the following is Workers’ Party MP Chen Show Mao’s speech in Parliament on Ministerial Salary Review:
Mr Speaker Sir,
The Workers’ Party view the committee’s report with a sense of hope because it is a step in the right direction. We agree with the three principles that political salaries should be competitive, that political service is a calling and has its own ethos, and that wages should be transparent.
Political service is a calling and not be treated as discount factor
However, the order by which the principles are applied has produced in our view a flawed new benchmark. Because competitive salary is placed as the first principle ahead of political service, the committee has pegged ministerial salary to the median salary of the 1000 top-earning Singaporeans and then applied a discount for political service.
If the new benchmark is accepted by the Government, it would continue to send the message, to potential political office holders and the people of Singapore alike, that top pay is the benchmark by which the importance of the office is to be judged, and that the value of political office can, in the final analysis, be monetized. It cannot be，Not even at the highest income levels. Political service is a calling; it is a privilege accorded by the electorate to serve the largest number of our fellow Singaporeans. It is primarily a privilege, not primarily a burden or sacrifice. The principle of political service should come first and not be treated as a discount factor.
Whole of Government, People-up approach
Because political service is in the genre of public service, we propose a whole-of-government, people-up approach that benchmarks Ministerial salary to MP allowance, which is in turn pegged to the pay of the civil service bench-marked to general wage levels. Because political service starts with our election as parliamentary representatives of the people, MP allowance should be the starting point. The Cabinet is the constitutional extension of Parliament and the institutional expression of the legislature’s control over the executive. It is not an extension of the private sector.
This whole-of-government, people-up approach is a pragmatic reality in many well-governed, developed countries and territories around the world.
Is Singapore unique? Of course. But it is not so dissimilar to others that we cannot learn from their best practices and how they apply good principles.
For example, the committee writes, “As is international practice in Westminster Parliamentary systems, the … political appointment holders will also receive MP allowances as they have the dual roles of being MPs”.
Parliament Sovereignty is paramount
We agree that the Ministers should receive their MP allowances. But that is because, Ministers are MPs first, they are not merely also MPs. We must remember that in our system of government, Ministers are first of all MPs elected by the people as their representatives. Not selected by the Prime Minister from the private sector into the Cabinet and then also MPs. Parliament is the highest authority in our system of government, and MPs, as elected representatives of the people, should be the starting point for the determination of ministerial salary. The committee’s benchmark to the private sector clouds this fact. Worker’s Party recommends pegging ministerial salary as multiples of MP allowance. This expresses the fact that ministers are first and foremost elected as MPs to serve and represent the people.
So in what multiples should Singapore peg ministerial salary to MP allowance? We propose that an entry-grade minister’s monthly salary be 5 times the MP allowance, and 9 times for the Prime Minister.
As DPM said, there are no right or wrong answers, and this is ultimately a judgment call. We propose multiples based on the increased responsibilities and additional capabilities and experience required of the different political offices in Singapore. We also believe that this is where the principles of competitive salary and transparency can come in, to take into consideration some of the factors cited by the committee as to why the system of Singapore may be different from those in other countries. In the words of DPM, we believe the pay should be sufficient to not deter potential political office holders with desire and ability, from serving in political office without undue concern for their standards of living.
Of course we would like to see capable men and women in the Cabinet. But I do not believe that our best people for political office are only those who make the most money. Many of our former and current Ministers did not come in from the private sector or the top earning professions, that is as we would expect. Many of them were public servants who heeded the call of political service by standing for elections.
Political service is in the nature of public service. We believe that MP allowance should be set with reference to the salary of senior executives in the regular civil service. This is consistent with the general practice in most of the countries and territories we surveyed.
The starting salary of entry-grade senior civil servants in the regular civil service — a director of MX9 grade in the Management Executive Scheme of the civil service (outside of the Administrative Service) is approximately $11,000 a month.
