wMulew said:
Let's take a close look at what really happened
First off the amt WP proposed wasn't that different
2ndly the approach on the principles of how to formulate the salary by WP was different but because of the massive screw up used in the formula, the principle ended up almost the same, that of which to peg to private sector income earnings
Finally, after getting totally pwn by PAP in parliament and made a mockery of their own manifesto by changing their stance multiple times, they still voted against the bill.
In real life we call these pple hypocrites
First of all, the one that shifted more is the PAP from an earlier higher salary to a now 40 to 50 % reduced salary. There was no explanation now to defend the previous high salary and no explanation why the present one is more correct.
Secondly it doesn't matter what formula is used to derive the starting salary, and whether the net result is the same or different because what we want to know is that with this salary change, how will the cabinet govern?
Evidently by marking their salaries to the top private sector incomes, whether it is the top 48 or the top 1000, it is linking themselves to the fortune of the elites. This means that only if the elites prosper, will the ministers prosper. This is exactly the wrong KPI that has given us one of the highest Gini coefficient among all similarly developed countries.
WP recommended a salary much lower down as a benchmark. Using that as the new KPI, the ministers' fortune would be linked to the bulk of the people. Unfortunately the ruling party was not able to see the benefit of that or even if they had noticed were interested to work for the elites but not for the bulk of the populace.
This whole exercise caused by widespread unhappiness was carried out only to assuage this unhappiness but not to address the root of the problem.