future. This is what happens when the opposition diverts attention from things that actually matter.

It would be far better for the PAP to be able to devote all its resources into improving the economy and creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to successful both home and abroad. Singapore progressed far more rapidly when there was little or no opposition in Parliament.

All this bickering about ministerial salaries is a total waste of time.

All this bickering is time wasting because PAP MPs don't debate properly and confuse the issue.

WP's model, in essence, is: MP pay is based on civil service, broad ranged, Minister's pay is based on MP pay. So the entire structure is based on broad ranged civil service as well as median incomes. Bonuses are also lower, in line with what the average civil servant is getting.

What PAP is done is to separate each component, such as the final amount, or the bonus element, or in the most dishonest case of VN, to isolate the fact that Minister is based on MP's pay without considering what the MP's pay is supposed to be based on. Then after isolating each component they then go on to debate it without considering the entire picture. That is the source of the confusion.

WP's model is different is material from PAP, but agreement in principle that pay must not deter good talents.

 

[Leongsam]

All this bickering is time wasting because PAP MPs don't debate properly and confuse the issue.

The issue shouldn't be up for debate in the first place. As GCT mentioned when he was PM, at the end of the day, it is one plate of Char Kuay Teow per citizen per day to pay the whole cabinet. It's not important. Even if it was increased to 2 plates per day, it's still a minor issue compared to Singapore's survival.

 

[Perspective]

WP's model is different is material from PAP, but agreement in principle that pay must not deter good talents.

Actually I don't think WP or anyone ever disagreed with that. Even SDP's model did not result in paying MP $5,000 and minister $20,000. And I can say that $5,000 and $20,000 is a lot to me already.

That is why Teo CH is an oddball, saying that WP now agrees with them and not in the past. Only the village idiot-insect fell for that.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

The issue shouldn't be up for debate in the first place. As GCT mentioned when he was PM, at the end of the day, it is one plate of Char Kuay Teow per citizen per day to pay the whole cabinet. It's not important. Even if it was increased to 2 plates per day, it's still a minor issue compared to Singapore's survival.

It is 5 plates of char kuay teow per month, you twit.

 

[Leongsam]

It is 5 plates of char kuay teow per month, you twit.

Sorry. I apologise. It was a long time ago. If it's 5 per MONTH, that makes the salary issue even more insignificant.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Actually I don't think WP or anyone ever disagreed with that. Even SDP's model did not result in paying MP $5,000 and minister $20,000. And I can say that $5,000 and $20,000 is a lot to me already.

That is why Teo CH is an oddball, saying that WP now agrees with them and not in the past. Only the village idiot-insect fell for that.

The word for TCH is "dishonest". The debate was conducted both poorly and dishonestly.

 

[Candide]

most dun care how much the ministers are getting as long there a roof over their heads and what they needs & wants are easily available. what they now not happy is pay so much still have so many problems. Once pap can find a solutions to the problems, all will be fine again.

I thought this paragraph written by sleaguepunter from another thread perfectly surmise the general thinking of most Singaporeans (rich or poor), or even for most human beings all over the world in that aspect. This is also the reason why PAP was and "is" so successful in securing the mandate from Singaporeans to govern our Country till this day.

 

[jw5]

I'm not confused by basis of the WP model.
What I don't like about the WP model is the following:

1. Getting their end product so close to the review committee's and then trying to argue how different it is. Surely they realise that there is a lot of wayang in the whole process and the result, do they really think that LHL and his buddies were taken totally by surprise by the findings?

2. Their focus should be on how much value the government officials in question have brought to the lives of ordinary Singaporeans, compared to the salaries they are getting. By all means, pick on a few in particular who do nothing else other than stating the obvious and making motherhood statements, and debate what would be their pay in the private sector. Statements like "We should try to get better jobs for the workers." Who can't make statements like this? Even a pimply secondary school kid could.
There are a few arrogant laggards who would still be overpaid, even if the salaries were cut by 99%.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Sorry. I apologise. It was a long time ago. If it's 5 per MONTH, that makes the salary issue even more insignificant.

I don't see the issue about numbers alone. I see it as about the ethos of public service, how standards have deteriorated despite high pay, how the whole PAP mentality is that only with high pay can you attract talents.

I don't mind paying a team well provided they are of outstanding character and able to deliver on performance. The current PAP slate has not achieved that.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

Actually I don't think WP or anyone ever disagreed with that. Even SDP's model did not result in paying MP $5,000 and minister $20,000. And I can say that $5,000 and $20,000 is a lot to me already.

That is why Teo CH is an oddball, saying that WP now agrees with them and not in the past. Only the village idiot-insect fell for that.

Actually, SDP is the only one who disagreed on principle. SDP said that if talent can only be retained by good pay, then such talent is not even worth retaining. This is direct contradiction to PAP's and WP's stand.

 

[Leongsam]

I don't see the issue about numbers alone. I see it as about the ethos of public service,

"Ethos" is an intangible concept. Singapore is too small and vulnerable to waste time on these sorts of nebulous issues. . There are bread and butter matters that need urgent attention.