In our proposal, MP allowance would be about $11,000 per month, Ministerial salary would range from $55,000 per month for entry-grade ministers to $99,000 per month for the Prime Minister.
We support the clean wage proposal for transparency, in which compensation is fully accounted for with no hidden items. In addition to a fixed 13-month salary that is keyed to MP allowance, we propose that the ministers and the prime minister receive variable pay of different bonuses that add up to no more than five months in any year (compared to 13.5 months recommended by the committee). Many Singaporeans may take home up to 3 or 4 months of bonuses in a very good year, compared to 13.5 months for the ministers as recommended by the committee. In fact, if the maximum bonuses recommended by the committee were awarded, the reduction in entry-grade minister pay would be 8% and not the 31% calculated by the committee.
In our whole-of-government approach, since civil service salary is aligned to general market conditions faced by Singaporean workers, MP allowance and ministerial salary will move with the income levels of many more Singaporeans than with the total employment and trade income of the top-earning 1000, including their bonuses, commissions and stock options. The Workers’ Party’s benchmark will better help our leaders empathize with the majority of Singaporeans and not just the very few.
Inclusivity vs Exclusivity
The Workers’ Party’s proposed approach aims for enhanced inclusivity and sensitivity to the progress of Singaporeans, rather than discounted exclusivity pegged to top earners. We believe the committee has taken the right step forward with the three principles. It is up to the Government now to go further to apply the principles in the right order by recognizing political service as the first principle, anchored in the primacy of parliament. Let us place ministerial pay on a sound footing in order to ground political leadership in a strong sense of service to all Singaporeans.
Thank you. And now, if I may, in Chinese.
议长先生，
我们认可委员会提出的三大原则：一、政治职位薪金应该具有竞争力；二、从政应该有奉献的精神；三、薪酬应该完全透明。
但遗憾的是，这三大原则在奉行时的先后轻重，却使整套新的方程式出现了根本误区。把部长薪金与全国收入最高的1000人挂钩，然后为了反映政治服务的奉献精神再打个折，这个做法突显了委员会优先考虑的是高薪的原则，这只会进一步强化现有的错误观念，认定从政的价值到头来还是要以金钱来衡量。
我们当然希望有意愿从政的人不会因为薪水过低而裹足不前。但前提是，他立志从政该不是主要因为薪水高，而是因为他先把为国为民服务视为己任。这才是我们应当坚守的第一原则。
认清了从政的本质是公共服务，我们就应该采纳“整体政府”的方案，部长薪金应以议员津贴为基准，而议员津贴则与公务员薪水挂钩。毕竟，在我国的宪政体系下，内阁是国会的延伸，内阁从来不是私人企业界的延伸。
这么一种“整体政府”、由民间从下而上的方案，也在世界许多国家与地区推行。
当然, 新加坡的国情向来就是独一无二的。但再怎么特殊, 也不至于完全找不到其他体制值得我们学习的地方吧？
委员会的建议反映了一个政治盲点：我们的政治领袖可不是直接由私人企业界遴选出来担任部长，而后再兼任民选议员的。相反的，他先得当选为议员，才能受委进入内阁担任部长。因此，部长薪金不应当与私人企业界的薪金水平挂钩，而是应该以国会议员的津贴为基准。
认清这一点后，我们可以考虑第二及第三个原则了：议员津贴的多大倍数才足以确保部长薪金保有竞争力，而又透明化？工人党的建议是：部长薪金应介于议员津贴的五倍至九倍之间，以初级部长倍数最低，总理倍数最高。这个范畴比国际标准来得高，应该足以反映新加坡独特的国情。
委员会的建议所反映的另一个误区是，认定最优秀的从政人才该出自收入最高的1000人当中。我们现任与前任的部长当中，就有好多位并不是私人企业界或者高薪专业出身的。不少部长来自公共服务领域，更有些是先从议员做起，慢慢累积政治经验后再升任部
长。
整体来说，以收入水平论从政才能，反映的恰恰是我们的社会典型的精英主义的狭隘心态。
综上所述，我们建议采取“整体政府”方案，部长薪金是议员津贴的倍数，而议员津贴则等同于高级公务员的起薪， 大约每月11000元。而既然公务员的薪金也与新加坡其他员工一样取决于经济状况及市场条件，这个方案更能确保部长薪金不会与人民的薪金水平脱钩。与其由私人企业界收入最高的1000名精英由上而下再打折，我们认为较适当的做法是从民间由下而上，由公务员薪金为起点，制定议员津贴，最后再乘以倍数制定部长薪金。
我们支持实行透明化的裸薪制。但是委员会建议的花红数额显然过高了。报告书说部长将减薪31%，那是以平均7个月的花红来计算得出的结果。但是花红总数额最高可达13个半月，如果花红全领了，部长薪水基本上比检讨前只减少8%。
因此，工人党建议，在固定的十三个月年薪以外，部长与总理所获得的所有花红数额，应该设定顶限，总共不得超过五个月。这么一来，在景气好表现好的年度里，部长与总理，可领多至十八个月的薪水，而不是委员会所建议的26个半月。
