WP's Model - Confusion?

[scroobal]

I saw CSM's speech as well as read the text of the speech. I was quite surprised that they subscribe to the model but differ on how the principles are ordered and benchmark value as well as bonus mulyiples.

Actually CSM's speech need the middle seem to suggest a different model - all of government, public sector and not private sector benchmarking. Its quite confusing. When WP first responded to the comittee's report, they even suggested following the British methodology which has sound basis.

From Vikram Nair's line of questioning, I suspect that they might have submitted a different proposal during the consultation stage or there is internal disagreement on the model or even both.

Note the comparison between WP and the Committee's proposal.

[

 

[steffychun]

They just are anti-SDP. Still treading it slowly

 

[scroobal]

Sadly I thought the best comments came from a PAP MP who certainly is demolishing the work of the committee.

Pay review both half full and half empty, says Denise Phua

By Andrea Ong

Pensively holding up a glass of water as she spoke, Ms Denise Phua (Moulmein-Kallang GRC) compared it to people's mixed feelings over the proposals by the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries.

'Some of us optimists will declare (the glass) is half-full. Others who are less positive will say it is half-empty. The cynics among us will wonder who drank the other half. I say it is both - half-full and half-empty,' said the backbencher.

Expressing some of the strongest reservations among the PAP MPs who spoke on Monday, Ms Phua nonetheless praised the committee for moving in the right direction with its bold pay cuts.

She was 'heartened', too, that her recommendations from the April 2007 debate on ministerial pay had been applied in the review.

These include setting up an independent pay review committee for the first time and expanding a bonus component to include targets beyond Singapore's economic growth.

However, Ms Phua had five suggestions on how the new system could be refined to 'further fill up the glass'.

Peg ministers' pay to a broader base of Singaporean workers and discard the discount signifying public service.

IThe committee proposed pegging an entry-level minister's pay to the top 1,000 Singaporean income earners, who form only 0.05 per cent of a workforce of two million, said Ms Phua.This benchmark, while more reasonable than the previous base of 48 top earners, is 'arbitrary and smacks of elitism', she said.

The 40 per cent discount on the benchmark - signifying the sacrifice when entering public service - should also be scrapped as it is also arbitrary and often forgotten and unappreciated, she added.

Instead, ministers' pay could be pegged to a simpler benchmark, like the top 10 or 20 per cent of Singaporean income earners, said Ms Phua.Strengthen the link between ministers' variable pay and their performance

This could be done firstly by removing the annual variable component - a bonus paid to all civil servants - from the variable portion of ministers' salaries.The remaining two parts - performance bonus and national bonus - are tied directly to how individual ministers perform and how the country fares under the Cabinet's stewardship, said Ms Phua.

But both bonuses can be improved. The four national bonus indicators could be expanded to take into account factors like social well-being, she said.

The key performance indicators of each minister's portfolio should be publicised so Singaporeans can better understand how the performance bonus is awarded, she added. The call was also made by Non-Constituency MP Gerald Giam.

Review the current benefits packageMs Phua suggested offering ministers benefits commonly given to private sector top executives, such as car allowances and annual health screenings.Ministers get dental benefits of $70 a year and outpatient subsidies capped at $350 a year, which is 'a little ludicrous'. Said Ms Phua: 'Do not over-extend the application of the principle of 'clean wage' so far that it becomes artificial.

'Educate people on the job scope of MPs and political office holdersBoth Ms Phua and Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang GRC) felt there should be greater clarity on MPs' duties and the different roles played by office-holders such as Ministers and the Speaker.

People's lack of awareness underlies the unhappiness over political salaries, she said.

Review the pay structure of the elite Administrative Service, which is pegged on a similar salary band as ministers

However, she acknowledged that today's political culture made it more challenging to attract people with the right character and skills to enter politics.

Leaders must be 'superhero politicians' who can inspire Singaporeans, engage constituents online and in person, and solve complex challenges.

But she urged the House to heal the national divide by giving ideas on how to improve the pay issue and create a dream 'so compelling that more leaders with both character and competence will come forward to serve, come what pay'.

