Politics of Salary Review

[scroobal]

Read the White Paper in total when it is released shortly and you will likely come to a single conclusion - this a is not a review that began with a white canvas. It is a review that is highly political in nature and reverse engineered to meet the undisclosed brief.. Here are 2 points that will show;

1) Review actually did not contradict or dispute that the salaries are out of whack or not the market rates. It actually states that there should be a 40% discount to reflect the ethos of holding a Public Office. The MR4 is the benchmark used to pit against the median income of top 1000 income earners. It could have been top 500, 750 or even 5000.

2) The National Bonus component meets nearly all calls by the opposition in recent times. This only amounts to 15% to a top performer and that requires all sub-categories to fail which is unlikely. If only 2 are not met, then the total package is reduced by 7%. But more importantly it gives excellent bragging rights and cuts away any further claims by opposition that it not pegged to economic wellbeing of Singaporans.

In essence, what it means indirectly is that salaries are in fact market rates and The PAP, old man and the Govt were not wrong but were right all this while. They were not overpaid. They now agree that "for the sake of Singaporeans", the PAP will "sacrifice" 40% of the market rate. They come across as highly charitable. Again calls by ordinary Singaporeans and the opposition to treat Public Office as a call of duty is now met. We therefore no longer can make those calls.

The review committee of course can make the claim that these came from the 500 odd submissions made to the committee but is it pure coincidence that the current rates are actually markets rates for political office holders.

This a politically safe report that does not antagonise or confront their sponsors as it does not refute anything. All it suggest is for the PAP to make a 40% donation and that also helped the PAP to insulate them from future claims of unfair compensation and not taking into account the wellbeing of its citizens. As the new salaries are pegged to citizens wellbeing in principle even by a token sum, the committee has provided them with excellent insulation.

 

[TracyTan866]

Read the White Paper in total when it is released shortly and you will likely come to a single conclusion - this a is not a review that began with a white canvas. It is a review that is highly political in nature and reverse engineered to meet the undisclosed brief.. Here are 2 points that will show;

1) Review actually did not contradict or dispute that the salaries are out of whack or not the market rates. It actually states that there should be a 40% discount to reflect the ethos of holding a Public Office. The MR4 is the benchmark used to pit against the median income of top 1000 income earners. It could have been top 500, 750 or even 5000.

2) The National Bonus component meets nearly all calls by the opposition in recent times. This only amounts to 15% to a top performer and that requires all sub-categories to fail which is unlikely. If only 2 are not met, then the total package is reduced by 7%. But more importantly it gives excellent bragging rights and cuts away any further claims by opposition that it not pegged to economic wellbeing of Singaporans.

In essence, what it means indirectly is that salaries are in fact market rates and The PAP, old man and the Govt were not wrong but were right all this while. They were not overpaid. They now agree that "for the sake of Singaporeans", the PAP will "sacrifice" 40% of the market rate. They come across as highly charitable. Again calls by ordinary Singaporeans and the opposition to treat Public Office as a call of duty is now met. We therefore no longer can make those calls.

The review committee of course can make the claim that these came from the 500 odd submissions made to the committee but is it pure coincidence that the current rates are actually markets rates for political office holders.

Singaporeans knew that the review wld be political once Gerald Ee was appointed. what can we expect from a Chairman like Gerald?

 

[kingrant]

As a diehard cynic and anti-PAP junkie, I was actually sniffing for foulplay and I am glad you provided the jolt.

Inevitably, the PAP is simply inimical when it comes to shenanigans, chicanery, and it has proxies everywhere to do its dirty work.

Things are never straight forward with politicians, and especially so with PAP ones.

It's continuous learning, and I never cease to be surprised what they do and continue to do. As they say, it is in their ETHOS!

So we have all been frauded!

 

[scroobal]

The moment i heard that they were suggesting removing the pension scheme from MPs, I smelt a rat. Pensions for MPs are institutionalised across the developed World. Its a bit of insurance to a layman who wants to partake in politics as the tenure is rather limited unlike the majority of jobs. So now only the rich and part-timers will come forward as MPs. Its a blow to the opposition and reduces the potential pool. I saw the full report and there was no clear argument except to state that CPF is the proper superannuation scheme. For the PAP MPs it is not much a porblem as they would get invited to property soft launches all the time as well a ready job due to their connection to the govt.