工人党期许部长薪金制度能以更包容更贴近民生的方式来制定，而不是只局限在社会金字塔顶层的一小撮精英范畴内，而后再通过打折，努力地尝试贴近民生。委员会所制定的三大原则是值得肯定的，接下来就有待政府如何将这三大原则的先后轻重厘清，充分体现政治领导层为国为民服务的使命感和高尚本质。
谢谢。
–
from Workers’ Party website.
–
In short, WP is teaching the PAP to go back to basics, and to think through their constitutional role.
Sg has for far too long been run as Singapore Inc. This mentality is clearly so deeply ingrained in their psyche, that the PAP govt:
- benchmarks its salary against top earners in the pte sector;
- placed too much emphasis on the ‘opportunity cost’ when in public service;
- placed too much emphasis on economic growth, without an appropriate balance to reduce the gini coefficient;
- and seems out of touch with the concerns of the ordinary folk.
Mr Chen’s words makes a lot of sense. It carries weight especially coming from a person who had indeed made sacrifices by giving up higher paying career to be an MP.
The same cannot be said of others who received big pay rise by taking political offices.
@ Jo
I am talking about assessed “work value” of political roles. If am MP is already $15K per month, then the WP’s proposal of multiples of that for Minister is reasonable.
Your ideas of $50K per month is not extreme but my assessed work value has close resemblance to ministerial pay in other developed countries as well.
It is simply assessed “work value” as a theoretical construct as determined by competitive market forces AS OPPOSED TO BENCHMARKING BASED ON PRIVATE SECTOR TOP EARNERS which the PAP knows very well must ESCALATE FASTER for this select group given the impact of globalisation. My figure illustrate the insanity of comparison of current flawed even may I say a scam of a benchmark.
Take one step further, Obama will earn a lot more millions too. But if John McCain won the US last Presidential election, should then John McCain be paid on Obama’s tens of million dollar pay package as a private sector top legal eagle as a loser of the Presidential race?
And if PAP want to speak of sacrificial ethos, then anything between $25K per moth to $50K per month would be a reasonable pay and not moaning and bitching further. Not everyone in cabinet earns more than $25K PER MONTH before he or she becomes a Minister.
Basically the outcome of what WP propose is the same? so are they for or against the 1m salary for Minister and 2m salary for PM? whats your stand? it’s easier to come up with an alternative proposal you have the final figure to work on
@ Jo
Benchmarking on a statistical extremity of flawed knowing bias of a FASTER, maybe hyperbolic escalation of top private sector earnings driven by globalisation impact has two serious implications
- Ministerial pay will have no relevance to talent and performance i.e. it is simply chasing the stratopheric rise in pay escalation regardless
- it will go back to the insanity of Ministerial pay hyped and hike-up the Mt Everest steep slope to more than compensate for the current hypocritical cut in a few years and then rocket nearly vertically upwards again with no resemblance to competitive market forces in the example of my assessed work value. That can only encourage those motivated by money craze to join – forget again the hypocritical pleading of sacrificial ethos bullshit we been hearing.
