Politics of Salary Review

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Today - Pay does not equate talent
Letter from Tan Si An 04:46 AM Jan 07, 2012

MANY of our most able statesmen were from academia, such as Minister Yaacob Ibrahim, Professor Tommy Koh and Professor S Jayakumar. As professors, would they command the salaries of the top 1,000 earners here?

Does that mean professors are not some of the smartest, most capable persons in our population? There is, therefore, no basis for using pay as a measure of talent.

Sixty per cent of our current Cabinet ministers were career civil servants before joining politics. Only Mr Gan Kim Yong has served as chief executive officer in the private sector. (Dr Vivian Balakrishnan was CEO of the Singapore General Hospital.)

Former ministers who left Cabinet last year are now not in any executive role in the private sector. Is it, therefore, appropriate to compare ministers to CEOs?

Successful businessmen-turned-politicians such as Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg in the United States are the kind of established talents we want to attract. Do they not face the same sacrifices, opportunity costs and loss of privacy as all politicians do?

Since they are independently wealthy, pay was unlikely to be a factor. How do you put a price tag on such talents?

A country is not a company, although Minister K Shanmugam once said that Singapore was a city, not a country. So it may be more appropriate to benchmark against mayors of alpha cities such as New York, London, Paris and Tokyo.

Members of Parliament Seah Kian Peng, Muhammad Faishal and Senior Minister of State Grace Fu mentioned that money is not a key factor, yet the latter two wondered if lesser pay would cause problems in attracting top talent into politics.

But this premise is also fallacious. MP Chen Show Mao is a fine counter example. He was a top corporate lawyer who gave up his career for public service, even though he has no chance of becoming a minister.

Other political parties also managed to attract scholar-calibre candidates for last year's General Election, even though they had faint chance of becoming MPs, much less ministers. Were they motivated by pay?

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

apologies in advance if this has already been posted...

...Commentary: Singapore's leading political party's mood turns sour over pay cutsBy Seah Chiang Nee in Kuala Lumpur/The Star | ANN – Sat, Jan 7, 2012....
Kuala Lumpur (The Star/ANN) - In 1976, when I first visited China, its 86-year-old leader Mao Zedong was near death, and I ended a series of articles for Singaporeans by asking: Would Maoism survive Mao? If not what - or who - would take over?

Today's China, of course, makes my questions seem ridiculous. But at that time Mao was so much part of the country that an alternative was unimaginable.

I was part of the media team that accompanied (then Prime Minister) Lee Kuan Yew's first official visit to the communist country.

The two men met for eight minutes; Mao was hardly coherent (he died six months later).

Lee was then a vibrant 52-year-old and at his political and intellectual peak.

Last year, when Lee was pondering being in firm control here for 46 years, the same questions cropped up in my mind.

Would Lee's sacred cows - including the institutions, policies, wise (and not so wise) sayings that he contributed so powerfully for 46 years - survive after he's gone, and for how long?

Part of the answer has come six months after Lee stepped down from office.

His corporatist strategy of paying Singapore's Cabinet ministers sky-high salaries is being firmly rebuffed.

Faced with rising public anger, a government committee last week recommended that the PM's annual pay be cut by 36% to S$2.2mil (US$1.69mil).

Cabinet ministers will get S$1.1mil, a 37% reduction, while the President's yearly salary is reduced by 51% to S$1.54mil.

The PM said his government intends to accept the proposals.

The percentages seem enormous, but then so were the previous increases.

The last one announced five years ago saw these ministers being given an average pay rise of 60%.

The speed with which this sacred cow is being attacked so soon after Lee Kuan Yew's exit has come as a surprise to some party hardliners.

The cut implies that for more than 25 years, the ruling People's Action Party had been excessively overpaying its leaders - allegedly to attract talent or prevent corruption.

At the time, his colleagues' support was mixed, some strenuously, others offering to contribute to charity (Lee forbade it).

His Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean said of the 2007 increase: "If we don't do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse."

When the public reacted coolly, Lee painted a frightening alternative if Singapore ministers could not be paid more than leaders anywhere else.

"Your apartment will be worth a fraction of what it is," he warned, "your jobs will be in peril, your security will be at risk and our women will become maids in other people's countries."

Today, his son - current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong - is finding that tearing down such a high massive pay structure is not so easy, because many party stalwarts have tied success to high pay.

