Salary Review -egg on everyone's faces

[scroobal]

It is something that WP has to recognise - that they now have to carry the nation's burden on their shoulders by default. They are the largest opposition party in parliament, they surprising have quality despite the small pool out there keen to show their hand in opposing the govt. People's expectations are therefore raised. This means they carry the can, whether they like it or not.

To your point about discussing with others opposition parties and maybe even running focus groups, i suspect that this incident might be the catalyst. They generally have taken the stand that they prefer to run on their own but it does not carry weight as much as collating views on a wider front. One powerful instruments is run polls on the output of the committee. An online is not only affordable, it can be be devastating. Its hard to demolish the poll results if it is significant and the questions are fair and not lopsided. Its becomes heavy artillery for the right reasons.

I like to see the likes of BG Tan and Vikram Nair unpick the polls as "courageously" as they did the opposition.

The problem with all the opposition parties other than WP is that they did not have a platform to present their views. So it is left with only WP which performed badly in representing the views of Singaporeans. WP it appears has not consulted the opposition voters nor the other opposition parties for their views but bulldozed their own proposal after having completed their brain-storming session among themselves. Correct me on this if I am wrong.Did WP approached any other opposition parties for their views, or has any opposition parties approached WP? Did any opposition party used the independent media like Youtube to present their alternative proposal? SDP had used this platform many a time to have their say on matters they think is important to Singapore, but I have not heard this about the ministerial pay. If they had then I stand corrected.This is the saddest part of the opposition groupings I surmised from discussions here in SBF, before and after the concluded GE and PE. Views are so disparate and extreme, such that all opposing voices cannot unite to fight against a single party like the PAP, who has unity. A very good reason why the opposition do not deserve to win and only disaster awaits all of Singapore if the PAP had fallen. Then these opposition parties were they ever to gain the right to rule Singapore will simply destroy us from the word go.If Wp had done their part, i,e, to represent the views of all opposition, not only WP's alternative proposal, but one made up from all opposing voices, then I will say they did their best in the interest of all Singaporeans. As it stands, WP failed badly and have done us a disservice.

 

[scroobal]

This has always been PAP's stand that they have sole authority and the means to "think" and deliver solutions. The opposition needs to break this notion down and demolish it for good.

The common man is perceived to be unable to handle the rigors of the analytical approach, therefore an "expert panel" was formed to make a recommendation to legitimize a preferred pay formula.

WP's approach is a mixture of non-confrontation and Chinese ethos. It worked well with voters and the numbers and tenure are indicative. It certainly has let them down in this instance. I personally do not think that they are ready, willing or the type to carve out and identify with an ideology. Both CSM and LTK are running on the track of ancient wisdom which is popular with the older generation, GG is very much a social critic who believes in natural justice. Yaw is at best is a neighbourhood politician and liaison person. Only Sylvia and Yee seem to understand Westerminister model of politics. They need a legislative team to focus on policy formulation and policy engagement. This is not the domain CEC or the rest of outreach team.

WP's weakness in my opinion is the unwillingness to lack gumption to adopt a coherent ideological view due to their fear of alienating some of their less informed voters. If one makes a stand, surely there will be people who disagree with you. WP's stance as I can see is "whatever PAP says" plus a little more to the left which is an awful way to impress more informed voters who have clear ideological stance on issues. For the WP, political posturing to give the appearance of being balanced is more important than personal belief it seems. Please do not contest in my ward. The PAP is fine as it is if i'm conservative. If I prefer bold liberal ideas motioned in parliament, I would give my vote to the SDP. Classic business school example of being "stuck-in-the-middle" and pleasing no one.

 

[scroobal]

Agree with your points but besides lacking agression, they also failed to package their product well. As the quality of the state press is a known factor, I lloked at the video and their written speech and found it wanting on many fronts. In fact the press release by Pritam and GG shortly after the Committee released their findings was better. Denise Phua was streets ahead and she materially opposed the committee's work in total. I thought pegging it to civil service was good which is what the UK does. Because of poor delivery, the PAP manipulated it to their own design.

I believe that other than not being more aggressive there was little other else that WP did wrong. Their formula which was based on the pay of the civil service was correct in my view. They would be made to look truly ridiculous if their proposal made it a rule of thumb that non-elected civil servants earned more than their elected colleagues. WP should have explained this more succinctly and also added that our civil service is indeed world class and that rocking the boat was not an ideal situation. Rather, what was at stake were the policies initiated by the governing political party and the various motivating factors behind these policies. GG not knowing what MX9 was was a sad reflection of his quality. The other WP members should have taken to task the PAP members that continued to insist that the WP proposal was similar or even higher than the PAP's. This is a total fabrication as the bonus scheme proposed by WP was many times less than that espoused by the PAP. Lastly, a simple study looking at the relevant statistics over the last 5 years would have given a clearer indication of the ease with which the PAP's bonuses could be attained.

 

[scroobal]

The issue was not about proposing low salaries or playing to the gallery.

I am sure the voters would be happy if the following were addressed

- the reasons why our salary scheme is so far from the 1st world and where countries have huge GDPs, bigger population, more open society and therefore a greater burden and responsibility. What a factors that put as outliers.