IT IS BACK TO SQUARE ONE AND WORSE THEREON in a few years. So why bother with these pretensions. Just state point blank – WE ARE HERE FOR THE MONEY!
At least voters can appreciate the candid honesty and then decide on whether to vote for them purely on performance.
@ Jo
IF YOU DON’T CHANGE THE FORMULA AS DICTATED BY THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FORCED ON GERALD EE’S COMMITTEE, you cannot change the ill effects of adverse outcome that the Ministerial Salaries Review Committee was supposed to address the mythical “change”.
Is this not true?
@Hmm 16 Jan 2012
Interesting you mentioned about building personal wealth.
The PAP Government has been pegging the civil service pay with the private sector for quite some time to better compete for talent so it cannot be said that being in the civil sector equates to lower salary. Also if you have watched Jack Neo’s 2007 Movie Just Follow Law it is a satire of the civil service. Granted it is painting broad strokes, however it would be similar to say that folks in the private sector are just in for the money.
However this is going off-topic. Ministers are political appointments. If monetary rewards are overtly emphasized, a country is gonna be run like a profit & lost company.
And that is EXACTLY how things are heading towards if not already so in Singapore.
@oxygen
i knew u would be reasonable. how the fellas wanna benchmark is not so important now. we can all agree that 50k a mth is in ur words, “not extreme” so i think we can move on.
now what i don’t like about your view is that u are being kiam, just like the pap. they always scared ppl take advantage or abuse the benefits so they control damn tight. because maybe one fella abuse the policy, in the end totally scrape it.
so similarly, there will be some ministers who don’t make 25k a mth but there are ministers who make 200k a mth. if some ministers get a promotion, nothing wrong, we want to be fair to those who were earning much more.
or let me put it this way. csm deserve 50k but gerald giam much much less. but u dun because of gerald giam go and pay csm the lowest possible right? give a bit more, never mind.
50k is an acceptable figure. if some ppl feel it is still on the high side, so be it. i don’t think we are looking for the cheapest possible. as long as about there, i think it’s ok.
@Jo
It is not just $55K for MR4. It is 18 months max total salary (WP Proposal) and not 26.5 months max total salary (Gerard Ee’s proposal). This is a HUGE difference!!!
@observation
you cited the max without citing the minimum.
@ Jo
Contrary to what you said, I am NOT so “kiam” but ‘REASONABLE” AND YOU KNEW I AM CAPABLE OF BEING REASONABLE.
The benchmarking is flawed, even a scam in my thought. How the benchmarking is done NOW is material of adverse consequences as I have illustrated in my postings above – contrary to what you stated.
THAT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED AND DETRIMENTAL OF CONSEQUENCES – the Pavlov’s dogs classical conditioning remains entrenched in political mindset, not the public service and ethos of sacrifice so eloquently and hypocritically preached in parliamentary politicking we saw.
Many voters would find the “magic show” repulsive as I did too.
Disappointed with Workers Party’s proposal.
1st of all unlike other political parties WP have not come up with any sort of ministerial salary proposal before and then came up with some fictitious figures based on bench marking TOP CIVIL SERVANT’S SALARY.
BASICALLY WORKER’S PARTY’S PROPOSAL IS A SOFTER VERSION OF REVIEW COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATION AND WAY OF LEGITIMIZING THE MINISTERIAL SALARY.
MPs/Ministers salary need to be pegged something with common people either median wage or minimum wage whatever but by no means this bolt from the blue fictitious figures.
@oxygen
i know where you’re coming from. but my point is that if wp’s formula turn out that we pay minister 80k a month, would you accept, even if you find it morally correct? i’m not so sure. and the wp number could easily have gone up. they set the multiple at 5 for mp. if they set it at 6, bust already.
so how they go calculate is important but at the end of the day, the number is more important.
