~by: Ghui~
There is ongoing debate with regards to the revised salary package for ministers. While salaries have been reduced, contention in relation to the bonus scheme still remains.
Proponents of the revised salary package have argued that politicians need to be paid competitively to avoid corruption and opponents of the same have countered that political office is a vocation not to be tainted by the lure of mammon.
The truth is perhaps somewhere in the middle. In all fairness, ministers do work hard and if they do well, we should not begrudge them a good salary. However what connotes “well” and what defines “good”?
In this much heralded new package, ministerial salaries are pegged to the private sector and bonuses are awarded if ministers meet pre set targets. While this may make sense theoretically, it is meaningless practically.
In the private sector, employees are subject to yearly or biannual appraisals. Private sector employees are therefore regularly accountable to their bosses and if they fall short, action is swiftly taken. Errant employees might lose their bonus, receive a lower bonus, get their salaries frozen or even reduced! There is also a three to six month probation period for private sector workers. Are ministers subject to the same?
In Singapore, general elections are held once every five years. This would mean that unless a minister does something drastically wrong, he would retain his mandate for five years. The electorate, as the minister’s boss will only get to appraise its employee once every five years! In the fast moving private sector, five years is a long time. Would any private sector boss countenance a once every five years appraisal or accept a five year probation period?
Ministers and private sector employees therefore work under very different circumstances and it would not be comparing “like for like” to compare their salaries.
Secondly, the newly unveiled ministerial pay package envisages a bonus component for targets met. What it omits is what happens when these targets are not met.
In the private sector, not meeting your targets could be tantamount to a pay cut or the sack within months. In the ministerial sense, it seems that it is just a matter of not receiving a bonus (which is on top of an already high salary).
Don’t get me wrong. I do not oppose high ministerial salaries for the sake of it. If they do well, they deserve to be well remunerated for their efforts. However, what I do object to is the benchmark for comparison and the lack of any safeguards for targets not met.
As already established above, ministerial salaries cannot be compared to private sector ones because they operate in divergent environments. On the other hand, a good yardstick for comparison would be the salaries of ministers in similar countries. Not the US or Britain as one might expect but other countries with similar populations and systems of government.
In addition, a system of pay cuts should also be introduced to counteract the bonus scheme. If a minister hits his targets, he gets a bonus. If he misses his targets, he gets a pay cut. This is only fair given that no other private sector job would give you five years to prove yourself. So, if an artificial comparison is to be made between political office and private sector jobs, safeguards such as these will have to be put in place to ensure accountability.
Comparisons can only be made “all things being equal”. In this case, it is not.
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
Even the WP has turned around to recommend ministerial salaries on the same basis as the PAP, and to the same order of magnitude. Millions of dollars! No one given the chance to grab big money easily can forego it, and the WP on coming into parliament has made a flip flop over the ministerial salaries having for years made speeches in parliament begging the ministers to have a heart for Singaporeans, not to rob them so heavily.. My friends it is all too late. Like it or not you have to wait 5 years. It looks like even when the PAP is no longer around, the high salaries will still be paid to anyone who makes his way to the Singapore Parliament. Politicians are politicians. Give them a chance to rib you, no political party will resist.
I agree with the WP's GENERAL STATEMENT that the formula emphasis should be stated correctly from the outset. The PAP is wrong to fix the parameter that the Salary Review committee should AUTOMATICALLY benchmark the ministeria salaries against PTE SECTOR salaries, for the reasons mentioned in the article above by Ghui.
So the PAP is in a quandary – what benchmark should be appropriate, while being able to sufficiently attract 'top talent'.
I think the only fair POLITICAL solution which will make most of the electorate happy, is to benchmark LIKE FOR LIKE, ie politicians against politicians.
This may sound simplistic, but can we:
- choose a basket of countries with similar GDPs or per capita income. Average them out, and determine the ministerial salaries at different grades.
- Add in a factor to take into account the Singapore cost of living or CPI in say, the last 5 years (average).
- Throw in a discretionary pool of no more than say 5% to allow the PM some wiggle room in negotiating salary.
My 2 cents worth to this ongoing debate…
son of s,
benchmark already sala, how can the final figures arrived be correct? is it WP who set the benchmark? if WP's proposal is not that different from the review comittee's why did to comittee not draw as much flak from PAP members?
it would be good to note that no review committee was set up when PAP up their own pay over a decade but did so when the public demanded a reduced pay. why PAP can justify a pay increase yet not able to arrive at a reduced one instead? compared to alternative party members who are MP calibre, all ministers are PAP.
with alternative parties in power, its still beats having PAP in power. at least alternative parties can finally get to check on things PAP has held secret when info should have been disclosed. i wonder what are the long terms plans PAP has kept from the public that they dogmatically impliment when time comes. it is so good that changes to it has been steamrolled time & again. but each policy implimentation's negative consequences, downplayed and/or brushed aside by PAP.