- why no one of quality wants to step forward to do public service readily. What caused this environment to exist?- was there a proper debate on the committee work in the first place?

This is what the committee proposal was made up of - they identified "similar" jobs in the private sector, they determined the remuneration for this, took an existing grade to match it and then placed a 40% discount for public service.

- lack of transparency no details on 1k who make up the benchmark, no details on the income range of st of society -

I just wonder if an opposition member put up the proposal of an extremely low salary package as proposed by some opposition party in Parliament, what sort of performance would it be under the scrutiny of Parliament? It is one thing to play to the gallery but another thing to withstand the scrutiny of Parliament. Would he have all the answers to all the questioning and come out in one piece?

 

[Fook Seng]

The issue was not about proposing low salaries or playing to the gallery.

I was merely commenting on some people's extreme wishes that would likely meet with indefensible hammering in Parliament. I have my own misgivings regarding WP's performance which I have expressed in other threads. I felt that WP had allowed PAP to play their game of just focussing on the Ministers' own personal condition instead of raising it up one level to find a scheme that would benefit the country. Choosing a more appropriate benchmark would have achieved this. But it was not done.

 

[eatshitndie]

Agree with your points but besides lacking agression, they also failed to package their product well. As the quality of the state press is a known factor, I lloked at the video and their written speech and found it wanting on many fronts. In fact the press release by Pritam and GG shortly after the Committee released their findings was better. Denise Phua was streets ahead and she materially opposed the committee's work in total. I thought pegging it to civil service was good which is what the UK does. Because of poor delivery, the PAP manipulated it to their own design.

for some of the oppo mp's, it's their first foray in parliament. give them a break. i'm afraid too many old birds in sbf have set too high an expectation on newbies in parliament. it's as though pent up frustrations over decades of online detractors egging these newbies on are resting entirely on these brave blokes' shoulders to perform, and perform manificently. come on. let them spar a few more times, and they will get a better feel of it and be more confident, compose, and concise the next round. it's easy to critique from the sidelines. all here are armchair monday morning quarterbacks. if you think you are more capable, join a party, put up with public appearance, face the wrath and might of the pap, and run. otherwise, stfu and give them a little breathing room to grow into their roles. it's pathetic that i have to come forward to their defense in a rabidly hotbed of oppo sympathizers and pappy haters here.

 

[rusty]

PAP has made an important statement...a statement the public like to hear.
See...we listened to you and let you participate in our policy making.
In the eyes of the public, the WP lost in the debate.
The debate was a trap and WP should have been more tactful.
In the first place, WP did not call for the salary review and they should have explained in parliament how this review was arrived at.
They should have also pointed out that the PM should explain to the people why he thought the review was necessary and that's what the debate is about.

 

[eatshitndie]

PAP has made an important statement...a statement the public like to hear.
See...we listened to you and let you participate in our policy making.
In the eyes of the public, the WP lost in the debate.
The debate was a trap and WP should have been more tactful.
In the first place, WP did not call for the salary review and they should have explained in parliament how this review was arrived at.
They should have also pointed out that the PM should explain to the people why he thought the review was necessary and that's what the debate is about.

the pap is no slouch on a couch. but give the oppo mp's a freaking break. so what if it is faeces on the egg and egg on faces. detractors and axe grinders here can anal-yze paralyze this to death, and most likely it will be nitpicky whining and cringing here until the cow comes home as the train has already left the station.

 

[rusty]

the pap is no slouch on a couch. but give the oppo mp's a freaking break. so what if it is faeces on the egg and egg on faces. detractors and axe grinders here can anal-yze paralyze this to death, and most likely it will be nitpicky whining and cringing here until the cow comes home as the train has already left the station.

Sad, WP could have turned the table around and made the statement: "See.. with us around they have to reduce their pay voluntarily"

 

[fivestars]

If we pay the world most higher pay 1000 person from the top higher income Singaporean, can we get higher quality and talented person to work in Temple? Or if will not related with pay?

 

[scroobal]

Point noted.

I was merely commenting on some people's extreme wishes that would likely meet with indefensible hammering in Parliament. I have my own misgivings regarding WP's performance which I have expressed in other threads. I felt that WP had allowed PAP to play their game of just focussing on the Ministers' own personal condition instead of raising it up one level to find a scheme that would benefit the country. Choosing a more appropriate benchmark would have achieved this. But it was not done.

 

[scroobal]

I have not put any of the opposition MPs down. They are new and they are in the lion's den. These are observations. The asian mentality of not making adverse comments at the appropriate time and keeping quiet is well known around the world. When CSM's supporter in this forum made claims that he was not shortlisted for medicine because of his high marks. I pointed out put the error. If I did not correct it, it may have backfired when the reporters queried the claim. If you do not provide constructive comments do not expect anyone to progress.