Check out Straits Times 17th Jan 2012 front page. There is a table breaking down the composition of the top 1000 Singaporean earners. Key point, 38% of these folks come from the finance sector.
For the last few years including the financial crisis years of 2008 till date have been paying top dollar to retain or extract talent. Now they are looking at a looming pay cut. Are the ministerial pay heading that way as well?
Last but not least, the PAP Government has been pumping up the ministerial pay for the last 10 years with the purpose of better attract talent from the private sector to join them. They have failed. And high pay is still touted to be the means of attracting talent.
Taking the same action over and over again is a definition of insanity. Are the PAP MPs nuts? It sure is expensive peanuts!
Chan Chun Sing
from Wiki
Chan was educated at Raffles Institution (1982-85) and Raffles Junior College (1986-87).
In 1988, Chan was awarded a President’s Scholarship and Singapore Armed Forces Overseas Scholarship to study in the United Kingdom at Cambridge University, where he completed a degree in Economics at Christ’s College.
In 2005, Chan completed the Sloan Fellows programme at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) under a Lee Kuan Yew Scholarship.[9][10]
How can someone this educated, speak so badly in public and come out with a ridiculous chye tow kuey analogy that makes no sense? He may be uncontested in the army because of his rank. But in the public eye, gosh, please … there is no shield and there is no unquestionable credibility. No Yes Sir nonsense as a Minister nor MP.
PAP – how can you have someone like this and not snag someone like Chen Shao Mao? And why TPL?
We are now in the Age of Unreason. There is only the mad scramble for money. Anything goes. Nonsense is taken for golden sense if it comes out of mouths perfumed by the odor of power. The whole thing is too tough for us to handle. Take, take what you want of the golden goose. We are tired and afraid of worse to come from your arsenal of Law and Order.
Money may be one small factor for Singaporeans to step forward into Politics.
The real culprit is the Fear of Law & Court Orders in Singapore.
Error…
Money may be just one small Deterent factor for Singaporeans to step forward….
Ah mi ta ba Buddha aa
Why so greedy?
Cos to bribe the officials for minimum and maximum loyalty to the chief of bandits. Understand?
I did say that the WP proposal for Ministers’ salaries has internal consistency because it is based on an internal criteria ie an MP’s Pay and also does not upset the hierarchy of the salary schemes prevalent throughout the civil service and as such is easy to implement. But applying the recommended multiplier of 5 to the recommended MP’s pay brings the ministers’ salaries to more than the PAP proposal for its ministers! If I got this right , then I think that the WP is going to be just as much a bloodsucker as the PAP.
When the PM says that ‘it is not only the money’ he is actually consumed by the money. That is why he and his cohorts will not take the standard international pay for the work they do. The famous LKY knuckleduster is the final arbiter of the salary wars.
There is absolutely no place to plead that Singapore is exceptional in any way from other developed countries unless Singapore lies in a different planet. Red dot or not, the same equations of gravity, quantum mechanics and economics apply to it.
Hence the Singapore ministers should not get more than the world standard. By right the Singapore ministers should get only half of what officeholders get in the foremost developed countries of UK and US. No argument about exceptional capability and circumstances of Singapore Ministers can work around the fundamental facts of living in the same world. Therefore the same rules apply. Therefore millions in salaries to ministers is simply greed gone wild because the knuckledusters stand everywhere in this oppressive state.
xmwk.zgfj.cn/e/action/ListInfo/?classid=351
Great and profound rarely come by theory, all leaders and mps should be aware to be best leaders
Great venerable master ci hang
@Quek
Yes, I agree that there still stands a risk that in the future, our ministers might be made up of people who are in the job just for the money, thus the possibility that citizens’ welfare will be compromised. However I believe that top talent is still necessary and having high ministerial pay to reduce the hindrance of attracting talent from high-paying sectors like finance is one way to go. Of course it is the best if there are really talented people who are willing to serve in the government for lower pay, but if I have to choose between a highly-paid talented person or a lower-paid less talented yet passionate person to work for Singapore in the government, I will probably still pick the former.