WP proposal is very different from Gerard Ee's proposal.
1) WP peg is lower end of MX9 scale (at around $11000) instead of the mean of top 500th and 501th income earner. The WP peg is more broad-based than the committee's elitist peg which tend to outrun the pay of the general populace.
2) WP cap of maximum bonus at 5 months instead of the committee's cap of bonus at 13.5 months. In other words, the WP proposal attempt to remove a potential bonus amount of $467500 from MR4 pay which is very substantial.
in the private sector..if you don't performed within 6 months of your probation period(used to be 3 months)
you are FIRED!
donald trump also do that..me multi millionaire cousin who just aquired a usa billion dollars corporation just fired 4 american managers for not party within the organisation…
you 1st a guranteed card? buy a toaster from mustafar
ah.. but in the private sector, CEO kena fired, may still get millions in severance pay. ;)
why do you think they want to compare top down rather than bottom up as suggested by WP?
In banking, cited as one of the better paying industry, at one of the more progressive banks, if the banker does not consistently meet targets every quarter, and under-performs by 2 consecutive quarters, the banker is fired. The bonuses at this bank is huge though, where high performers can reap a few years' of bonuses. But mind you, they work their asses off, and do not have quality time with their families.
Bonuses are never guaranteed. If a banker slacks off, he or she can say goodbye to their bonuses. And too bad, if he or she has over committed in their financial obligations for that Porsche and landed property.
They have only 3 months' of probation, and another 6 months to prove themselves, or they're out. Give and that, only ONE year to prove themselves.
In all of this, appraisal is done 360 degrees. Anybody in the organisation can comment on an individual.
How are our Ministers appraised again? If they want the high pay, they should be subjected to the same appraisal methods. They should not have an iron rice bowl. If they want 13 months of bonuses, then all civil servants should get the same 13 months of bonuses, based on respective base salaries, WITHOUT running our reserves into deficit. So, only then can you calculate, if they deserve 13 months.
In the private sector, no one gets hired on a team basis either.
@Goon Doo
Yes, peg the Singapore ministerial salaries to a basket of global ministerial salaries. The PAP should not play the "we are exceptional" game. In fact the PAP ministers are less able than even the ministers from across the border.These have confidence and are able to think on their feet and speak as they think. Our ministers for the most part speak like in an oratorical contest. In the rare times when they do speak their own minds, they insult their listeners with their lack of life experience. It is strange that these stalwarts seem to miss every point that concern the man in the street.
I do not agree with even the WP framework of calibrating the ministerial salaries. The WP has timidly followed the PAP and the Review Committee's basis which is to base the salaries as if they were private sector top jobs but at a discount of 40 % . From the point of view of the theory of risks the discount should be 80% being the risk premium of a typical top private sector job..These Ministers encounter absolutely no risk, sitting on their jobs, making serious mistakes and guffaws for decades on end.
Singapore is a country located on planet Earth.Its officeholders have to be paid salaries in the same order of magnitude as other similar countries on the planet. The PAP cannot argue that they are exceptional in any way except in their extreme level of voraciousness and greed. and the thuggish infrastructure that they have erected in the 50 years of their hegemony..
TOC should consider the parallel story running now on Royal Bank of Scotland, where the 2 top guns are relinguishing 3mil pounds between themselves, under the scrutiny of the british government and the general public. The RBS is of course largely owned by the british government paid by tax payer's money and these staff deemed to be "civil servant" who has yet to exonerate themselves, and therefore bonus in the true terms of performance has yet to be fully redeemed.
Then again, if the private company fails, only that company bites the dust. If the govt fails, we all bite the dust.
I also feel that there is somewhat less accountability in the public sector from that perspective. But then again, the stakes are really much higher when it comes to selecting ministers. There is a limit to how many private sector rules that can be carried over to the public sector.
Rodolfo
Singaporeans have been forced to bite the dust by the ruling party all these years. Don't you think that is too much to take and yet the ministers are drawing heavenly perks with 13 months bonus to top. I still cannot digest such extravagant and beyond reason elitist pay package. Singaporeans have not benefited from PAP leadership, why should PAP be exonerated?
