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.
–
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
There are talents in Singapore but these are buried because of the definition and philosophy of PAP which is no longer in line with the present environment:
1) PAP believes that the “talents” needed to serve Singaporeans (MPs or Ministers) are those with good academic track records, have a successful career or business, latter means also those earning a lot of monies as money is taken as leading indicator of success. That is I suppose why high pay or pegging ministers to top 50 or 1000 privae sector is used as a benchmark and so important.
Singaporean need to ask, do we necessarily subscribe to such narrow definition of “talent” or qualification set by the PAP. I do not because these so called talents may have the skills but do they have a heart to serve the people and serving the people must be at the center of those seeking public office. If anyone does not see serving the people as a privilege and responsibility, but instead see it as a sacrifice, then he should not be in public office.
2) PAP wants to recruit “talents” at the peak of their earning power meaning between 30 -45 years of age. With people not able to withdraw their CPF at 55 and instead asked to work longer because of longer life expectancies, this recruitment policy is contrary to HR trends and also limits the pool of so called avaialble talents. If LKY is still being paid a full ministers pay at 80+ why can’t someone at age 50+ be recruited into the ministerial ranks. In fact at that late age (>45), the “successful” talents would have demonstrated their worth, earned their retirement nest egg and will be more then happy to serve for the prestige of a public office that even the richest man in the land cannot avail to. I wonder if the reluctance to recruit this group of talent may have to do with the fact that they may not be as easy to command as they will have a mind of their own and not so easily pushed around because they are not worried about losing the job since monies is not their reason for serving?
Free and open our mind and our society and we will see many creative, passionate and sacrificial people who are willing to serve but not within the ranks of so called talents as defined by PAP. Singapore belongs to Singaporeans. Perhaps it is about time that we need a government that is more in tune with the aspirations of the people and whose policies are for the people.
Devagi
If you are able to serve Singaporeans in any capacity, please step forward and be counted.
……….
you meant can bypass leekingyou GRC mey?
who you think you are? ahTIN perhaps
Chen Sao Mao nailed it:- “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”
I would like to elaborate a little, many ministers are not full time, they are part timers. With this alone, there is no transparency to disclose how much they are getting via multiple directorships.
Thank you TOC for putting up everything in both languages in full and the vid. Our beloved MSM is already pulling down even the diluted article on CSM and the vid on their site now…
it is most heartening to see that we still have sgporeans like DR CHEN SHOW MAO from amongst all the self-serving elites in our midst.
COMMON SGPOREANS elect the sgporeans they think canhlep them to have a betetr life.
they put their trusts and lives in the hnads of the 80 odd sgporeans they voted inot parliament.
IT IS A MORAL FAILURE of the highets degree to betray this trust.
what has the govt done for the people who voted them inot parliament except to dsetroy their livelihoods and dash their hopes?
it is a shame that our gahMEN can simply ignore the cries of the masses in favour of some DGP numbers that only benefit themselves and the other rich and powerful her ein SG.
instead of conscientiously thinking out ways to ‘CREATE JOBS’ for SGPOREANS,THE GAHmen spare no effort in replacing them at workplaces all over SG from the swankiest Orchard road retail stores to high-finance RAFFLES PLACE and across to factories in JURONG and even in heartlands.
this govt has failed miserably in its duties and ought to be ashamed of itself instead of haggling over their paychecks still?
it is sad we decry lack of talents here but think nothing of dispensing our SG TLANETS everyhwere in SG AND BAR GOOD sg talents from serving us in PUBLIC OFFICE.
bUT NOT ALL HOPE IS LOST FOR WE HAVE SGPOREAN SONS like DR CHEN who bravely come forward to serve us despite having to give up a lucrative career.
thnaks dr chen for your sacrifice;if only the MIWs truly understand what DR GOH KENG SWEE was trying to say: PUBLIC SERVICE IS A CALLING,A VOCATION.
@A danger of pegging to top 1000 earners. The top 1000 earners are substantially in Government Linked Companies whose CEOs are related and connected to the PAP cadre. What is to stop the escalation of the salaries of CEOs in these
companies so that the ministers’ salaries also go up in tandem according to formula ?
If such a thing occurs, which is likely considering the greed factor of these PAP ministers, we should suck our toes in regret.
