the following is the Speech of Singapore People’s Party’s Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Lina Chiam on Ministerial salary review, delivered in Parliament on 17 January 2012:
–
Mr Speaker sir,
On the ministerial pay review headed by Mr Gerard Ee, I have only two major points to make. My priority in Parliament remains to be on sustainable economic growth and healthcare cost. My remarks in Parliament, including this statement, are ultimately geared towards speaking up for Singaporeans in these areas.
My first point relates to the formula of pegging the ministers’ base pay to 60 per cent of the median income of the top 1,000 Singaporean income earners. Mathematically, it is not clear how the salaries will go from here. Yes, this is a huge cut now. But there is a possibility that the new formula may even result in a higher base pay than what the old formula could provide, on a long-term basis.
There are many ways that the median pay for the top 1,000 earners can rise substantially in the next 5 years. Wealthy foreign business people could be given Singapore citizenships en masse. It could even be that the median pay for this group will rise much faster than the median of the top 48 earners.
But for me to form a more accurate opinion, I would need to see how the old and the new formulas would apply to the period from the year 2000 to 2010, on a backdated basis.
To do so, the Government would have to provide us with these figures. More importantly are the figures for the ministers’ bonuses as paid out each year according to the old and new formulas.
If the Government and the review committee are truly serious about promoting a ‘clean wage’ approach for Singapore’s ministers, without additional perks and allowances, then they must follow through with the spirit of that approach -
All these data on salaries and the specific amount of bonuses paid out each year must be published and made transparent for public scrutiny. To date, I believe such data is never released.
In the UK, the Freedom of Information Act allowed for the release of details of MPs’ expenses claim for the British public in the year 2009. If we in Singapore want to talk about ‘clean wages’, let’s go all the way – publish the bonuses paid out every year.
Mr Speaker, if the Government does not wish to follow the practices of ministerial pay in other countries, may I remind the honourable Members of this House at least to show some respect to our friends and neighbours and how they have decided to remunerate their leaders in their own countries. Let’s show some humility. We should not be telling them how to run their countries. There is no need to jeopardize our relationship with them.
My second point, in my opinion, is even more important for the good of Singapore.
Ministerial pay should be primarily driven according to KPIs that are specific to their ministerial portfolio. Each ministry should create a set of KPIs for their minister, and the minister’s pay is to be objectively decided by a formula that is ministry-specific. As a guide, the KPIs for the Permanent Secretary of the relevant ministry, as the most senior civil servant, should be taken into account.
Yes, I know that there is the Performance Bonus component, which is rewarded based on the individual performance of ministers. But it is not clear what the criteria are in attaining this Performance Bonus. The review committee’s report says that “The Performance Bonus quantum will be reduced substantially”. I am not sure whether the bonus formulas are well structured to drive ministers towards fulfilling their portfolio KPIs, and for the purpose of accountability.
The committee’s recommended formula for the National Bonus may be an improvement on the old GDP Bonus formula, but it is still too broad. Some cynics have even speculated that the recommendation for the old formula to be changed has come at a time when Singapore’s GDP growth will be slowing down.
For example, the Minister for Trade and Industry’s KPI for all his bonuses could be Singaporeans’ wage growth. The Minister for Transport’s KPI could be tied with the Minister for National Development’s KPI to control population growth and thereby, vehicle numbers.
Otherwise, the bonus structure gives me discomfort. For example, our transport system might be in disarray, or a major terrorist might escape from prison, but the ministers responsible for these incidents may still collect a full National Bonus, just because the economy has done well due to the good work of other ministers like the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Trade and Industry.
No, this cannot be good for Singapore.
And that brings me to an overarching point – if the Government’s decision is still to match ministerial pay to the top earners of the private sector, then their accountability measures and KPIs must also match the rigour of the private sector.
I turn the focus now to the junior minister’s new recommended starting salary of about $1.1 million per annum, bonuses included.
Mr Chiam See Tong once worked out what ministerial pay should be, in order that ministers would still be able to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle with hardly any “financial sacrifices”. He tabled the figure to be $50,000 per month, taking into account the mortgage and cost of a bungalow, the hiring of servants, two cars, annual holidays, and their children’s education. This was proposal was supported by then-NMP Professor Walter Woon.
To update that to today’s levels, the figure would be about $60,000 per month, or $720,000 per year. That amount, including bonuses, will be a good benchmark to prove their worth for a young minister with a young family. Moreover they still have their MP’s allowance of $192,500 to top it up.
This represents an approach that can be explained to people and be accepted by them.
For some of the new ministers, this new salary could be quite much more than their last drawn salary. Moreover there is no risk factor in the job like what stockbrokers face, for example.
Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the first generation of ministers had set up the government apparatus as it is today. Now our ministers inherit this system and continue with their jobs, and even enjoy the support of a credible and efficient civil service. Distinguished senior civil servants like Ngiam Tong Dow had also played a major role in building up our country.