I commented on the failure of everyone including the govt and the Committee but you zeroed it on the opposition. Why the one track mind. You should see this in totality.

for some of the oppo mp's, it's their first foray in parliament. give them a break. i'm afraid Qtoo many old birds in sbf have set too high an expectation on newbies in parliament. it's as though pent up frustrations over decades of online detractors egging these newbies on are resting entirely on these brave blokes' shoulders to perform, and perform manificently. come on. let them spar a few more times, and they will get a better feel of it and be more confident, compose, and concise the next round. it's easy to critique from the sidelines. all here are armchair monday morning quarterbacks. if you think you are more capable, join a party, put up with public appearance, face the wrath and might of the pap, and run. otherwise, stfu and give them a little breathing room to grow into their roles. it's pathetic that i have to come forward to their defense in a rabidly hotbed of oppo sympathizers and pappy haters here.

 

[eatshitndie]

.........

I commented on the failure of everyone including the govt and the Committee but you zeroed it on the opposition. Why the one track mind. You should see this in totality.

there's no need to criticize the pap gov here as the vast majority are rabid anti-pap fanatics. it's a given in sbf. failure or not, they succeeded in having their cake and eat it too. not an ordinary feat.

 

[TracyTan866]

there's no need to criticize the pap gov here as the vast majority are rabid anti-pap fanatics..

have you wondered why, if the pap is as good as you think it is, so many Singaporeans are anti-pap?

the pap shd have romped home with 95% of the votes...anything less, despite pap's shameless tactics is a disgrace

 

[Varuna]

4. The Opposition parties lost the plot and ended up closing the door on a subject of great interest to voters.

5. The voters did not seem to get what they wanted - a proper review and a proper debate.

This episode drives the nail deeper and makes it harder to shake in next GE2016. Opposition will have to work harder at grassroots level, constantly feel the ground for fresh issues that can help them win more votes. At least 60% of voters who supported PAP got what they wanted. Highly anticipated opening but a well-scripted and disappointing ending. Some newbies and attention-seekers got their chance to practise oratory skills with speeches peppered with uninteresting motherhood statements. I notice DPM gets more vocal in the end. Maybe he is the assigned firewall to take some attention and heat off PM.

 

[bullfrog]

Read Prof walter Woon's comments today in ST.

He said that the people will still not be appeased bcs the whole pay issue is a proxy for the dissatisfaction over the wide difference between the high income earners and the average John Doe.

These people who reward themselves with millions claim to be extraordinary men with special talents to move Singapore fwd. They claim to have a monopoly of ideas and solutions, do not listen to "ordinary" feedback and profess to move mountains.

Yet they cant solve a simple ponding problem and dropping claws. More like medicine men.

 

[eatshitndie]

have you wondered why, if the pap is as good as you think it is, so many Singaporeans are anti-pap?

the pap shd have romped home with 95% of the votes...anything less, despite pap's shameless tactics is a disgrace

it only happens here on sbf. in the real island of sg, the majority are pro-pap. sbf >>not equal to<< sg.

 

[TracyTan866]

it only happens here on sbf. in the real island of sg, the majority are pro-pap. sbf >>not equal to<< sg.

You think so?

 

[ChaoPappyPoodle]

The issue was not about proposing low salaries or playing to the gallery.

I am sure the voters would be happy if the following were addressed

- the reasons why our salary scheme is so far from the 1st world and where countries have huge GDPs, bigger population, more open society and therefore a greater burden and responsibility. What a factors that put as outliers.

- why no one of quality wants to step forward to do public service readily. What caused this environment to exist?- was there a proper debate on the committee work in the first place?

This is what the committee proposal was made up of - they identified "similar" jobs in the private sector, they determined the remuneration for this, took an existing grade to match it and then placed a 40% discount for public service.

- lack of transparency no details on 1k who make up the benchmark, no details on the income range of st of society -

You can add the following to the list
- A disproportionate number of ministers were formerly from the military. All have experienced huge financial gains from stepping into the political arena. Any sacrifice they now make should under all probable circumstances seem much less than what they were making while with the military.

- While a small number of ministers have indeed taken a pay cut, since joining politics, a major proportion have gained financially. The response and bahaviour of the PAP is actually unnecessarily skewed towards helping a majority of their MPs and ministers receive a huge salary increment.

- Ask how the committee, after reviewing private sector salaries, came up with such huge bonuses which are unheard off to the layperson. What statistics prompted such a call for such a bonus scheme?

- Ask, based on the past 5 years, for each year, how many months of bonuses were paid out to the ministers?

- Ask, based on the statistics for the past 5 years, how much bonuses will the ministers receive should the current bonus scheme be at play.

- If the PAPies are indeed so believing in the premise that a high salary is required for their ministers and their ministers are crucial to the survival of Singapore then why gamble with such high stakes. Why put the survival of Singapore into the hands of non-elected members of parliament who formed the Committee? Is the PAP so lacking in its beliefs that it has to gather a group of private sector personnel to task them with something that risked Singapore's future? Would the PAP have accepted a much lower salary if the committee had proposed accordingly?

Based on the answers provided another round of questions would be in order. The PAPpies have gotten off lightly and it is a missed opportunity. This was an opportunity for them to dig themselves deeper and further away from the layperson.

 

[eatshitndie]

You think so?

the last general election result speaks for itself. my comments are based on observations of real events and facts.