 

[tioliaohuat]

i'am more confus....


http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?89550-The-Chen-Show-Mao-Affair&p=700196#post700196

 

[wikiphile]

All this time we have been too focused on how much the PM takes, why is it that he can take the biggest paycut and not flinch an eyelid but when you attack the pay mechanism of his underlings he jumps into action?

The Lees does not nee this paltry annual salary in comparison to their real wealth, the idea is to reward their underlings to the max paid by the people. Take away this ability to reward, a leader like LHL is not able to reward and feed his underlings adequately or satiate their greed. In the long run should this take off, the Lees probably are worried they cannot buy influence or political favours from their former underlings

 

[captainxerox]

this pay review difference between wp and the pap - it proves one thing all along. wp is pap lite, or what the pap was imagined to be in the 50s and 60s in the voter psyche. wp and pap are so similar and that is why wp got a grc. people wanted something like the pap, but yet not the pap, and wp credit due, is the have their cake and eat it too choice.

 

[kingrant]

After the debate, I dont think the people are assuaged. Emotively, the people will still be unhappy.

The WP had started with good principles to base its formula on, but how did it come to this? That they arrived at pay scales that are higher than the RC and similar to the existing?

Now the PAP will gloat that WP is merely nit-picking. It will also claim (rightfully) that the issue was debated extensively and all views were heard, and we should move on.

The WP should have taken bolder steps to use the bottom 20% or a suitable ratio of Singapore's income earners and then mark up from there, such that the final amount is seen to be vastly lower than the RC, to force the issue .

At it is, instead of the WP forcing the House to a division of votes, the PAP is spinning that the WP is largely closing ranks with them. The thunder has turned to a whimper.

Why like that??

 

[HedgeTrader]

KNN kana tricked I thot this thread about WP model confusion between Glenda Han and Angela Oon LOL

 

[kingrant]

Hahaha...lol

KNN kana tricked I thot this thread about WP model confusion between Glenda Han and Angela Oon LOL

 

[scroobal]

It does make sense not to deviate too much with the estblishment to secure votes but the salary issue is a known hot potato and things like the gini coefficient is clear about the gap widening. It thus makes sense to capitalise and not frighten the voters. I expected a sharper response. Actually the press release by GG and PS is not what appeared in parliament from the WP MPs. If this carries on PAP will eventually come to the conclusion that WP is riding on their coat tails with a sodt demeaneour - basically undercutiing them on price and not substance.

this pay review difference between wp and the pap - it proves one thing all along. wp is pap lite, or what the pap was imagined to be in the 50s and 60s in the voter psyche. wp and pap are so similar and that is why wp got a grc. people wanted something like the pap, but yet not the pap, and wp credit due, is the have their cake and eat it too choice.

 

[scroobal]

I agree that people are not receptive to what has been proposed. They feel that they have shortchanged. It seems to be a missed opportunity to get the PAP to be more accountable for their GE2011 promise to fix this.

After the debate, I dont think the people are assuaged. Emotively, the people will still be unhappy.The WP had started with good principles to base its formula on, but how did it come to this? That they arrived at pay scales that are higher than the RC and similar to the existing?Now the PAP will gloat that WP is merely nit-picking. It will also claim (rightfully) that the issue was debated extensively and all views were heard, and we should move on.The WP should have taken bolder steps to use the bottom 20% or a suitable ratio of Singapore's income earners and then mark up from there, such that the final amount is seen to be vastly lower than the RC, to force the issue .At it is, instead of the WP forcing the House to a division of votes, the PAP is spinning that the WP is largely closing ranks with them. The thunder has turned to a whimper. Why like that??

 

[aurvandil]

I agree that people are not receptive to what has been proposed. They feel that they have shortchanged. It seems to be a missed opportunity to get the PAP to be more accountable for th eir GE2011 promise to fix this.

I like the way things turned out. The PAP took a large enough paycut to hurt and cause unhappiness in the ranks. It however failed to win significant political support.

