Politics of Salary Review

[scroobal]

Re: $ 3.04 mil

Hazel Poa of NSP hit the nail on the head about this. From 48 top earners they increased it to 1,000 but in the scheme of things, its only 0.03% of Singapore Citizens. So the number moved but the principle did not . 1,000 are risk takers, genuine entpreneurs presumably and chances are they are not PAP who provides career insurance via GLC to failed politicians.

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?

 

[Nice-Gook]

I thought it was "marvellous" how they actually addressed all the complaints and still managed to say that it is market rate but they only take 60% as an act of charity to Singaporeans.

Listen to what the SDP is saying about this so called discount,.............

"This is because in 2007 ministers approved a 27 percent hike in their salaries. The following year they accepted another 15 percent increase a jump of 42 percent in two years. During this period PM Lee took home an annual income of $3.8 million and ministers between $2-3 million.....This is the classic sales tactic. Jack up the price and then tell your customers that you are giving them a discount. This is the same strategem that the HDB and Restructured (public) Hospitals have been using on us all these decades. Prices and fees are first raised with the Government stepping in to announce that the payments will be subsidised. The upshot is that the state still comes away with a tidy profit."

 

[zhihau]

Which in the first place is a silly excuse for a public political office of this nature.

think i'm growing a bit more empathetic these days... imagine how the old man would feel... ouch... must be painful :o:o:o

 

[cass888]

Bonus is tied to median and bottom range. If they don't achieve, they will end up with only 16/19 of stated annual income (at best).

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.

 

[Fook Seng]

Bonus is tied to median and bottom range. If they don't achieve, they will end up with only 16/19 of stated annual income (at best).

Bonus is not as direct as salary as there are other factors determining bonus like GDP for example. Tying salary to median income is the way to go (need not complicate it with bottom range as median is fairly representative to all - economic measures are normally quite rough tools). If the median income keeps pace with top income, the inequality is maintained. If median income moves up faster than the top income, pulling low income along, the Gini index will be reduced and inequality will drop.

 

[Boliao]

Bonus is not as direct as salary as there are other factors determining bonus like GDP for example. Tying salary to median income is the way to go (need not complicate it with bottom range as median is fairly representative to all - economic measures are normally quite rough tools). If the median income keeps pace with top income, the inequality is maintained. If median income moves up faster than the top income, pulling low income along, the Gini index will be reduced and inequality will drop.

As with all statistics, it is only effective if the sample size is appropriate. The question that needed to be asked is - is the top 1,000 earners, out of a population of 2,600,000 million, the correct sample size?

 

[Boliao]

Listen to what the SDP is saying about this so called discount,.............

"This is because in 2007 ministers approved a 27 percent hike in their salaries. The following year they accepted another 15 percent increase a jump of 42 percent in two years

A 27% hike in 2007 and another 15% increase the following year is not 42% (=27+15) in 2 years. The amount is compounded. It should be 46.5%.

Also note that this report made no mention of variable bonus. A bulk of any minister's salary is in the variable bonus itself. In 2011, their variable bonus was 24 months of their stated salary. Nothing was change on that and they added a national bonus to it. A 40% drop on their stated salary is in fact, a Mdm Goh peanut.

 

[Fook Seng]

As with all statistics, it is only effective if the sample size is appropriate. The question that needed to be asked is - is the top 1,000 earners, out of a population of 2,600,000 million, the correct sample size?

If you take the median income, you need only one salary. It is because you take the top incomes that you need a sample to average out the salaries.

 

[Hans168]

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

Ask G Ee why he opted to retire so young.... is it not becos he got edged out in Ernst n Young by Ong
Yew Huat for the Chief Executive job???? Ah a loser is now a winner?

 

[Fook Seng]

A 27% hike in 2007 and another 15% increase the following year is not 42% (=27+15) in 2 years. The amount is compounded. It should be 46.5%.

Also note that this report made no mention of variable bonus. A bulk of any minister's salary is in the variable bonus itself. In 2011, their variable bonus was 24 months of their stated salary. Nothing was change on that and they added a national bonus to it. A 40% drop on their stated salary is in fact, a Mdm Goh peanut.

I thought the annual income assumed is in fact the 12 monthly salaries plus 13th month, plus 3 months performance bonus plus 3 months nation bonus (measured against median income and low end 20 percentile income), plus 1 month AVC.

 

[Hans168]

Hahaha........ PAP got us conned again as I suspected wud be the case...
Up their own salaries some 50% and now drop 40% n come out smelling better than roses! Dirty politicians n greedy
too. How to trust them with our money like the cpf lockup?