PAP can implement any policies and pay package to their advantages as NO ONE CAN STOP THEM IN THE PARLIAMENT —–They have the majority share in the parliament and no need to get YOUR permission at all to approve their policies including their pay package!
@David, neither can I digest how we have to pay this lot of people as if they were leaders of 5 times the top superpower.of the world. We are all been well and truly ripped.
Some points I wish to highlight:
1. I feel that public sector and private sector is getting too 'overlapped' since a) government chooses to peg its ministerial pay to corporate pay and b) despite similar pay the public sector (the government, in this case) lacks a fundamental characteristic of accountability. Public sector must be public-oriented, unlike private sector which is profit-oriented. Obviously both don't match, thus I totally disagree with the government's competitive pay structure.
2. Since the last GE and PE, there has been more public interest towards the way the government operates, which is good. Once, I asked my uncle whether a government should be more powerful than its people. During wartime, I feel the government must be more powerful than its people so that the government can properly organise the country against threats. During peacetime, the people should be more powerful than the government in terms of scrutinising the government's ability to act in the interest of its own people. Never mind how they should perform, but at the very least the people should hold its government accountable, that includes their pay structure.
There shouldn’t be any bonus. Period.
Why? Simply because its possible to meet your target, yet not benefit Singaporeans.
e.g. The Khaw Pay Wan is ramping up building HDB flats. He’s definitely going to meet his target. He gets his bonus.
5 years later, those flat owners are going to find serious defects in their flats.
The developers had to rush n also build the flats within a specified time frame. Off course corners would be cut.
My point is that a target can always be achieved, but at what cost?
The essence of 'bonus' is performance BEYOND expectation, that of an 'incentive' is calculated and pre-targeted. Therein lies the confusion; performance TO EXPECTATION should not merit bonus. That is what a SALARY is for. So let's call a spade a spade; this is an INCENTIVE SCHEME which breeds a calculative, instrumental-rational mindset in which actions are only taken if it is calculated to be personally 'worth while'. There is no account taken of contributing to wider societal good. For those elected into 'public office' such a calculative attitude will prove to be the eventual downfall for a country so dependent on the spontaneous goodwill of its people.
The RBS case of both Chairman and CEO giving up on their bonuses due to public unhappiness, is a reflection of what citizens feel about inequality and unfairness. It is taxpayers' monies. And taxpayers should have a say as to what constitutes fairness.
Singaporeans are not unique in the way citizens feel about the same issue!
We all know very well that chances are the top (1000)income earners will make more money over time! We are not so sure about the average worker. Singapore's income gap has grown wider and many current policies are contributing to widening it even more… Witness the suppression of wages in the lower income group.
Workers' Party proposals are more equitable in principle. Governing a country is NOT the same as running a corporation!
I'd suggest using the GINI index as one of the benchmark for ministers' salaries – as a divisor, so that any further increase in the index reduces the salary and vice versa.
ask yourself this:
can Tin Pei Ling, in the private sector, get the deal she is getting when she undemocratically entered parliament in Goh's GRC team ?
even Goh said himself that the public is unhappy that a person without experience such as her can get into Government.
therefore, is what Tin Pei Ling is experiencing the same as Private Sector? or has it more to do with her relationships?
In a relationship-embroiled environment such as Singapore Politics, do we peg it to private sector pay, or do we peg it to relationships-related pay such as when you sleep with someone and get a kick or two back in return?
Wake up, Government. We Singaporeans have already awoken.
Everything the PAP does for themselves is so unique. Have you ever heard of 13 months of bonus. Effectively when they work one year they get more than two years salary! This is diabolical!
Will the PAP listen to us if we ask for a review of the already reviewed salaries?
The remuneration of officeholders should be put to a referendum. WP has become greedy for itself and has played us out by recommending .an equally enormous million dollar payout.
Ministers job very easy leh. WKS lasted 27 years as minister/DPM collecting millions without any concrete delieverable. Furthemore, WKS is only a ex-teacher with a second class honours degree in history from local uni and ex-HR manager.
May i know what is the reason for the the change in the 2 erp gantry timing and pricing please?
Why are we the people salary not reviewed? (aka minimum wage law to protect us)
Since how long ago was anybody salary last being reviewed?
Why are the people not getting 13 months of bonus?
Tin Pei Ling was an ex-consultancy firm's junior officer.
These people are where they are not because of their capability. Once they get up there, they will deny they make mistakes until the mistakes become too glaring and embarassing to continue making any more.
They have been shown to, when confronted with mistakes, demand that the local loyal mass media shut the F up and stop putting him on Page One all the time. that he expected them to listen to him. no questions asked. no pages printed.