@ Jo.
YOU ARE SKIRTING THE REAL ISSUE if you still insist you know where I am coming from (in all my posts) as indicated below
of your words in response
“i know where you’re coming from. but my point is that if wp’s formula turn out that we pay minister 80k a month, would you accept, even if you find it morally correct? i’m not so sure. and the wp number could easily have gone up. they set the multiple at 5 for mp. if they set it at 6, bust already.”
For a start, there is an “assessed work value” of my computation. Second there is a global benchmark from develop countries close to my assessed work value calculation and it is unlikely that the multiples you implied of WP’s proposal to reach 5X or 6X of MP’s salary UNLESS THERE ARE COMPELLING GROUNDS IS ESTABLISHED. For the two reasons just enumerated, it is very hard to find those compelling grounds.
Benchmarking to top private sector earnings is a scam advantaging without justifiable grounds on pure STATISTICAL ANOMALY OF DEFINITE EXTREMITY. Given globalisation impact, that extremity will escalate rapidly and scale up maybe exponentially at a faster and faster rate on its way up.
The end result is the BENCHMARKING SCAM WILL SIMPLY SCALE UP MINISTERIAL EARNINGS WITHOUT MINISTERIAL EFFORT EXERTION OF PERFORMANCE – regardless. The benchmarking formula virtually guarantee that! And the multiples thereafter a few years later? Maybe 10 times the WP’s formulation.
BOTTOMLINE, YOU CAN’T CHANGE THE ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES WITHOUT CHANGING THE SCAM FORMULA AS I SAID EARLIER.
No point beating around the bush of deception in your comments. It is an OBVIOUS DISTRACTION from the truths, Jo please!
@Shocked
Thks for sharing the info here. I am indeed shocked by CCS educational background as it just does not correlate to his nonsensical and non-stylish speeches. How about Lim Swee Say?
@oxygen
no, i’m not. the real issue for me is ‘what is a fair salary for a minister?’ and to me, 50k a mth is a fair salary. frankly, i think it is an embarrassment for the country if we pay our ministers any less than that. we want people to step forward to serve us but we want to pay them cheap. come on.
let me clarify about wp’s formula. they set 5x of an mp’s salary for ministers and 9x for a pm. if they had put the figure at 6x and 10x, their formula would have made the ministers salary go up. so if it was 6x, it would have been 66k a month for minister. why did they use 5x instead of 6x? your guess is as good as mine.
you then talk about ‘scaling up’. but pay should move with the times, including the ministers. if let’s say in 3 years times, the benchmark moves to be 60k a month. well, so be it. there’s nothing really wrong. the principle is still the same – which is that we want to pay our ministers a competitive salary, and in line with market rates.
i do not agree that because the middle-income salaries do not go up, the ministers salary cannot go up. ppl in the middle income are well, average. it is mostly their own fault they don’t get anywhere in life. for eg. they don’t get promoted. why? coz they aren’t very good in their job. so to peg ministers salary to these bunch or low-income makes no sense. what the government can do is to make sure there are opportunities for this group to upgrade themselves.
we can also judge if the government is doing well by looking at how they take case of the disadvantaged, in terms of policies. but we cannot peg the salaries to the low-income.
@oxygen
so the ‘truth’ for me is that most of the cabinet will have a base of $46, 750 per mth. lhl has clarified that only him, his 2 dpm and 1 other minister are not on mr4. his 2 dpm on mr2 is very fair, coz they helm 2 ministries.
this is as good as it can get. and if people are still not satisfied with the present ranges, they really need to ask themselves why they wanna pay our leaders so low.
If I am LHL I will accept WP’s proposal and it will straightaway defused this ministerial pay issue politically. After all the differences are like splitting hair to such high income earners who really want to serve the country. Moreover, he will gain huge political mileage as a PM who will listen to alternative views.