 

[Conqueror]

Gerald Ee has, alas, destroyed his father's name. He was to take the bullets. He was dragged and bogged down in this quicksand form by PAP. I knew PAP 没那么好死。

 

[scroobal]

Gerard Ee is the only decent chap and the rest are attached to the PAP apron for years. Poad Mattar is the brother of Ahmad, and the rest are all sycophants with Fang and Stephen playing High Priestess and High Priest for years.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

I thought Lucien Wong was a PAP man to :_)). Personally having being against the high salaries and the manner in which the salaries was computed. I have found the latest report refreshing and less of a white wash then I thought previously. As much as it sticks to the same old principles advocated by his father and reinforced by GOH, the manner and evolvement of the methodology shows a slow but distinct erosion from a fetish for market based solutions and seeing high ministerial pay as the only means of recruiting the political talent they need.

a. I was against the pension component from the start as I felt that market based compensation and a PENSION was actually over generous as NONE of the individuals benchmarked to had a pension or a chance of pension. In any case, pension in any form was as much a tool of political control by the PM. Its unheard of for civil servants and political appointees to have private sector pay and pensions, pensions were meant to make up for a lower public sector payout.

b. The pegging to the selected professions, whichever way it was calculated , pretty much , promised high pay with very high upside and little downside. For example if you benchmark yourself to the 24th top earner as a Doctor, you would probably end up likes to likes with a Susan Lim or near Susan Lim, whereas the 500th or the 600th would be a very different kettle of fish The bench marking to the TOP 1000 Singapore citizens while not completely fair is still fairer than what existed previously.

c. The basic premise of the PAP cannot be challenged unless CSM can recruit more CSM's like characters by the next GE. If no one steps out than whether obsencely well paid ministers which then become very well paid ministers will ever BECOME just paid ministers is very much dependent on qualified singaporeans stepping forth and joining the opposition and showing through deed the ethos of sacrifice and public service by putting the PAP to shame





Locke

Gerard Ee is the only decent chap and the rest are attached to the PAP apron for years. Poad Mattar is the brother of Ahmad, and the rest are all sycophants with Fang and Stephen playing High Priestess and High Priest for years.

 

[ThePlen]

Its a bit of insurance to a layman who wants to partake in politics as the tenure is rather limited unlike the majority of jobs.

In Singapore, the tenure lasts as long as you-know-whos favour you. as always, it remains as the elites vs the working class.

So now only the rich and part-timers will come forward as MPs. Its a blow to the opposition and reduces the potential pool. I saw the full report and there was no clear argument except to state that CPF is the proper superannuation scheme. For the PAP MPs it is not much a porblem as they would get invited to property soft launches all the time as well a ready job due to their connection to the govt.

then there is the dated argument that ministers have to be paid high salaries so that the would not succumb to corruption. when pay gets reduced, Singapore would raise higher on the corruption index. indirectly, this says that they are in it for the money. i concur that Singapore needs more CSMs

 

[Nice-Gook]

The moment i heard that they were suggesting removing the pension scheme from MPs, I smelt a rat. Pensions for MPs are institutionalised across the developed World. Its a bit of insurance to a layman who wants to partake in politics as the tenure is rather limited unlike the majority of jobs. So now only the rich and part-timers will come forward as MPs. Its a blow to the opposition and reduces the potential pool. I saw the full report and there was no clear argument except to state that CPF is the proper superannuation scheme. For the PAP MPs it is not much a porblem as they would get invited to property soft launches all the time as well a ready job due to their connection to the govt.

I anticipated this.This is the killer part in entirety .Ministers salary review is merely window dressing.With this one stroke PAP wants to take the wind off the opposition who goes into politics as a career option.It's gonna take a lot of youth off who otherwise may take up politics against PAP.On the other hand PAP can always reward it's MP with directorships in many of it's crony companies.

Once again,money politics wins the day for PAP.

 

[cass888]

I am wonder if you are for real. MPs elected after 1995 were not entitled to pensoins (i.e. the 1997 class of MPs were not entitled to pensions). In other words, the 1991 class (including Low Thia Kiang) was the last class to be entitled to pensions and they have already hit the pension ceiling so the pension freeze does not affect them.

The moment i heard that they were suggesting removing the pension scheme from MPs, I smelt a rat. Pensions for MPs are institutionalised across the developed World. Its a bit of insurance to a layman who wants to partake in politics as the tenure is rather limited unlike the majority of jobs. So now only the rich and part-timers will come forward as MPs. Its a blow to the opposition and reduces the potential pool. I saw the full report and there was no clear argument except to state that CPF is the proper superannuation scheme. For the PAP MPs it is not much a porblem as they would get invited to property soft launches all the time as well a ready job due to their connection to the govt.

 

[Fook Seng]

Read the White Paper in total when it is released shortly and you will likely come to a single conclusion - this a is not a review that began with a white canvas. It is a review that is highly political in nature and reverse engineered to meet the undisclosed brief..

1) Review actually did not contradict or dispute that the salaries are out of whack or not the market rates. It actually states that there should be a 40% discount to reflect the ethos of holding a Public Office. The MR4 is the benchmark used to pit against the median income of top 1000 income earners. It could have been top 500, 750 or even 5000.

Scroobal, you are as usual very resourceful and you are right about the political mileage this was designed to bring. It is unfortunate that MR4 is pegged to the median income of the top 1000 income holders. Nothing will change as far as Singapore's Gini index is concerned as the higher the index, the more the high income holders will differentiate themselves from the masses and the poor. It is to the Ministers' own interest to maintain the Gini index as high as possible to the detriment of the ordinary citizen. So how can it be good?

