- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
<TABLE class=forumline border=0 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=3 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=row1 vAlign=top width=150 align=left>DeeSiaoGia
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 1513
Location: 杀一是为罪,屠万是为雄! 屠得九百万,方为雄中雄!
</TD><TD class=row1 height=28 vAlign=top width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:03 am Post subject: Singapore has priced honesty correctly</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>
</TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms.
My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.
We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.
Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.
# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.
# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.
When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.
# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.
Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.
Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.
# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.
Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 1513
Location: 杀一是为罪,屠万是为雄! 屠得九百万,方为雄中雄!
</TD><TD class=row1 height=28 vAlign=top width="100%"><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">
Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 10:03 am Post subject: Singapore has priced honesty correctly</TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap> </TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=2>AS THE general election looms, ministerial salaries are once again being discussed with renewed vigour on various Internet platforms. My view is that the current pay structure is appropriate for Singapore simply because it is the price of honesty.
We have had a government ranked among the highest for being corruption-free. There is certainly no need to grease any wheels in Singapore to get things done: That validates the strategy of pricing 'honesty' appropriately.
Of course, this then begs the question why the price of honesty is so much lower in other comparable countries with a relatively honest government. Surely, the price in such countries should not be vastly different compared to Singapore? There are, however, several plausible reasons for this divergence.
# First, we are still a young country and we have a long way to go before we create a solid identity and a deep sense of belonging that will act as a counterweight for financial-related benefits. This will come only with time.
# Second, the turnover of ministers in comparable countries is relatively much faster compared to Singapore, where a minister can be in the Cabinet for decades with no fixed term limit.
When you stretch the political life of a minister that much longer, the price of honesty via remuneration must be greater to ensure that the government remains, well, honest and incorruptible.
# Third, the candidates who enter politics, as is often seen in countries like the United States, may have already made their fortune, as in the case of former US treasury secretary Hank Paulson, who was chief executive officer of premier investment house Goldman Sachs before he joined the White House Cabinet.
Such holders of high office can afford to serve their country out of conviction alone.
Yet others may enter government early with the long-term aim of leveraging on the experience and influence they so gather when they leave to join the private sector.
Singapore does not offer such luxuries because we are a small country with a small pool of talent that can be considered for key government positions.
# Lastly, Singapore ministers or prime ministers do not have a lucrative lecture circuit that they can embark on at the end of their political careers like some of their counterparts elsewhere.
Kanagasabai Haridas
Denver, Colorado
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
