WP's Model - Confusion?

[Goh Meng Seng]

Opposition parties always use ministerial pay issue as an emotive persuasion to win hearts. WP candidates have used it many times.

Well, after some prolonged discussion with a friend, I finally understand why WP come up with this complex proposal. The rational is so simple but they have presented it in such a complicated ways which allows PAP to pick the weakest point to shoot them.

The whole idea is that civil service is public service and thus MPs and ministers who are in public service as well will logically pegged to civil service pay scale. They could have explained this in a more simple way, many ministers come from the civil service, including the army, so it is natural to peg it to the civil service pay scale etc. However, they made a BIG ASSUMPTION that civil service pay is pegged to general wage level. The second mistake they made was, they only peg to ONE civil service wage scale MX9, not the whole civil service pay scale.


There is a big contradiction to say that they believe in "competitive wage" while still claiming that such pegging would achieve a broader base of general wage scale pegging. It cannot happen that way because it is contradictory. When you want competitive wage, the wage could only be pegged at a parameter which only includes the income scale and competitive industry would get. It is not going to be broad base.

Broad base parameters could only be drawn from bottom X%, middle Y% and top Z%. It cannot be from a singular point from the civil service pay scale.

Lesson learned from WP's poor showing, keep the message simple, concise and precise. Of course, you must get your logic right from the beginning.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

This part is going overboard. Its a journey and its not a zero sum gain. There is also no other credible opposition party in the wings. The coordination might have slipped. But the WP MPs reps are strong and they are well respected for being sincere with no exceptions.

In fact, PAP has been rather mild in their attacks; i.e. they didn't go all out but rather, hope to "reconcile" and in effect, shutting WP's mouth forever on this ministerial pay topic in future. This is the biggest loss WP has suffered in the sense that it has closed its own doors on a topic which has been traditionally used to win votes.Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

Disagree. They are not holding back. Vikram on GG was not mild. Same with BG Tan. What they trying to do is paint a dishonest picture without actually debating on the proposal by the review committee.

In fact, PAP has been rather mild in their attacks; i.e. they didn't go all out but rather, hope to "reconcile" and in effect, shutting WP's mouth forever on this ministerial pay topic in future.Goh Meng Seng

 

[Thick Face Black Heart]

I would have preferred that WP came up with results that were even more different, because most of the ministars are vastly under-performing and overpaid.

My issue with the WP model is that they should be aware of the wayang being played out before them and focus on whether these highly paid individuals have made the lives of ordinary Singaporeans better. Seriously, can u think of a single idea, policy, comment, statement, adviCe, etc that Zorro has made which a secondary school kid could not have thought of?

I would have preferred the policy debate to be centered around the philosophy and doctrine of top notch pay and why the PAP is unable to attract talent into politics despite two decades of fantastic pay.

Unfortunately, the nature of parliamentary debate is such that all sides have to focus on the technicalities and not the underlying issues which to me is the most important.

The PAP knows that, and they went for the jugular by attacking WP on the technicalities. And then when that was done, they praised WP for agreeing with what are nothing more than common sensical principles that any 15yo school girl could have written. The idea is to make it look like WP lost the argument and eventually submitted to the PAP version.

 

[brocoli]

This is the biggest loss WP has suffered in the sense that it has closed its own doors on a topic which has been traditionally used to win votes.

even PM know the big debate is not over but just postphoned......

 

[aurvandil]

even PM know the big debate is not over but just postphoned......

In his closing, TCH sprang a trap which he thought would corner the Opposition. This was how WP "agreed" with the PAP. For this to stick, this would have to mean that WP was speaking for all who oppose the PAP. This is not true of course. He is forgetting about SDP, NSP, RP and everyone else. WP does not have to reopen the debate in 2016. There are plenty of others out there who will do it.

 

[Fook Seng]

Broad base parameters could only be drawn from bottom X%, middle Y% and top Z%. It cannot be from a singular point from the civil service pay scale.
Goh Meng Seng

Most people want to equate ministerial pay with the broad base salaries of all salary earners to put everybody in the same boat.

I have a different take on this. Basing on today's salary distribution is like endorsing the income inequality that is exhibited by the Gini index.

If you look at the Lorenz curve of the Gini index, the greatest departure from the straight line is right in the middle where the lower half of the population is earning a fraction of the share of the total income. First I must declare I am not a socialist who will aim for changing the Lorenz curve into a straight line. I don't think it is desirable. But if you wish to correct the inequality and change the shape of the line, you need to tug at the middle. As the middle income is the income enjoyed by a large number of people, those below and above it are closely linked. Changing this will move the entire salary structure. By tagging at all points, you are only keeping the status quo.

But I do agree with you that by benchmarking to a civil service point without linking it to the income at large is leaving the door open for abuse.

 

[zhihau]

Try this handphone number - 9009 9339.

bro,
空头字? strike this weekend already blanjah you makan.

 

[Perspective]

"after some prolonged discussion with a friend, I finally understand why WP come up with this complex proposal"

So the chap says he had been shooting around the shop before understanding or without understanding first.

I say I finally understand why I had such entertainment and my funnybone tickled over the last few days.

 

[aurvandil]

Got this interesting video link from Lucky's blog

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7W4DSQsw1mk?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


The link is interesting because it shows PM Lee making a speech. In the background, we see Tin Pei Ling and a lot of empty chairs.

Where are the PAP MPs?

In the past when the PM gave a speech, you would have almost full attendance in Parliament. MPs made it a point to attend as they did not want the PM to think poorly of them. This is especially on serious matters like a salary review debate which they know is highly charged and unpopular with Singaporeans.