On WP, the performance was a let down as compared to their initial well coordinated attack when Parliament first opened. I suspect the reason for their approach is that WP wants to keep this issue alive. If they push very hard now and the Pap goes all the way, this will cease to be an issue. The way this ended leaves plenty of room for the issue to be reopened in 2016.

 

[scroobal]

Somone told me that WP made a proposal some years ago and fear that a departure from it could lead to accusation of waffling. I tried to trace but no luck. I am also glad that new proposal has not been well received. Undfortunately the paycut is not across the targeted group. The PM's wealth is not going to impact the proposed cut.

I like the way things turned out. The PAP took a large enough paycut to hurt and cause unhappiness in the ranks. It however failed to win significant political support.On WP, the performance was a let down as compared to their initial well coordinated attack when Parliament first opened. I suspect the reason for their approach is that WP wants to keep this issue alive. If they push very hard now and the Pap goes all the way, this will cease to be an issue. The way this ended leaves plenty of room for the issue to be reopened in 2016.

 

[Varuna]

If PAP do not take in any of WP's suggestion, it may well remain to be an open issue for 2016GE. From PAP's perspective, even if it is still going to be an issue in next GE, it could be easily brushed off as a small one and leave little room for manipulation, since they could then say they had done a review and had taken a step back with one round of cut already. However, if PAP decide to adopt some or all of WP's proposal, then it leaves no room for WP to use this as an election issue in GE2016. But WP's solution gives the impression that they are tilting towards PAP's primary reasoning that, after all, fat pay is still one key factor to ensure a continual supply of potential talented candidates into politics on top of passion and genuine desire to serve. They are trimming a bit of fat only.

 

[kingrant]

If this is indeed WP's strategem, it is a shrewd one. It may well bring them more votes next GE if people see that they are more moderate. I suppose the follow on will be that WP will use any increased presence in the House to start sniping away at the issue again.

But trouble is will the voters see it that way.

If this carries on PAP will eventually come to the conclusion that WP is riding on their coat tails with a sodt demeaneour - basically undercutiing them on price and not substance.

 

[Perspective]

Only one person has mentioned this to me, and I slap myself for failing to see this.

If WP's proposals were similar, why PAP not adopt WP's proposal?

Instead whacking a proposal that is similar to yours is silly, unless you are claiming copyright has been breached.

 

[aurvandil]

Only one person has mentioned this to me, and I slap myself for failing to see this.

If WP's proposals were similar, why PAP not adopt WP's proposal?

Instead whacking a proposal that is similar to yours is silly, unless you are claiming copyright has been breached.

An important learning point from this session is that there is a need to keep the message simple. WP came up with a fairly comprehensive proposal. They split it up among the different MP's who then took turns to present different aspects of it. Unless you were following all the speeches and saw the big underlying picture, this gave the wrong impression that the different WP MPs were proposing different things.

A very necessary thing which needs to be done is to simplfy the message. They should assume that 80% of the audience have not heard what their other colleagues have said. They should therefore chose the most powerful and compelling arguement (e.g. benchmark to a broad median as opposed to top 1000) and have everyone repeat it so that the point sticks.

 

[Leongsam]

Instead of spending so much time arguing about how the salary of others should be reduced, why not channel the time and the energy into finding ways to increase your own income?

As far as I can see, most of the people who are opposed to the current salary structure of ministers are simply suffering from a severe case of "red eyes".

 

[brocoli]

Instead of spending so much time arguing about how the salary of others should be reduced, why not channel the time and the energy into finding ways to increase your own income?

As far as I can see, most of the people who are opposed to the current salary structure of ministers are simply suffering from a severe case of "red eyes".

agree but i cant up you liao...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Leongsam again.

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

WP model is different from PAP's model in terms of the benchmark criteria (more broad based, directed at civil service), and also the bonus formula which is less extravagant.

Where WP agrees with PAP is the need to pay a good salary that does not overstep the ethos of public service.

In esssence this is how I would summarize WP's proposals.