Leaving out our venerable MP Mr Lee Kuan Yew, where are the following Ten Top Talent Types in Jan 2012 (viz, eight months after GE)? Out of 10, pls count how many are still in Govt-related entities and do you think the rest are getting 33% more pay than their last drawn pay???
1. Lim Boon Heng (ex-Minister without Portfolio in PM's Office) - Appointed as People's Association Special Advisor to Chairman (PM Lee) in May 2011
2. Wong Kan Seng (ex-Coordinating Minister for National Security in PMO) - Appointed as Singbridge (subsidiary of Temasek) Special Advisor to PM for economic cooperation (China and Asian countries) in Sep 2011 [ex-Minister Lim Chee Onn is now Special Economic Advisor (International) in Singbridge]
3. S Jayakumar (ex-Senior Minister in PMO) - Returned to NUS Law Faculty as Advisor to the Centre for International Law in Sep 2011, waiving his remuneration (it was then disclosed that he in fact never left the university for all the 30 years that he was a political office holder from 1981 to 2011 – huh?)
4. Raymond Lim (ex-Transport Minister) - Joined Swire Group (HK conglomerate) as Senior Advisor in Nov 2011
5. Mah Bow Tan (ex-National Dev Minister) - Joined Global Yellow Pages as Non-Executive Chairman in Sep 2011
6. George Yeo (ex-Foreign Minister) - Joined Kuok Group (Malaysia) as Senior Advisor in Oct 2011
7. Lim Hwee Hua (ex-Minister without portfolio in PMO) - Joined (i) Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co (American investment firm) as Senior Advisor in Oct 2011 and (ii) Ernst & Young as independent non-executive on Global Advisory Council in Nov 2011
8. Zainul Abidin Rasheed (ex-Speaker of Parliament) - Appointed Non-Resident Ambassador to Kuwait in Oct 2011
9. Cynthia Phua (ex-MP) - Still hanging around Aljunied GRC as (i) Advisor to Paya Lebar CCC and (ii) Member of the Community Improvement Projects Committee under Ministry of National Development
10. Ong Ye Kung (ex-MP) - Still with NTUC; Also, as independent director of SMRT, he was appointed by SMRT to head its own investigation into the recent SMRT breakdown fiasco in Dec 2011
The way to make people believe these Government people should be pegged to private sector,
despite the nature of how they get their jobs, how they cling on to it with their dear lives, and how they move on to PAP-heaven after leaving official service,
Is to keep repeating it – you keep repeating the need to PEG to PRIVATE SECTOR and after a while, people really believe the work nature is really like private sector, and some pegging is justified.
Well. It is not.
Reality and CCheng, useful inputs.
There is only one yardstick for "well" and "good" and that is the well-being of the population as a whole. In the absence of a wefare state, the only way to judge the well-being of the average Singaporean is by seeing how the median income is doing. This is the one and only measure by which the ministers should be judged, not by GDP growth or any other measure. There is a curious silence on this subject from the government.
Actually, there is a similar private sector job. A football manager's job is similar in that there's a fixed contractual period (often as long as 5 years).
Ministers (other than PM) can be sacked by the PM. Same way a club manager can be sacked by the owner. PM is like a club owner who can't be sacked.
Whilst a manager can be sacked, the contract requires salary payment to the fulfilment of the contract. So in a way, a manager's job can be better than a minister in that a manager may not need to see out the contract to earn the salary.
Don't recall any SG minister ever been sacked, the closest being Teh Cheang Wan.
@son of s – WP offered same salary amt but diff principle is becos that is the highest chance it can be accepted by PAP but it seems PAP is still too stubborn to take alternate advice.
corrected typo
It is quite stupid to equate a private company to a got minstry.
A private company is almost always profit oriented and they do not have much qualms about what steps they take to retain their profits. For example, restructuring (or downsizing) is common in economic distress situations. Imagine a minister doing that. A minister has to balance the public view along with the financial need, which private companies do not have.
5 years is definitely an optimum amount of time for a minister to prove himself. Anything else would only focus on short term goals and lead to ruin in long term.
Yes, I do agree that their salary must be in relation to the industry leaders and yes, I do understand that the current pay is way too much….but some of the suggestions are impractical and bordering on ridiculous.
If Dont give them traing sg collapse you know?
Better pay and pay.
There is no way.
But the lim siah suay.
Credit is mine,
Debit is yours.
Whats yours is mine.
Whats mines is still mine.