When Mr Chiam See Tong entered politics and then was elected the MP for Potong Pasir back in 1984, people were afraid of associating themselves with him. His law firm began to suffer from a loss of business. He was ridiculed and mocked by various people for his involvement in politics. He was even at the receiving end of such comments from judges when he was simply doing his work in the courts, defending clients.
But he never thought these as sacrifices throughout the years. He took it all in his stride. He saw it as part and parcel of his mission to fight for a democratic Singapore, a Singapore where no Singaporean is left behind.
I believe this is what being a servant leader entails. The spirit of public service is a calling, an honour and a privilege. It is something to be proud of.
Nevertheless I note that the Prime Minister’s mandate to Mr Gerard Ee’s committee was bound to comparing ministerial salaries to private sector salaries, through the terms of reference. So that conclusion was already set before the committee met, unfortunately. The Singapore People’s Party pushed for a stronger public service ethos to be emphasized in any review of ministerial pay, but this committee was just doing its mandated job.
The SPP wishes to thank Mr Ee and his committee.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
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
How much and what other formula should we consider?
Should each political leader be allowed to choose how much to be paid and conduct self-evaluation as matured adults should?
Sharing and hope the following is useful on how a Brazilian boss runs his company democratically and allows his employees to choose how much they want to be paid.
You might have heard of the company Semco of Brazil, a democratic company. I heard it on BBC some years ago.
When will Singapore have a democratic company in our democratic country?
Please see link below. Interesting read on page 68, under the heading “The Company” on how this company became successful by changing into a democratic company from an autocratic company.
The link: http://files.uniteddiversity.com/Decision_Making_and_Democracy/Democratic_Company.pdf
Also in the same link, in page page 83 of the pdf file, Semco paid their employees using the following method:
” Practice: Choose How You Want to Be Paid.”
On page 90 of link, the boss of Semco of Sao Paulo commented on Bill Gates:
“Bad leadership is personified to me by the Pope, Fidel Castro, Bill Gates and
Lee Iacocca, all wonderful figures, brilliant strategists, and historic giants. They created enormous value and transformed the entities they led into some of the most important symbols of our age. But because they couldn’t rise
above their egos, they failed to create organizations that could flourish in
spite of them, not because of them.”
do the pm and his party realise that while they are still fighting for million dollar pay and multi-millions for 5-year-term, our society is growing cold and hard?
Why? too many foreigners and PRs and even new citizens who are not adapting to our culture but hijacking our singaporean way of life instead!
many local adults today feel so disillusioned with the govt that they are becoming less kind and caring as the foreigners are here for the money and material gain anyway, they feel what the heck!
PAP can never be specific. just like the train disruptions, its because things are left murky so accountability is hard to pin down. add a circus show, merry-go-round hoping public interest will die down so whoever is accountable will not need to be.
under PAP many things are not. i cannot recall instances where they were specific when they need to. being not specific gives them room to wriggle around. like interpreting from many angles/perspectives, citing misunderstanding.
Why the government has been able to push through all sorts of laws they want to entrench themselves in political power as happened here? In the case of the current debate, on pegging of ministerial salaries to give the ministers windfall pays which are the highest in the world, the opposition MPs are too weak to put up any real challenge because when it comes to voting, the ruling party will win i…n any showdown. It is really our parliamentary system which allow the ruling party to do as it pleases. Finally everything boils down to votes. Perhaps the constitution has to be amended to prevent such any party from pushing through laws which benefit themselves in terms of their own incumbent pays and benefits at the expense of the ordinary people since the first introduction of pegging which is equal to daylight robbery no matter how good is the argument to justify such self-approval or writing of one’s pay cheque.See More
LikeUnlike · · Share · 2 seconds ago · Write a comment…..
Lina is spot on!
Citizens may be educated but ignorant of the fact about the bonus, IF ANY AT ALL, entitled to by politicians in all other countries .
If my understooding is correct of Gerald Giam’s speech, only Japan gives bonus.
The more pap try to justify, the more i want to kick them out of power.
Yours
Vikram , son of my father lee
The Top 1000 income earners is very BIG VARIABLE!!!!
All citizens BEWARE!!!!
Who are these 1000?
What is the exact criteria used?
How transparent is this model?
How do we know they are pulling from the top 1000?
By definition, it sounds like the top 1000 this year may be different in the next year.
The top salaries of these 1000 is also Variable every month.
Lets pressure them to disclose and be transparent how they derive the 1000.
Else, there is a big injustice to the people.
Wah like that confirm no pap minister will get bonus and pay rise.
If say out of the 1,000 private sector top earners 100 of them are GLCs’ CEOs /Seniors previously having been given pay increases from say S$500,000 pa before privatization to say S$1,800,000.00 pa (SMRT’s CEO) after privatization how much would these 100 GLCs CEOs’ inflated pays further inflate the miniterial pegging?