Leave the minister pay issue alone. Let them earn their millions. Concentrate on assessing their performance and holding them to account if they don't meet the standards required of them.

 

[Perspective]

Actually, SDP is the only one who disagreed on principle. SDP said that if talent can only be retained by good pay, then such talent is not even worth retaining. This is direct contradiction to PAP's and WP's stand.

There is a difference between numbers and principles. The SDP may say otherwise, but the fact that they are offering 40,000 for a minister and not 4,000 shows that they believe in that somewhat. In fact I don't think other parties disagree that talent retained only by good pay is not good - even the PAP have given up recruiting some well known people based on the old salaries, much less the new ones.

 

[Perspective]

I'm not confused by basis of the WP model.
What I don't like about the WP model is the following:

1. Getting their end product so close to the review committee's and then trying to argue how different it is. Surely they realise that there is a lot of wayang in the whole process and the result, do they really think that LHL and his buddies were taken totally by surprise by the findings?

2. Their focus should be on how much value the government officials in question have brought to the lives of ordinary Singaporeans, compared to the salaries they are getting. By all means, pick on a few in particular who do nothing else other than stating the obvious and making motherhood statements, and debate what would be their pay in the private sector. Statements like "We should try to get better jobs for the workers." Who can't make statements like this? Even a pimply secondary school kid could.
There are a few arrogant laggards who would still be overpaid, even if the salaries were cut by 99%.

In reality, some components of WP's table showed significantly lower than PAP's in some categories. Lee Hsien Loong actually said that WP intentionally differentiated the amount to reflect a difference because they were the opposition. I am clear that PAP is even more confused than WP on how to oppose their opponent, with all of them contradicting one another, with some happy (Teo CH) some not happy (VN), some half happy (LHL) etc. I don't know WTF to be frank, though I give them points for eloquence and good oral.

A lot of people may still not realise by now that this debate is somewhat different. Past debates on ministerial salary has been about PAP increasing and the WP (or other opposition) opposing the increase. This time, both are debating a decrease but by about how much. Which do you think WP will perform better - a debate opposing an increase or a debate about how much to decrease. The former is fodder and easy catch for any opposition, the latter would evolve into a more technicial debate which people found confused about - even SBF seniors. This is the first time such a debate has occurred in Singapore parliament, therefore to compare opposition's performance with past salary debates might be inane.

 

[jw5]

Lee Hsien Loong actually said that WP intentionally differentiated the amount to reflect a difference because they were the opposition.

I would have preferred that WP came up with results that were even more different, because most of the ministars are vastly under-performing and overpaid.

My issue with the WP model is that they should be aware of the wayang being played out before them and focus on whether these highly paid individuals have made the lives of ordinary Singaporeans better. Seriously, can u think of a single idea, policy, comment, statement, adviCe, etc that Zorro has made which a secondary school kid could not have thought of?

 

[Perspective]

I would have preferred that WP came up with results that were even more different, because most of the ministars are vastly under-performing and overpaid.

My issue with the WP model is that they should be aware of the wayang being played out before them and focus on whether these highly paid individuals have made the lives of ordinary Singaporeans better. Seriously, can u think of a single idea, policy, comment, statement, adviCe, etc that Zorro has made which a secondary school kid could not have thought of?

Can't disagree. I did say in another thread that the PAP is on a high note and WP may not want propose further drastic cuts to look bad scoring brownie points. I don't know. but certainly I agree the PAP ministers are still overpaid.

 

[kingrant]

It wasnt the Opp who asked for the pay to be debated. It was LHL himself who asked the review Committee to do its work and then present it to Parliament. Actually, it was the populace who registered unhappiness over it, so LHL had to appeaese his voters. Finally, it is really the PAP itself which screwed itself up, showing for years that the oversized pay did not match their undsersize performance.

LHL was right all along. Parliament is now wasting an inordinate amount of time debating issues which are absolutely insignificant compared to the major challenges that Singapore will be facing the future. This is what happens when the opposition diverts attention from things that actually matter.

It would be far better for the PAP to be able to devote all its resources into improving the economy and creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to successful both home and abroad. Singapore progressed far more rapidly when there was little or no opposition in Parliament.

All this bickering about ministerial salaries is a total waste of time.

 

[Fook Seng]

The issue shouldn't be up for debate in the first place. As GCT mentioned when he was PM, at the end of the day, it is one plate of Char Kuay Teow per citizen per day to pay the whole cabinet. It's not important. Even if it was increased to 2 plates per day, it's still a minor issue compared to Singapore's survival.

I do not mind every citizen to pay me not one plate of char kuay teow but just one egg. I don't know how many plates of char kuay teow have been thrown down the drain with the billions that were lost in investment.

 

[Fook Seng]

Sorry. I apologise. It was a long time ago. If it's 5 per MONTH, that makes the salary issue even more insignificant.

What this could mean is that each citizen must sacrifice one lunch a week to support the cabinet. Quite a good way to reduce weight you might say. There is a big gap between elitist thinking and the common people thinking.