• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

WP's statement on the Ministerial Salary Review Committee's report

willpower

Alfrescian
Loyal
WP's statement on the Ministerial Salary Review Committee's report

1. The recommendations of the Committee to Review Ministerial Salaries ("the Committee") are a step in the right direction towards grounding political leaders with a stronger sense of public service and mission. We hope that Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs) will see political office primarily as a noble undertaking which allows them to improve the lives of fellow Singaporeans, rather than as a career option to be weighed against high-earning individuals in the private sector.

2. The Workers' Party (WP) is of the view that the Committee's proposal to peg ministers' salaries to the 1,000 top income earners has created a flawed formula. These individuals make up just 0.06%(1) of the workforce and are unrepresentative of the general population. The incomes of these "super-rich" Singaporeans generally rise much faster than the rest of the population, potentially escalating the salaries of ministers in subsequent years.

3. The Committee's proposed formula also assumes that political talent is found only among the top 1,000 income earners. This reflects an elitist mindset that earning power is the primary indicator of one's ability.

4. Rather than an approach that assumes top earners are also top talent, WP recommends a whole-of-government, people-up approach to determining ministerial salaries.

5. WP has identified this approach in the way 12 developed economies determine their politicians' salaries. The economies are Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States. In most of these economies, a minister's salary is set at multiples of that of an MP, which is in turn set at the salary of a senior management grade in the civil service. This is the approach that Singapore should take, as political office is in the genre of public service.

6. WP proposes that MPs' allowances should be pegged to the salaries of divisional directors in the Civil Service (excluding the Administrative Service)(2). Civil service salaries are currently competitively benchmarked to general wage levels of Singaporeans. The salaries of ministers and the Prime Minister should be set at reasonable multiples of an MP's allowance.

7. WP is supportive of a variable component which takes into account both national objectives being achieved through a whole-of-government effort, as well as the individual performance of ministers. While the suggested National Bonus incorporates some indices, WP believes that the formula should reflect that some national goals are longer-term in nature, requiring an assessment over the term of a government, not annually; some bonus payments may need to be deferred. We also propose to do away with the Annual Variable Component as this is unnecessary, since there is already a National Bonus based on national economic outcomes. The sum of the total variable components should be capped at a reasonable number of months.

8. WP further believes that the procedure for any review or change of the salary structure for political office should be transparent and subject to Parliamentary approval.

9. WP's MPs will elaborate and expand upon the above proposals during the 16 January 2012 debate on the motion in Parliament to adopt the Committee's recommendations.

THE WORKERS' PARTY
6 January 2012



(1) 1,000 divided by the total Singaporean labour force of 1,712,600 (Singaporeans in the Workforce, October 2011).

(2) This refers to the MX9 (Superscale) grade, which draws a salary of about $10,000 per month.



Media contacts:

Mr Gerald Giam
Chair, WP Media Team
E-mail: [email protected]

Mr Pritam Singh
Vice-Chair, WP Media Team
Email: [email protected]
 

rusty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Is that See-saw lady from SMRT included in the top 1000 earners?
If so then this report is double flawed and it urgently requires further review.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Excellent and substantive reply. They should however cut down on the kowtowing approach which is evident in the opening paragraph. Their reply clearly shows that in essence the report was poor but yet made those opening complimentary comments. We need to be direct. The PAP does not sugarcoat its replies and comments to the opposition in parliament. Even PAP backbenchers like Irene Ng show little respect to the opposition. There is no need to behave like them but lets not behave as though we are 2nd class either. WP was elected by the people and should represent the people with a straighter back and a demeanour of a lion with pride rather than a shy slow loris.
 
Last edited:

rusty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
This is typically a chinese way of approach with courtesy. Given time and winning more seats will make them braver. Right now they are only a small fish in the ocean.
 
Last edited:

Cruxx

Alfrescian
Loyal
[video=youtube;AvqE_xAN1is]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvqE_xAN1is[/video]
 

Perspective

Alfrescian
Loyal
Despite my respect for JBJ I have always seen him as someone who cuts his nose to spite his face when things get heat, so I won't change my mind even if he claims that he has got into a lot more trouble that Chee.
 

Conqueror

Alfrescian
Loyal
One Happy Family

mlyn1064l.jpg



LTK and CST = fake opposition. :smile:


I wasn't impressed with them when they were ONE HAPPY FAMILY in the assembly hall in those years. The message was, "Don't rock the boat." So, occasional potshots are allowed but no bazookas or RPGs like SDP type are allowed.
 

Fook Seng

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
scroobal said:
Excellent and substantive reply. They should however cut down on the kowtowing approach which is evident in the opening paragraph. Their reply clearly shows that in essence the report was poor but yet made those opening complimentary comments. We need to be direct.

I think as a pragmatic response taking into consideration of the past, the present and the future, it was a fair response. WP evidently did not want to sour its future relationship with the PAP but at the same time succeeded in pointing out the weaknesses in the report. I always feel that arguing on substance rather than pure language will bring them greater political mileage. I was, however, a little disappointed that WP did not link moving the benchmark from top 1000 elites to something closer to the middle to developing the impetuous to correct the income inequality of our society as the people in power would, then, be on the same side as the common people.
 