CSM. Impress. Though proposal by opposition is not without flaws, it definitely resonates with many people. I certainly hope 2016 we can cleanse the current government. Hope CSM can bring in more like minded people.
Talking about body language, GCT needs a slap.
YES!!! You go, Chen Show Mao!
I am very impressed with Chen Show Mao. He doesn’t really give any stirring or emotional speech. But his ideas show that he has a wonderful head. Most important he is in politics with his heart, not to fill his pockets. CSM is god-sent to Singapore to save the people here.
I will die defending Singapore for him as much as I was willing to die for Lee Kuan Yew in my younger days.
This guy is really good with words.
Actually WP has a multi-talented team. LTK and Pritam are good at rallying the crowd. Sylvia and CSM are awesome at debating and beating the PAP at their own games. Giam, Yee, Yaw, and Faisal are down-to-earth and connects well with ordinary Singaporeans.
Bravo Chen Show Mao!
I never thought about the discount thing until he pointed it out. Thanks!
Indeed, public servants like pap have evolved with a private servant mentality.
They must go for REFORM, re-education and attend national education and national service.
The reason is if sg unable to attract ultruistic servants, then there is no ultruistic servants.
History has proven people like goh keng swee can ultruistically serve without unimaginable wealth. The best brains need not be the best paid.
The smartest in the world Need Not be best paid.
To equate best talent with highest pay is not only childish and simple minded, its also an insult to humanity.
Humans do not all go for money.
Goh keng swee lived a good comfortable and privileged life he have not complained money no enuf.
To equate top salary with talent is to equate greed with talent. To equate private sector highest pay is to equate greed with talent.
The PRIVILEGE OF BEING AN MP alone is PRICELESS.
In fact there is no need for salary for being an mp who by law can accept as many directorships as humanly possible where human is benchmarked against ygk.
If i am an mp , i can be a millionaire with zero mp pay. The pricelessness of being an mp makes 15k negligible.
The smartest could be academics or scientists or researchers who do not greed for extreme wealth but still live in bungalows and contented with life.
You aim for high pay is ok. But if you aim for highest pays, then that is greed.
We need true leaders of the people who serve ultruistically and have reached the level of SELF ACTUALISATION and not beings still stuck at the level of NEEDS.
There is clearly a MORAL DECADE IN THE LAST DECADE.
Please backdate the pay cut to 12 years ago coincident with nathan.
Mr Chen, you most certainly did all Singaporeans proud when you presented your speech in Parliament on Monday, 16th January 2012. This was an epic event for every Singaporean voter.
I join many others to wish you, your WP colleagues in Parliament MORE SUCCESS !
You compared the perks of other countries.
Do you consider how much ygk have earned with his numerous directorships he has held ?
Is this not a Perk for mp ?
Is this not Privilege money cannot buy?
yours
Neh Ah Ah
They put fear in us, we put shall SHAME in them
@I am Singaporean
“A diploma graduate earns $1,850. But serving NS only earns $460. That’s about 75% pay scrifice, more than the proposed ministerial pay discount. Why?”
That is right, with this kind of “sacrifice” talk, it is a slippery road down. Next we will see charity volunteers taking the same tack.
This justification on minister salary is hollow and dangerous and if all Singaporeans take that justification, we are doomed.
chen sm lived and worked outside SSpore from age 20 years old to 50 years old and he has already made his millions. of course, he can now says money is not important to him anymore.
CSM totally outshine everybody in the debate on 16th Jan with his poise delivery, logical analysis and persuasiveness. TCH was outclassed by a new oppo MP, I am afraid. His speech in mandarin could only be possibly made by him and nobody else in parliament.not even PAP so called bilingual Sim Ann can come close.
PAP ministers are supposed to be top earners that why they insisted ministerial salary be pegged tp top 500th income. They should have made millions too and monetary concerns for these people should be secondary. If they are not, then why insist that they be paid top dollars nice they join politics. Isn’t this an irony?
@Sg News
You are definitely putting words into his mouth. Did Mr Chen ever say money is not important to him,
or anyone?
On the contrary, the very fact that this very emotive issue is raised, publicly as well as in the
hearts of every thinking person, shows the importance of money in the consideration.