@ Jo
IS THIS THE LAST FRONTIER AND LAST WORD ON ‘EMBARASSMENT” OF YOUR WORDS – the very last bunker of “slippery slope” defence of humongous ministerial pay?
“Weighing in on the debate of ministerial pay, Lee affirmed the need to peg ministerial pay to private sectors in Singapore to attract the “most promising ones” as he acknowledged that the transition from private sector to politics is not easy and comes with little assurance’
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pm-on-pay-debate–can-we-afford-to-risk-the-future-of-s%e2%80%99pore-.html
The benchmark flaw is NOT longer defended in this instance but simply the SEEMINGLY IRRESISTIBLE “urged on” demand for Pavlovian pay stimulation AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING THAT PAY RELEVANCE TO TALENT ATTRACTION AND RETENTION IS DUD OF A HOAX?
Why don’t YOU and those interested parties regardless of political flavour just come out and say EXPLICITLY, I want this pay for political roles instead of, perhaps, tinkling with the TERMS OF REFERENCE – regardless and let voters decide in 2016 whether it is fair and equitable – merit or without merit of justification.
BENCHMARKING ACROSS THE BOARD IS FLAWED -A SELF-PERPETUATING MECHANISM OF PAY ESCALATION, PERIOD. There are good ones but the rotten apples hidden beneath gets in as well. The 2011 election shows up lesser than tasty apples to voters’ palate. You can’t deny this, Jo.
Please don’t hypocritically pretend that you are concern that Ministerial pay might some day escalate 6X of MP’s salary of WP’s formulation – it is patently obvious of your self-contradiction in asserting that a lower ministerial pay “embarassed” you in your last two posts.
Your contradiction prove your true embarassment of confronting the truth of your shifting premises (on flawed benchmarking) and falsity of arguments you presented.
YOU ARE SIMPLY AND CUNNINGLY URGING HUMONGOUS PAY FOR MINISTERIAL POSITION, PERIOD.
Need I say any more?
MP Chen’s speech says it all. Sufficient to put miw to shame! Miw are nothing but a bunch of self-serving greedy monkeys!
@oxygen
you don’t understand my points lah. what pavlov dog are you niaming about?
“There are good ones but the rotten apples hidden beneath gets in as well. The 2011 election shows up lesser than tasty apples to voters’ palate. You can’t deny this, Jo.’
i already say this is bopian what. wp is even worse. but what to do? you want csm, you gotta take mohd fusal, gerald giam kind also. den how? pay mohd fusal kind of salary to csm, is it?
i’m not looking at the benchmark because whether you use WP or PAP formula, the result IS THE SAME. kong lai kong ki, it’s THE SAME – 50k a month. brother, you get it or not? as to whether the thing will escalate or not, don’t jump the gun lah. when it happen then review again loh. got another review in 5 yrs, don’t so kanchiong first. see what happen first.
it is an embarrassment to pay our country’s leaders less than 50k a month when contractor can earn 30k a month. what’s wrong with this view? don’t make me lao kui lah.
it’s like this. you are now the boss of singapore. your hr policy is “come work for me but i will only pay you 1/2 of what you can earn outside. you don’t want, i get csj.”
for me, i will tell the person, “come work for singapore, we will give you a competitive salary.”
this is our ideological difference. which country do you think will prosper?
i would seriously hate to work for u. wah lau, serve the public must take massive pay cut.and then peg my bonus to middle-income like it’s my fault the fella don’t want to study harder in school. die lah.
@ Jo
Just read the full and frank comments of readers of this yahoo weblink and decide if your spin around to WP/CSJ makes sense to YOU.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pm-on-pay-debate–can-we-afford-to-risk-the-future-of-s%e2%80%99pore-.html
You really don’t need to weave a cobweb of deceitful spins around WP’s MPs or csj on this topic – they are not relevant to this thread. THIS DIVERSION IS ALL YOUR BUNKER MENTALITY OF REFUGE FROM HARD TRUTHS.