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
It is interesting to note that WP has changed its position subtly from the past when LTK put up the simple proposal of pegging Ministerial pay to the bottom 20% income group. Now it is saying that this should be pegged to the civil service salary grades.... Hmmm...

Goh Meng Seng
 
Last edited:

Thick Face Black Heart

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Excellent and substantive reply. They should however cut down on the kowtowing approach which is evident in the opening paragraph. Their reply clearly shows that in essence the report was poor but yet made those opening complimentary comments. We need to be direct. The PAP does not sugarcoat its replies and comments to the opposition in parliament. Even PAP backbenchers like Irene Ng show little respect to the opposition. There is no need to behave like them but lets not behave as though we are 2nd class either. WP was elected by the people and should represent the people with a straighter back and a demeanour of a lion with pride rather than a shy slow loris.


What I like about WP's comment is that it goes straight to the point (in paragraph 2 onwards) and also offers a specific alternative solution which is far more rational than pegging to top private sector pay. All this talk about ethos of public service is nonsense if your wages are pegged to only the top private earners.
 

Ramseth

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Excellent and substantive reply. They should however cut down on the kowtowing approach which is evident in the opening paragraph. Their reply clearly shows that in essence the report was poor but yet made those opening complimentary comments. We need to be direct. The PAP does not sugarcoat its replies and comments to the opposition in parliament. Even PAP backbenchers like Irene Ng show little respect to the opposition. There is no need to behave like them but lets not behave as though we are 2nd class either. WP was elected by the people and should represent the people with a straighter back and a demeanour of a lion with pride rather than a shy slow loris.

Looking at your own posting, you're practising what you're criticizing. Didn't you too state what you agree on first before going on to what you disagree on? If you go direct at what you disagree on, you keep no grounds, you'd be assumed to be disagree on everything. What you couldn't disagree with would come back to haunt you and nail you. If you later agree with what you couldn't agree with, you'd be seen to be losing and surrendering.

This is typically a chinese way of approach with courtesy. Given time and winning more seats will make them braver. Right now they are only a small fish in the ocean.

先礼后兵。Classic Chinese wisdom. Also adopted into western practice, e.g. "Dear Honorable Member of the House, while I agree with such and such, most of the rest of what you said sounds no better than fart." Well, I'm exaggerating a bit to make and emphasize the point, but that's the point. It's PAP MPs who are so silver-spooned, sheltered, complacent and arrogant that they've forgotten that or never learnt that at all. It's PAP MPs who're committing gaffes after gaffes shooting rebuttals straight off their mouths without preamble or qualification, then later struggling with how to salvage the grounds misfired upon.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I agree. Its very powerful but the para 1 should not be there. When the opposition bench either in the Westminster or the American model criticise the comments are to the point will no sugarcoating or kowtowing. The intention is to allow more accurate criticism to take place without compromising their position as members of the opposition. They are there to checks and balances.

Chiam was well educated and being a trained lawyer he understood this principle well. Can you imagine in a court of law, the defence lawyer keeping complimenting the prosecution in every opening line.

I thought it was interesting that both Pritam and Giam know this very well and Giam blog is clearly evident of his approach.






What I like about WP's comment is that it goes straight to the point (in paragraph 2 onwards) and also offers a specific alternative solution which is far more rational than pegging to top private sector pay. All this talk about ethos of public service is nonsense if your wages are pegged to only the top private earners.
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
I saw that too but someone has unearthed the UK pay structure and realised that it is a more reasonable precedent and precedents by nature carry a lot of weight. It was a good shift. Also the committee was also already pegging the National component to some element of their original position. It better to a better counter model than squibble about something has already been touched albeit it smacks of tokenism.

I sense that WP new proposed model is huge step forward. They should bring this as a separate discussion and seek online polls to push this forward. At the moment it is buried too deep.


It is interesting to note that WP has changed its position subtly from the past when LTK put up the simple proposal of pegging Ministerial pay to the bottom 20% income group. Now it is saying that this should be pegged to the civil service salary grades.... Hmmm...

Goh Meng Seng
 

cleareyes

Alfrescian
Loyal
Excellent and substantive reply. They should however cut down on the kowtowing approach which is evident in the opening paragraph. Their reply clearly shows that in essence the report was poor but yet made those opening complimentary comments. We need to be direct. The PAP does not sugarcoat its replies and comments to the opposition in parliament. Even PAP backbenchers like Irene Ng show little respect to the opposition. There is no need to behave like them but lets not behave as though we are 2nd class either. WP was elected by the people and should represent the people with a straighter back and a demeanour of a lion with pride rather than a shy slow loris.

The time aint right to behave in such a manner.

and besides, why be arrogant like ur opponent? let them be the bad one by allowing them to look bad themselves. There is no need for WP to behave like PAP.
 
Top