Is this sort of going-on still called pegging?
unfortunately most of us were conned to yhe core!! ministers will get a pay cut off course as part of the wayang.. but dont forget they will get a better pay bcos PM as announced will promote them to a higher grade ministers with a new grade package!!!
Commoners will never learn, there is always a way out legally made by them and exclusively for them
get the big picture fellow singaporeans
its all a big wayang
White corruption.. plain and simple.
GE2016, I’m waiting here!
Kee Chiu said money is not the issue but his boss said money is an issue(so who is the devil here?). If you do a survey, most will probably put their thumbs up for kee chiu – that is if he actually meant what he said. And generally, people will frown upon money faced leaders.
So have the dragon king recruited mostly money face leaders because if they are indeed self serving, society will reflect their self serving ways or behaviour and policies will continue to ensure their kind takes the biggest bite of the cake leaving crumbs for the dogs to fight over.
Maybe leaders who feel that money is not an issue(Kee Chiu) should forgo more than half their pay – to charity perhaps – and show us that they can live comfortably with middle incomer’s salary?
After all, aren’t leaders suppose to serve the vast number in that pay bracket? If the vast majority can get by with middle income pay, why can’t they ….and be happy with it?
National leaders, if you have the means to live like the rich and famous but choose to live like most ordinary folks you serve – moderately – it will make you a more believable, less hypocritical and an approachable leader.
Do you believe that the middle class life is a good life? Do you believe that if we all aspire to live in moderation, society will be healthier and more equitable?
If you do, why don’t you come down from your loftiness and live among the “good life” you have created? Unless the “good life” is not what it was made out to be hence you pay lip service to the people you serve by exaggerating your wisdom and abilities to justify astronomical pay to buy the “good life” at…our expense?
What is the point of questioning the preparedness of Gerald Giam, Mr. Kumar Nair? Whose job is it to substantiate the pegging of ministerial salaries to the top earners in the private sector? Is it for Giam to justify the pegging for the papies. Certaintly not. To me it is for the ruling party prove that the pegging itself is apple to apple and is valid as proven by past 17 years of pegging. Geral…d Eee has been requested by me to produce a list of before/after salaries of ministers prior to appointment and after leaving service. He did not favor me with this list. So the whole pegging exercise is flawed due to lack of facts and data. What is the point then of asking like you do Mr. Giam to prove anything as to a minor point. Finally whatever the pros and cons, whatever other points even if more valid than papies WP will have their points overturned by the votes to be controlled by the ruling party’s whip of majority in parliament. If like what PAP MPs like Ms Josephine Teo has said the decision will have to be one supported on the ground. By the look of thing, if this matter goes to the referendum, it looks to me the revised pays for ministers will be rejected as too high still by Singaporeans. This whole thing is just a charade or wayang. Your point to Giam is the most ridiculous charade to gross over deeper issues. It is as simple as that!!! Greed and selfishness will not win.
The concept of KPI is just crazy. Only the public can judge the performance of a minister and that process is called an election. Having ‘performance bonus’ and KPI’s are just impractical.
Ideally politicians should be classified under ‘civil servants’ or ‘govt employees’ and their pay must be at par with the rest of such employees.
“If they make a serious mistake, the damage to Singapore will be incalculable and permanent. Their macroeconomic policies will decide the GDP of the country.”
Thank you for opening up your mouth.
Now Sir, answer the following questions:
Is it a SERIOUS MISTAKE to pay all your ministers (and president NaTan) in the past 10 years an EXTRA of 34% – 51%?
If YOUR answer is Yes, then your highly-paid cabinet HAS BEEN seriously making a serious mistake in the past 10 years – can you fire all including yourself immediately (like Mdm Saw-Po)
If YOUR answer is No, then why the reduction of 34% – 51% now?
SLAP, Piak, Pow, Slam, Piek, Slap, serious paychecks given out to make serious mistakes, how to tell the children of Singapore the logic behind such serious mistakes.
u may get big shock of ur life if u assume pap is not up to more manipulation in ge2016l
I don’t think the salary issue is well- received on the ground. Even the party whip hasn’t be lifted on the issue. Unmistakable impression that policy makers are going all out to create perceived unity, and casting genuine feedback aside.
The question is – theSingapore government is saying that paying top salaries to Singapore leaders, ministers and civil servants will attract the best and brightest to join public service and their top salaries prevent the temptation of engaging in graft? Are these really the brightest and best that we want to join public service, are they fit for public service since they needed large salaries to help prevent from the temptation to engage in graft?
Why not reward active crimewatch volunteers by providing them with a reasonable wage for them to dilligently monitor crimes in their neighbourhood and workplace to reduce overall crimes in Singapore as I am not sure if our police are optimally committed for the job. Additionally, it may be important to apportion some money away from these large salaries to civil servants to attack good volunteers to come togther to to solve unsolved crimes on a project basis? I hope the government will look into this.
thanks!