What does it say about PM Lee's leadership that many of his MPs did not even bother to show up?

 

[CannonFairy]

Did CSM explain the basis of his "5x" the MP's allowance? Why 5x, not 8x or some other number? I might had miss the explanation, if any.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I know insects don't really have much brain but it still amuses me with full entertainment that what it is capable to clown around.

Understanding the intend of WP's proposal doesn't change the fact that its proposal is screwed up. They want to achieve something but ended up in a mess. It only means two things, they have communication problems and they have policy analysis problems. They made too many assumptions along the way which sound good to their closed minds but basically just ignore the overall bigger implications of their proposal. This is the more worrying part as it demonstrates that they lack the ability of looking at things at macro level, lacking a macro vision but just bury themselves in their narrow perspectives.

PAP is not totally wrong to say that WP has similar proposal because whatever reasoning WP applies, the results of their proposal will end up with almost identical results. i.e. the quantum of salary still end up million dollar, the rate of increase of their salaries will still be higher than normal Singaporeans on the street. They still agree with having bonuses for public service, though smaller in numbers.

WP's proposal may be 50% different from PAP but PAP has proven that WP's proposal is 50% the same as PAP.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[sleaguepunter]

I don't see the issue about numbers alone. I see it as about the ethos of public service, how standards have deteriorated despite high pay, how the whole PAP mentality is that only with high pay can you attract talents.

I don't mind paying a team well provided they are of outstanding character and able to deliver on performance. The current PAP slate has not achieved that.

i totally agree. As much as ppl now kpkb about how many millions ministers or president made, the main issue is the the result and performance achieve by the ministers. While there were some discontend from the extreme left of the population, ministers' pay were never an issue the past eRections. so why ppl so piss off now, it more due to underperforming and jialiaobee ppl still within the cabinet. And also covering everybody backside by the peem where in minister in question were found wanting. If pinky had got rid of WKS after MSL had escape instead of promoting WKS "upstair" after MSL recaptured, the ground reaction would not had been this bad. The same can be say of MBT and lemon lim, both were only replace after GE2011 and the worst part to swallow was that all were entitled to pension.

what WP is proposing may not endear them to the liberals but should struck an accord to the moderates. the money offer by the WP maybe just a bit less than what PAP wants but the method to arrive at the amount is total opposite from PAP methods. That in itself is a moral victory. The amount to pay is never an issue to majority of the singaporeans, it the performance of the govt that the main issue. Who would want to pay $10 for a lousy plate of fried carrot cake rite?

 

[Perspective]

People generally know insects have brains but those with smaller ones are the fatter ones, because there is not much space for it.

Everyone knows generally people understand the rationale for an idea or don't care about the rationale at all. No one shoots without knowing the rationale although it later reveals that it thinks the rationale is important enough to mention about "understanding" it. No one asked that it should change its mind after understanding the rationale.

 

[Forvendet]

Did CSM explain the basis of his "5x" the MP's allowance? Why 5x, not 8x or some other number? I might had miss the explanation, if any.

I didn't catch that part too. Why 5x? If CSM could come out with a formula like say, pegging to average non-ministerial MP income inclusive of income from private profession, then up a notch for ministers, that'd be better and more convincing.

 

[GoldenDragon]

bro,
空头字? strike this weekend already blanjah you makan.

Ok, thanks. Huat ah!

 

[scroobal]

No, he did not and nobody else could explain. Even those who are close to the party in this forum can't shed light. This was not done well and they are pretty much lost at sea. I am taking this incident as a positive as it will be a well learnt lesson for playing to close to nice.

Did CSM explain the basis of his "5x" the MP's allowance? Why 5x, not 8x or some other number? I might had miss the explanation, if any.

 

[Fook Seng]

No, he did not and nobody else could explain. Even those who are close to the party in this forum can't shed light. This was not done well and they are pretty much lost at sea. I am taking this incident as a positive as it will be a well learnt lesson for playing to close to nice.

Actually as what I have expected, they would not wish to make too much changes to overall package, specifically the absolute amount, just the principles would be the most they would attempt.

Adjusting salaries is a very complicated process with collateral damages and need a long time to minimize these, even if it is for correction of a mistake. That is why Govt's actions have deep and long term implications.

 

[Fook Seng]

I didn't catch that part too. Why 5x? If CSM could come out with a formula like say, pegging to average non-ministerial MP income inclusive of income from private profession, then up a notch for ministers, that'd be better and more convincing.

If you say x stands for part time job, 5x stands for full-time job, it is not too ridiculous a ratio. Certain things cannot be derived objectively. If you want to be objective and count the number of hours of work, you might end up not with a figure of 5 but more like 20. Just leave it.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroo

A Camel is a horse designed by a committee are the words which comes to mind. The individual performances have been superb, the delivery strong the coordination and research behind the scenes a dismal fucking failure.

The points are all there, whether they came at first or in response to the failure in research and back checking on basic facts. Its the organization and presentation of the facts which have failed.

I would have expected, at the least for Gerald to be aware of the difference between the civil service of the basic MX9 super scale and the Parallel Admin Superscale. And someone let slip in formulating the basic salary points in not realizing the similarities between the two.

It was designed by the MPs with NCMPs with little assistance and little checking the flawed result of a committee approach.


Locke


/U]

This part is going overboard. Its a journey and its not a zero sum gain. There is also no other credible opposition party in the wings. The coordination might have slipped. But the WP MPs reps are strong and they are well respected for being sincere with no exceptions.