Yup e-nonymus, I agree with you. Hence the article says that private sector and ministers cannot be compared. They are too different to be compared. The only comparison that can be made is between other small countries with simimar governmental systems and population size. Maybe Ireland (same population, westminter system), New Zealand etc.
An excellent expose. Kudos to Ghui.
Keep writing Ghui; top rate stuff!
News just broke of ex-RBS cheif, Fred Goodwin who was stripped of his knighthood for his failure in overseeing the bank's collapse as a result of the 2008 credit crunch.
His 'de-knighting' was a result of the steady flow of pollitical pressure.
I must admit that the government showed their mettle in sorting out some incompetent fool of a took that was responsible for the loss of billions of funds.
This sort of thing "never" "ever" happens in Sg. Ministers and 'close alliances' lose millions and billions only to be rewarded (negatively reinforced behaviour) with gob smacking payouts for their nicompoop stewardship of the ocean liner into the rocks.
Bleedin stoopid!!
@ lim
are u sure a PM cannot be sacked?
a PM is just a secretary general of a political party, if the majority of the ministers(who are usually also CEC members of the political party) calls for a vote to remove the secretary general, they can remove the secretary general (and in effect the PM) according to democratic principles.
in essence the PM can sack the ministers and vice versa.
additionally i don’t see why the PM can become the “owner” when the “owner” is the electorate.
this is apparently not news to you.
what you are suggesting is not in line with democratic principles.
perhaps your attempt to redefine the nature of the appointment of the office of the Prime Minsiter reveals where your allegiances lie?
In the private sector, all income is a private matter too. Not flaunted puBically nor kept private with Pension severence/retirement helping over the top of CPF to in an eleitist click!
The concept of paying the ministers of equivalent salaries comparable to the top private sector employees, is totally flawed. Under performing private sector honchos are bundled out unceremoniously.
The ministers are hand picked by the PM to manage their respective portfolios, for reasons most of us could only hope to know. The PM's reputation is at great stake here on his wise wisdom and experience.
In all fairness can we trust that the PM would go publicly, about the below par performance of a minister? Mind you, this minister was hand picked by the PM.
Appraisal of a ministers performance, there should be a non-partisan, independent body to do the job without fear or favour.
Anyway whether we may like it or not, we are destined to stick with some dumb minister/ministers for the next five years and we can do nothing about it.
@seasand123
No, we will have to stick with them until they are old and well satiated with money that will last all their earthly generations. That is the next 30 to 40 years of million dollar payouts.. The judiciary and the secret police will protect their posiions.Look back and see how many nincompoops survive for decades in Parliament, making mistakes, guffaws and insulting the citizenry , taxpayers who fund their obscene salaries. Whenever they open their mouths, they say we are daft, can't work as well as foreigners, should all melt into one people and not give them so much trouble etc, etc.The Singaporean has become so frightened that you can rip off his shoulders and he will look over the other shoulder to see whether the secret police is still watching him round the corner.Has become a nightmare.
You can talk until the cows come home, it's futile. They have already passed the bill.
The next occasion you will have the chance to do your bit is in the 2016 GE. Make sure you know what to do. And don't say you were not warned, etc, etc. and start the cycle of bitching and nagging all over again.
I've seen it being re-enacted since 1959 and forced to go through the motions over and over again. And I'm just so sick of it. Hardly anyone is listening. And we have to go through the whole vicious circle over and over again and again.
It's the kiasu ones who are spoiling everything actually. They are so shit scared of voting in a fresh new govt. As though Singapore is going to collapse without the LKYs, GCTs and LHLs!
If the cap fits you there, can I ask you to open your eyes and look at the other Asian Tigers. They didn't have any LKYs, GCTs or LHLs. So did any of them collapse? I rest my case.
The debates on the ministerial salary pegging to the top earners in the private sector is seen to be continuing.
The key issue is not how much ministers should be paid in order to attract capable men and women to take up political office to serve the larger good of Singapore.
The assumption behind such a pegging is that by paying ministers top salaries we will attract better calibre of ministe…rs to join the government. Why do we still go on such a assumption when it has already been well proven to be past 17 years or so, with our ministerial salaries pegged to the top 24/48 top earners in the private sector we have miserably failed to attract better talent into the government. I have written to chairman Gerald Ee of the review committee to provide a list of before/after salaries of ministers both while in office and after they have left service to see the validity of the assumption. Unfortunately the review committee has not favored me with a reply nor has PM Lee and DPM Teo dealt with the assumption in their respective speeches in parliament in the latest debates.
How then could we go on talking about the nicety such as the correct quantum to peg to when the principle of pegging was not even proven during the past 17 years or even found to be blatantly false.