 

[Conqueror]

$ 3.04 mil

The Cabinet generally directs and controls the Government and is collectively responsible to Parliament. It also has significant influence over lawmaking. Ministers may be designated by the Prime Minister to be in charge of particular ministries, or as Ministers in the Prime Minister's Office. Singapore's ministers are among the best paid in the world. As of January 2009, the Prime Minister's annual salary was S$3.04 million, while the pay of ministerial-grade officers was $1.57 million.


It pays to be in government
Hefty pay rise stirs rare outcry, and PM’s solitary $3m, 5-year donation to 'worthwhile causes'. Comment. By Seah Chiang Nee.
Apr 14, 2007

FACED with a politically damaging outcry over huge pay rises for political leaders, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has pledged to donate his own increase to charity for the next five years.

By his gesture, he has put pressure on his Cabinet colleagues to follow suit, although he says it is a personal decision and he does not expect them to do the same.

In doing so, Lee has stamped his personal leadership on the country since becoming Prime Minister two and a half years ago.

He also announced that he would, by 2011, name a successor to take over in 10 years’ time. It is the first time he talks of a departure timetable.

His surprising announcement comes at a time when many Singaporeans are increasingly bitter over the 55% leap in ministers’ remuneration over their objections.

Lee’s own salary would have jumped from S$2.46m a year to S$3.1m, five times more than that of President George Bush, leader of the world’s most powerful economy.
__

The annual salary structure
With immediate effect, (in Singapore dollars):
President – $3,187,100 (up 24.9%),
Prime Minister – $3,091,200 (up 25.5%),
Senior Minister – $3,043,300 (up 13.5%),
Minister Mentor – $3,043,300 (up 13.5%),
Deputy Prime Minister – $2,452,500 (up 18.8%),
Minister and Senior Perm Sec – $1,593,500 (up 32.5% increase) (MR4 Grade),
Entry Superscale Grade – $384,000 (up 3.3%) [SR9 Grade],
Member of Parliament – $216,300 (up 23.2%).

 

[myfoot123]

Re: $ 3.04 mil

How can the ministers compared themselves to 1000 top Singaporean earners. What calibre in terms of academic and business experience has the minister possess that make them think they deserve 1.1mil dollar salary. Look at Seng Han Thong and Lim Swee say, both can't speak proper language. Their only KPI is how well they brush calligraphy in the office and how long they stood on stage to utter nonsence. Other than that, what was their performance and achivements all these years?

 

[scroobal]

You are right, I completely forgot about this. It was called the "Ling" amendment within certain circles because some someone saw his behaviour in Parliament and got upset.

I am wonder if you are for real. MPs elected after 1995 were not entitled to pensoins (i.e. the 1997 class of MPs were not entitled to pensions). In other words, the 1991 class (including Low Thia Kiang) was the last class to be entitled to pensions and they have already hit the pension ceiling so the pension freeze does not affect them.

 

[Unrepented]

See told you all so leow. I take omega 3:p

..........

In essence, what it means indirectly is that salaries are in fact market rates and The PAP, old man and the Govt were not wrong but were right all this while. They were not overpaid. They now agree that "for the sake of Singaporeans", the PAP will "sacrifice" 40% of the market rate. They come across as highly charitable. Again calls by ordinary Singaporeans and the opposition to treat Public Office as a call of duty is now met. .......................

 

[GoldenDragon]

The moment i heard that they were suggesting removing the pension scheme from MPs, I smelt a rat. Pensions for MPs are institutionalised across the developed World. Its a bit of insurance to a layman who wants to partake in politics as the tenure is rather limited unlike the majority of jobs. So now only the rich and part-timers will come forward as MPs. Its a blow to the opposition and reduces the potential pool. I saw the full report and there was no clear argument except to state that CPF is the proper superannuation scheme. For the PAP MPs it is not much a porblem as they would get invited to property soft launches all the time as well a ready job due to their connection to the govt.

PAP doesn't deserve a yellow card. They deserve a straight red and be sent off.

 

[GoldenDragon]

Where is our dear leader GMS? Looking forward to his comments.

 

[zhihau]

Where is our dear leader GMS? Looking forward to his comments.

think he is posting on FB :o:o:o

 

[Varuna]

It was carefully worked out within the perimeters of their acceptable level of tolerance. The exorbitant pay in the first place provides enough margin and elasticity for downward adjustment without hurting their pockets and at the same time put a stop to opposition from taking advantage of the issue like re-frying a plate of cold fried-rice every election. I wonder if they have worked out the formula for increment. This is a back door that could potentially allow the pay to creep back to pre-cut levels in a matter of a few years.

 

[Fook Seng]

Don't think we should overwork the salary levels as discounted. Many heads of GLC, particularly publicly listed ones have salaries at or exceeding this. I have no problem using the medium income of the top 1000 locals, to determine what these salaries should be as a start but moving on using this as the benchmark will not give incentive to improve the income inequality of the populace. Although I do not normally agree with NSP, benchmarking to the median income of the entire population will definitely help in this aspect. Also over time, it should be an inculcated culture through our education system not to hanker for unbounded wealth expectation but a good level is enough attitude. You should not even be talking about sacrifice.