It is the unfairness or perceived wrong which is the core of the whole issue.
is there not an original chinese version debate video available?
it’s really disgusting to find that csm’s chinese speech was unnecessarily dubbed in english when he had already spoken in english. who did that silly dubbing? the chinese ed older folks won’t get the chance to listen to him. or was it intentionally done by the miw?
i’ve given up on the papies!
We hope that Chen S M sets an exemplary standard for potential politicians – the primary purpose is to serve the wider public and to recognise that getting voted into Parliament is a privilege and not a sacrifice as PAP is telling us.
More Chen S M should stand up to be counted and join the opposition and hopefully come GE 2016 a new govt with new ethos for political service can emerge.
@sal
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/parliament/video_archive.php
Nice speech, totally unrealistic.
i like the guy but this was not his best speech. the fact that the wp and opposition struggle to find quality candidates pretty much shoots down his idealism. there was also no rationale for multiples from an MPs pay which was quite stupid. you can’t just anyhow put a figure of 5 and 9. at least the review committee had a rationale, whether you agree with it or not.
Top lawyer MP Mr Alvin Yeo said there was considerable excitement when Mr Chen Show Mao threw himself in the political ring because of his sterling qualification and position,,he forgot to mention the other factor,Mr Chen Show Mao spirit for selfless public service was too obvious with his background and this sacrifice.
For the PAP high flyers this factor has never appeared and may even be negative such as illustrated by MP Grace Fu.
@Rationale
Reality will soon catch up with them in the next elections.
Mr Chen speaks from his heart and he is the voices of the citizens. PM and his gang lack common sense. Just because they have to justify for their obscene pay they always need to use external parties, form committees whenever issues arises. All these complicated formula, policies and solutions – waste time of time ! For goodness sake – use common sense ! What talent ? Don’t even have common sense – forget about talent lah! After decades of high pay – have they attracted any real ‘talent’ ? NO. Only army personals, admin service folks.. What talent ? All your average Jo only ! Stop lying and try to fool us. GREED is the key factor. What an irony – need obscene pay to keep them from being corrupt ! Clean wage ? Really ? More to legalise corruption. ‘Officially’ pay themselves so much money and bonus. Transparent ? What is PM KPI for his ministers ? He can pay whatever he wants as their bonus for all these years and we never know !
@jo
WP proposal is calculated not to rock the boat but rejig the fundamentals to make it more platable for singaporeans. Also by capping max salary at 18 months instead of the 26.5 months, it is seeking to safeguard the ministers from being excessively paid without the public being even aware of.
WP proposal is not parsimonious either (MR4 is at $55K X 18 = $990K), so it should be sufficiently competitive.
Overall, a very well thought plan.
Look at the debate that is put up by the PAP, in order to continue with their high income, they can justify with all kinds of reason.
No country is the same, so there is no need to compare singapore to japan just like you cannot compare japan to norway or norway to hong kong. But none of the income of the political leaders in those countries is as out of this world as PAP. Even entry minister has a higher pay than Obama, does that mean entry minister is more talented?
This is what happens when 1 party is so dominant, they can do whatever they want.
@simon
csm joined politics after he left spore for decades to pursue his own career. csm illustrates the point that it is hard to get ppl like him just before or at the peak of their career. in a sense, this is csm’s retirement job. the issue is how to get a csm into government and not lose him to the private sector when he is at his peak or at the point of choosing his career path.
@observation
as i said, you cannot anyohow arrive at a multiple of 5 and 9. i can’t even begin to discuss it because wp did not offer a rationale for that figure.
the review committee at least offers a ‘why’ for discussion. to me pegging it to the top 1000 is in itself a very fair idea. the problem is that the ministers we get were not in spore’s top 10000. so the intention is good but the execution is poor.
@Jo
I understand that WP arrive at that multiple after studying a total of 12 developed countries and also considering singapore unique environment. It is not something they just pluck out from their heads but they admit that it is something subjective as TCH admitted too.
What is important is the principles behind the proposal, It make the peg non-elitist and more in tune with singaporean experiences (singaporeans generally do not get 13.5 month bonuses as allowed in the review proposal, WP attempts to cap it at 5 months).
It is a good out-of-the-box attempt to look at the ministerial pay issue without being unduly emotional.