Commentators said the PM's immediate future would be tested on two fronts: One - a remaining large cynical public which feels their leaders are still overpaid compared with even the richest countries and, second - strong vibes reportedly coming from within his party.

To what extent will the exercise result in resignations by party aspirants drifting away for better paid private financial rewards is anybody's guess.

At present, a little of the party mood is turning sour. The mainstream media is staying away from reports of internal PAP rifts.

However, several comments have emerged on discussion boards, apparently written by unhappy insiders.

One anonymous writer shouted: "PM MUST REJECT THE SALARY REVIEW.

"(Otherwise) all aspiring office holders in the PAP will be affected, so MPs, party cadres must know what their future salaries are, first, to ensure they have dignity."

PAP Member of Parliament and former senior minister of state Grace Fu wrote about her feelings online. Her decision to join politics in 2006, she said, was not based on pay.

"The disruption to my career was also an important consideration," she added.

"I had some grounds to believe that my family would not suffer a drastic change in the standard of living even though I experienced a drop in my income.

"So it is with this recent pay cut. If the balance is tilted further in the future, it will make it harder for anyone considering political office."

Another apparent insider declared: "PAP cadres and MPs must speak up against the cuts.

"The salary review is too populist. PM should stand firm and reject it."

The public is moderately supportive of the measure, although many still harbour resentment.

"After the pay cut, our Prime Minister (at US$1.7mil) still earns four times more than US President Barack Obama (US$400,000) - and more than the combined salaries of (the leaders of) Britain, France and Germany," said a cynic.

It is almost certain that high Cabinet pay will remain on the agenda in the next election in 2016, albeit less virulent.

A series of train breakdowns, floods, and shortages in housing, healthcare and telecommunications services have increased Singaporean unhappiness.

But PM Lee has also gained some political mileage among moderate citizens. "It shows that the PM is serious about putting it right without too much damage," said one commentator.

A PAP supporter said: "With such pathetic pay, I don't care if the opposition Workers Party (WP) wins in 2016 and takes over."

This led to a cynical observation, that is, making it costly for people thinking of joining opposition politics to gain wealth and power.

 

[Conqueror]

I Not Stupid

Successful businessmen-turned-politicians such as Mitt Romney and Michael Bloomberg in the United States are the kind of established talents we want to attract. Do they not face the same sacrifices, opportunity costs and loss of privacy as all politicians do?

Since they are independently wealthy, pay was unlikely to be a factor. How do you put a price tag on such talents?

A country is not a company, although Minister K Shanmugam once said that Singapore was a city, not a country. So it may be more appropriate to benchmark against mayors of alpha cities such as New York, London, Paris and Tokyo.

Were they motivated by pay?

sometimes, you need to read between the lines. Example : Lee mentioned about couples from elite class bear elite kids and poor folks bear poor quality children. Is there a truth in it ? Not really, of course. Why ? There are many factors affecting children's way of growing up into their adulthood. But, the Senile Lee was cunning enough to use this as an excuse to pave the way for his son to be the ultimate ruler of Sinkingland like a dynasty than a republic.

Even Jack Neo's movie criticised and made fun of PAP for having this philosophy to divide the best and the lousiest among us. Some years later, a national shock greeted the people when many PAP members were given million dollars paychecks and this was only a prelude of more things to come. Then, the grape vine about his son, LHL who would eventually be made the next PM came true. So, it wasn't a rumour afterall.

As you can see, Lee Snr can't just pay his sons millions without the fake parliamentary members saying nay to it. So, he bribed his people (PAP) with the coffer's money to shut their mouths. If anyone hated the idea, they could be sure of losing the big fat bonuses that came with it. So, who was complaining ? No one because its one happy family ! Lies upon lies for his ultimate goals.

Read between the lines, my friend. Be like water.


[video=youtube;1LV48TWxdvk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LV48TWxdvk[/video]

 

[zhihau]

Re: I Not Stupid

Be like water

Bruce Lee's words during that interview left a deep impression on me too

 

[Conqueror]

Be Water, My Friend

Bruce Lee's words during that interview left a deep impression on me too

He's a Taoist ? The Yin and Yang of martial arts ? That statement sounds familiar like as if it was extracted from Sun Tzu's.


“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless - like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”