Realistically the best measure of minister's nett worth shud be by looking at

If they remained in their previous job, at least 50% will not smell the million buck salary, even in 20 years or lifetime;
By looking as those discarded ministers like Yeo CT, Raym Lim, Mah Bow Tan, Wong Kan Seng........ are they making millions (jobs in GLCs does not count....).

Can anyone confirm that their previous GDP linked bonus was ever publicised? Or was it a kept secret until now???
I smell a big rat............ pay peanuts, you get monkey but pay coconut, you still get rats

 

[Hans168]

I thought the annual income assumed is in fact the 12 monthly salaries plus 13th month, plus 3 months performance bonus plus 3 months nation bonus (measured against median income and low end 20 percentile income), plus 1 month AVC.

Were all these knowledge in public domain or dirty PAP secrets now publicised????

 

[Hans168]

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.

Was G Ee convincing enuf with his remark that his buddies of ministerial caliber will not be enticed if salary get slashed? This betrayed his neutrality/////

 

[Windsor]

Listen to what the SDP is saying about this so called discount,.............

"This is because in 2007 ministers approved a 27 percent hike in their salaries. The following year they accepted another 15 percent increase a jump of 42 percent in two years. During this period PM Lee took home an annual income of $3.8 million and ministers between $2-3 million.....This is the classic sales tactic. Jack up the price and then tell your customers that you are giving them a discount. This is the same strategem that the HDB and Restructured (public) Hospitals have been using on us all these decades. Prices and fees are first raised with the Government stepping in to announce that the payments will be subsidised. The upshot is that the state still comes away with a tidy profit."

When the increases were announced, they all applauded and approved them. When there were public outcries, the reasons given were, I quote:

"It is critical for us to keep these salaries competitive, so as to be able to bring in a continuing flow of able and successful people," Lee said in a speech in March."

"If we don't do that ... corruption will set in and we will become like many other countries," Defense Minister Teo Chee Hean was quoted as saying in the Straits Times last week" - from CNN International 05 Apr 07

In 2007, Singapore’s ministers gave themselves a 60% pay increment, with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean using the justification: “If we don’t do that, in the long term, the government system will slowly crumble and collapse. We don’t want pay to be the reason for people to join us. But we also don’t want pay to be the reason for them not to join us.”

Mark my words that in the next Parliamentary session, all these PAP MP's silent when their pay increased by leaps and bound, will applaud the move and say this is their sacrifice and well worth it. It is a demonstration of their commitment and a signal to the voters that they have the interests of Singapore at heart.

 

[Boliao]

If you take the median income, you need only one salary. It is because you take the top incomes that you need a sample to average out the salaries.

Median is the marker that separate the upper half of a range from the lower half. If you intend to use median, you need a minimum of 3 salaries. Average in statistics is Medium, to which you need at least 2 salaries.

 

[Boliao]

I thought the annual income assumed is in fact the 12 monthly salaries plus 13th month, plus 3 months performance bonus plus 3 months nation bonus (measured against median income and low end 20 percentile income), plus 1 month AVC.

No. That's where most people make the mistake. The $1.2mil refers to their basic salary excluding their bonuses (national, performance and annual).

 

[Hans168]

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?

Yes where is the KPI for each minister???? Get so much money to do a job without KPI goal posts???
That is how we got sleeping partners like Wong Kan Seng, Raymond Lim, Mah Bow Tan, Yeo CT///

 

[Conqueror]

Everyone Just Hate My Scalpel To Remove The Tumour

[video=youtube;B4BIlEK94fI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4BIlEK94fI[/video]

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

How long or how big should this tumour be before you decide to have it done on the OT ? Everyone just shuns it completely. Some more cooling tea ?

 

[Varuna]

Re: $ 3.04 mil

Yes where is the KPI for each minister???? Get so much money to do a job without KPI goal posts???
That is how we got sleeping partners like Wong Kan Seng, Raymond Lim, Mah Bow Tan, Yeo CT///

Good one. They decide and deem themselves talents deserving that fat pay cheque. We are the only country that can get away with this crap.

 

[cass888]

No. That's where most people make the mistake. The $1.2mil refers to their basic salary excluding their bonuses (national, performance and annual).

Read the fucking paper before you comment. The annuals are based on 20 months salary. The only additional bonuses kick in if they far exceed the indicators in which case they may get another 6 months (cap).

The annual salary (S) is made up of a fixed pay component (F) and a variable pay component (V), i.e. S = F + V.
The fixed pay component (F) comprises his monthly salary x 13.
We assume that an AVC of 1 month is paid. An MR4 Minister who achieves good individual performance will receive a PB of 3 months. In a year when the targets for the National Bonus indicators are met, an NB of 3 months will be paid:
V = AVC + PB + NB = 1 month + 3 months + 3 months = 7 months
Hence, his annual salary will be
S = F + V = 13 months + 7 months = 20 months