The ministerial salary should not be made the scapegoat. We should not begrudge ministerial salary and be envious of it.
CSM’s conciliatory conclusion said it all.
“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.”
Let a good debate transpire in parliament. And hopefully with greater wisdom prevailing, there can evolve a clear direction – one of best balance and with purposeful setting which will eventually serve the needs of the nation.
With this high salary, the people will be expecting similarly high performance and output from all our MPs and ministers. We do not accept any slack or under-performance from any of them. We want our problems to be addressed and be done in double quick time. We demand creative and out of the box solutions to these problems. And every segment of our society shall be included and none shall be left behind.
We do not accept half-bake solution which is not reflective of such highly paid persons. We demand for accountability from each one of you in parliament. We expect the ministers who helm their portfolios to individually take direct and personal responsibility for their ministries undoing. We definitely do not accept lame excuses.
Now the debate is on the ministerial salary that needs to be set on a positive footing. And following this, we will debate and discuss, and bring forth to public knowledge, the performance of each and every individual who was elected to represent us in parliament. We will applause them when such applause is due. We will also criticise them to show our utmost displeasure when things are not done right. Together we will do this for the greater good of the nation.
… salaries of a capable and committed government… Pui!
… Competent and honest government?! Pui.. Look at MBT… only want to make HDB extortionate price.
They dont even walk markets, take mrt, earn less than 3k a month… how would they know what sufferings we’re goin thru?!
@observation
ic. thks. well, more ques than ans but gd they had a rationale. i’m still reeling from gerald giam’s ee ee orh orh in the debate. he was such a schoolboy when questioned by vikram nair who is about the same age. at one pt he said “regarding what?”
The initial concept of all this was amazing:
“In order to prevent a talent from becoming a corrupt politician, we must provide him a huge amount of money upfront and, on a monthly basis….”
If one feels that serving the people is a sacrifice and need a huge amount of money to be attracted to the job, then this person is starting on the wrong moral ground. There are many people who are willing to serve for a decent amount of salary or not at all. This can be seen on the ground as top talents step forward to serve and lead as Grassroots leaders for the people without even a salary or for just a cup of tea.
When will the 60.1% see the real people they have voted in? The “Kee Chiu” minister is talent? The MP that didn’t serve NS? They maybe better than me and a lot of others, but definitely not good enough to be paid this high a salary.
Definitely, Mr Chen deserves the salary the ministers are being paid.Ms Sylvia Lim,Mr Gerald Giam and Mr LTK are talents.
The only PAP minister whom I see who has the heart to serve the people is Bg Tan.
The MIW are wasting their time and energy trying convince us for justifying the exorbitant salaries and perks they are drawing.
Even a dud will know they are grossly overpaid.
The argument that they are paid for their brains and their worthiness is totally flawed.
Can the MIW say for sure that they have never blundered in the policies and decision?
MP CSM, we need more people of your quality and calibre in our parliament. It has been one ay street for all these years. Glad to see it is turning into a two way street.
Seriously does a Pastor ever complaint about not earning big buck? The do it becasue of a calling.
If you wanted money you should not be serving the nation, just go back be your CEO and high ranking positions. No one ever stopped and forced you to serve us (singaporeans)
MPs should really take a step back and decide what they want and why they join as MPs.
When your fellow singaporean whom are earning only $3 per hour are struggling, MPs have such good pay and stuff… where is the equality?
Seriously I hope in 5 years time… the WP would grow larger so that they can contest in more areas….
The situation is analogously like say, a robber holds you up, twists your arm, and demands your money, then tells you if you give him the amount of money he demands, he will be a good person and will not need to be a robber any more.
But common sense in even the most daft person on earth will tell you that a robber is a robber by his very act of forcefully demanding money from you.
Giving him your money does not make him less of a robber, because you have no choice but to give in to his demands. And because he is a robber right from the beginnng, there can little or no possibility that he will turn into an upright person as he promised.
“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.”
Very well said. Through this article, we can feel your love and caring spirit towards us, the ordinary Singaporean. Thank you Mr Chen.
So obvious but still not seen by those so blinded by money.
They can only do this because they know the GRC system guarantees them this kind of pay and we can do nothing about it.