If I were to ask you this question – Where did your beautiful cobweb begin? I am sure your most likely answer would be ‘I DON’T KNOW”
now PAP is going the same way as HDB, public housing with its rules (buyers are leasees) but private housing in price.
then there is the discount factor added for good measure to smoke everyone.
i mean “subsidy”…
While reading all these comments I am seized with a sense of pride and marvel at the resilience that a population cowed by 50 years of insolence in the form of the police and the rule of Law, has not lost its Will To Live. The indigenous Singaporean, the one whose ancestors braved the seas, wars, ethnic strife, colonial oppression has not become extinct yet.
Yes, we the inhabitants of this speck of land, left over from the debris of the edge of the peninsular Malaysia shall still make it as a nation, albeit vastly changed. We have to survive this crisis of Government plunder and phantasmagoric arguments.
It would be an uphill task for we battle with an elite well versed in the art of dissimulation and thuggery in the knuckleduster culture of LKY.
@Hmm 18th Jan
Guess we will have to agree to disagree. :-) Top talent is definitely desirable given the current complexity of governance. However I would put more on the person that is passionate but less talented, pay being equal.
@Jo
Why are you so dishonest in your discussion. You claim that WP and the Committee proposal are about the same which is pure nonsense. WP proposed that the max number of bonuses be capped at 5 months whereas the Committee proposal cap for max number of bonuses be capped at 13.5 months.
With the committee proposal (max bonuses at 13.5 months), LHL has the luxury to give out a much larger amount of salary to his ministers than what everyone may expect!!!MR4 will end up getting $1.45M which about the same as the previous salary. Hence, to compare the WP proposal, the cap on max number of bonuses MUST BE INCLUDED TO MAKE ANY SENSE.
With the income gap growing, pegging the pay to top 1000 will see the ministers pay sky rocketing again.
This is differnent from pegging the pay indirectly to the general public.
The different pay formula may yield same monthly pay now, but will differ very much in years to come.
Many are called but few are chosen. PAP are trying to pay Millions of dollars to entice Apprentices. They are trying to fix the contest to get their people into the Top Positions of the Land. They are the Elite Club.
My fellow citizens, do you realise that you are tricked by WP. After years of big fuss about high ministerial salaries by their cadres, CSM of WP comes out with equally million dollar payout in Parliament.
The more things change, the more they are the same.
son of s,
after years of discontent with the million dollar salaries, PAP (majority) still said money is not the reason they joined politics. but they still went along with a formula to pay themselves out of this world salaries.
the eagerness to disagree with the proposals presented by ALTernative parties. they made themselves appear impartial. impartiality certainly is not a leadership quality. because problems be they local, regional or global do not discriminate. this is why problems that were more manageable some years back are now grabbing the MSM headlines, they snowballed & gathered steam to its current magnitude.
singapore ACTRESS HOT ASS HIDDEN CAM RECORD BOLD SEXY CLIP
http://goo.gl/yyEXI
I read somewhere in TR that CSM is stepping down because of a disagreement with LTK concerning YSL’s case?
I hope that CSM does step down. I am still in shock that he could exhibit his calculation of the Ministerial salaries in the same order of magnitude of millions per annum as that given by the Review Committee. In doing so he has reversed the longstanding view of the WP such as has been articulated by Sylvia Lim that the Ministerial salaries are unconscionable having no comparison with world standards and incongruous when compared with the median income of Singaporeans. Then came the CSM bobshell which went directly against this longstanding view of the WP
In doing so, CSM has legitimised the inordinate salaries. of Ministers. Because the salaries has been duly debated in parliament and even agreed by the opposition. Henceforth the PAP will look you askance if you talk about their astounding rip off which is the Ministerial salaries. CSM did the citzenry a great disservice. He is said to be a man of intergrity and caliber, which on hindsight may be just opportunistic behaviour.