How is Ah SAW & Ah SENG ?
sporeans are really one kind, everything also want discount. want top talent to serve you but want cheap. quite funny. don’t be so stingy ass lah.
both pap and wp arrived at the same figure of 55k per mth. how much lower you want? 40k?
The top 1000 in Singapore are where the leaders of industry reside including CEOs of Government Linked Companies. Pegging the Ministers’ salaries to the top 1000 is to forge the elites of these two camps to work in parallel and raise their common destiny. In particular it will make sense for one camp to chase the other camp into the stratosphere in remuneration.
What then Singapore?
WP wants minister monthly pay formula to be 5 * top civil servant pay
Top civil servant pay = decided by minister
Conclusion: WP wants minister to decide own pay -_-”
MINISTERIAL PAY – A GOLDEN HARVEST OR A PYRITE SACRIFICE? Please let me attempt a “work value” case of this hypothetical illustration of TRULY BENCHMARKING TO PRIVATE SECTOR based on the fair rigour of market competition and its determination of ‘fair value”. I am looking at Return on Asset (ROA) concept of opportunity costs which Ministers (with exceptions of course for other relevant professional expertise like a surgeon or top notch lawyer) could otherwise pursue of income generation.
I did a quick search on the net and found the ROAs of Aztech, ASL Marine, Chosen. Ellipsiz, Freight Links, Full Apex, even Hyflux and they range from 2.9% to 6.5% after tax.
This is based on their latest reported earnings of 2010/2011 – in good times, and extrapolate the capital requirements to generate $2m – $3m income annually. I prefer 4% as the approximate benchmark. I then extrapolate the capital requirement to fund another business income within the private sector that would generate the same income at 4% yield. That means that they will require a capital of $50 million (based on 4% yield) or $33.3 million (based on 6% yield).
How long does a Minister take of accumulated experience and savings plus bank borrowing to sustain this kind of capital outlay. It takes at least 10 years to maybe 20 years. The listed companies have history dated 20-30 years too, been through hard times and sometimes near death disaster. The 4% yield is overstated by 50% I guess because bad times last longer than good times and a few years of bad times wiped out the gains of a decade.
Assume equal success of the Ministers ventured out into business, to earn $2 million to $3 mln a year, they would have to accumulate maybe 40 to 60 years of Ministerial experience in comparison.
I conclude Ministers are way OVERPAID for being politicians. Of course surgeons earn more but not as politicians. Based on my assumptions, Ministerial pay work value maybe as low as S$300,000 per year.
IF POLITICAL SERVICE IS A TRUE CALLING of sacrifice, then probably $300,000 would be the benchmark of ministerial pay in political office.
Otherwise remain in your preferred profession and let others fulfil that political role with passion and ability.
OPEN UP THE POLITICAL ARENA AND SPACE FOR REAL POLITICAL TALENTS TO TAKE THE STAGE which you are either underperforming, unwilling of sacrifice and unable of fulfilling public expectation.
This country BELONGS TO ALL SINGAPOREANS, not self-vested interest of personal wealth enrichment.
In the valuation of businesses, valuers take account of two parameters to comprise the discount rate: the riskless rate and the risk premium. The committee apparently underestimated the risk premium and so arrived at such a low discount for ministerial salaries at 40%. It should be twice that discount.
@oxygen
Hahahahahahahahahaha
pay minister 25k a month???!!! sure or not? a dept head/ sch principal already easily earn more than 15k. crane operator earn 10k nowadays. so many ah beng contractor also earn 30k a month.
pls lah, let’s have a serious discussion. 50k a month very reasonable. actually pap propose 47k a month, it’s wp who propose 55k.
the lowest it can go is 45k, and then we are starting to talk nonsense already lah.
don’t be so kiam.
@sos and oxygen
no matter how you slice it, 50k a month is very acceptable pay for a minister. i don’t know what you’re trying to prove when you ask minister to only draw 25k a month, this is something else already.
Very well said and reasoned, Dr. Chen Show Mao. You (and the WP team) have brought dignity and intellectualism back to Parliament.
The PAP’s moral authority to govern is slowly and surely slipping away. And the most amusing part is, they are doing it to themselves, falling on their own swords, with often bone-headed and badly reasoned arguments.