How much we should pay our backbencher yesmen MPs?
-
The MP is currently being paid $12,000.00 pm for doing a part-time job which he needs not have to perform but our MPs are being described as great talents and people with all kinds of ability beyond human or performance-rated proportion.
He can still keep his normal job without resigning when he is elected as a MP.
As part-time salary or allowance of $12,000.00 pm is simply too high to pay the MPs. Don't forget we the taxpayers still have to pay the MPs for life at about $8,000.00 pm after two terms.
In the case of an opposition MP, he has to do more works to produce checks and balances on the government. A backbencher MP does not have too much to worry as his works are preempted and covered by the autocratic leaders who except them not to ask too much questions.
An opposition MP is also under the risk of being sued for defamation and targeting by the party in power.
Opposition MPs would deserve to be paid more than the backbencchers who hardly attend meetings or raise questions in parliaments.
More likely since our MM Lee and PM Lee are so sure about their leadership and convinced of the righteuousness of their policies, backbencher MPs do not really have to query their leaders. All they need to do is to be able to speak in favour of their leaders' policies and be supportive.
MPs' job scopes consist of attending meet the people sessions about four times per month, Parliament once or twice per quarter, and some walkabouts.
If we divide $12,000.00 into say 6 attendances, MP is being paid $2,000.00 for each attendance. Where in the world can one receive $12,000 pm for a part-time sinecure job as our MPs many of whom only become active to appear on TV during the election time.
True, an MP needs to do some researches of problems and issues but how many of them really have done great works from their so-called researches. I think some forumers have done more than our MPs in bringing up real issues facing their constituents.
It is not worth paying $12,000.00 pm to our MPs (except opposition MPs) to carry out a part-time job which they need not perform in many cases except to be yesmen. I think to be realistic, we should pay our MP about $500.00 per attendance oe $3,000.00 per month with savings going to an endowment fund to help lower the costs of living currently faced by all citizens.
If certain leader or ministers have proven their worth such as having succeeded in turning around the economy during 1997-99 or 2000-2002, with upgrading to a value-adding model, we should pay such ministers $1,000,000.00 pa but this should not be taken as precedent to pay all the rest of ministers who have experienced highway collapses or high medical or housing costs.
Do not forget that beside the minister's salaries, tax payers still have to pay them to the tune of $750,000.00 pa for the rest of his life after two terms.
Those who have not yet proven results like Dr. Goh Keng Swee has should not be paid automatically $1,000,000.00 pa. If we really must bribe our ministers so as to prevent bribery, then this is not the kind of Minister we want. We only need to pay them sufficiently high to be worth of trouble to leave his job to serve the nation. If in the private sector someone has made 10 times our minister's salaries, let it be so our ministers are not risking their own capital or life saving like Bill Gate or Li Ka Shing and cannot be compared with such corporate bosses in the private sector as recommended by MM Lee.
His comparison is not apple-to-apple and cannot stand closer scrutiny.
All our Ministers have are paid million-dollar salaries should be regularly made to defend his performance based on acceptable objective yardstick and not by intuitions of the MM or PM alone. Ministers who have created NKF or repeated high costs or highway collapses are not talents and should be told plainly they have not performed by someone else as PM will probably find it hard to tell them so.
To create a more accountable and competitive government, our leaders should start changing their assumption that all their chosen men or women are talents. If they are, they must be independent and objective measurement yardstick, justification based on "I say what I like" rhetorics or presentation. -
I am all for the Outcomes and outputs measure
Each time an output or outcome is not achieved - deduct their salary by 10% -
Yes, now I supposed many of our citizens should know the truth whether they have enjoyed improvements in their lives or higher wages and whether the ministers and MPs have demonstrated abilities in recent prolonged recessions. But our MM Lee is still regarding many of them as talents and paying them million-dollar salaries and life-long free wages without evidence from real-life performance.Originally posted by fymk:I am all for the Outcomes and outputs measure
Each time an output or outcome is not achieved - deduct their salary by 10%
People know too well whether they have performed up to the mark. Those MPs who only know to be yesmen and constantly agreeing with many of the past wrong policies deserve to be axed.
Ministers who are regularly causing problems to the people in term of raising the costs of living and having no plans to create more jobs are not worth keeping or being paid obscenely inflated salaries. -
i thought they are paid only 3k!!!
-
worst....i thought they are doing this voluntarily.... hahahaOriginally posted by dragg:i thought they are paid only 3k!!!
-
Oh, you mean MPs are paid?
I always thought they did it as a service for the nation. -
let's see the opposition MPs that get in this time round set an example by paying back their monthly salaries back into the treasury ! ....
-
I hope we can see how much they earn from their MP and other jobs.
-
(as posted to FBU in reply to Hello XYZ on 17.4.2006)
If you disagree with my arguments, you can rebut or debunk them with more robust logics and arguments not the one-line rhetoric or salmanisation.
I have made three points in my post but you have offerred no substance in dismissing them as rubbish:
(1) MP's job scope in Singapore autocratic context is very simple consisting of :
(a) 4 meet-the-people sessions pm
(b) walk around and ask some questions but mostly could not solve them except in second guessing the leaders' unworkable past policies long-overdued for change. They are mostly too powerless to change the autocracy's hardlined policies capped only with assumptions that do not hold water in most cases
(c) two or three attendances of parliament with some researches done which did not amount to much which did not solve the current "20 major problems of the government" as posted in another thread. MPs often cannot disagree with the autocracy as comfirmed by SM Goh about use of the party whip.
(2) MP's job is a part-time job. He can keep his existing job. A number of MPs have given as reason for their retiring or stepping down the reason that they are too busy with their full-time job to serve the people.
(3) Over-rating of MPs as people with abilities and talents without showing proofs or evidences that they had solved real-life problems during the last two prolonged recessions. People are being told by these yes-men MPs (read the old Straits Times of the period 1997-2002) that our MPs or ministers could not help the citizens much except to wait for the world economy to recover. Now when the world economy finally recovers and when Singapore finally also recover being the last among the Asian Tigers to recover, our MPs and ministers suddenly come out to say that they have been great talents to build up the country over the past 40 years making comparison with the worse performers in SEA and not willing to compare with greater smaller countries or better Asian Tigers.
Are what I am saying in the foregoing rubbish or all rubbish. MM Lee has not proven abilities during the recent recessions to turn around the economy or build up a socially cohesive or vibrant country. He was not consonent with the youths as seen in the recent TV dialogue "Does my vote matter?". He mostly relies on the earlier period of industrialisation of the country during the 1960s to claim his success story - preferring to quick quiet about the lack of performance of his MPs and ministers in all the recent history as enumerated in the "20 major problems of the government".
If you cannot prove these three points wrong with robust facts and arguments as PM Lee has indicated he would do to answer to critics then, the leaders should pause and ponder the points and make amends to change past policies and do better.
Of course, they could always throw the spanner when they cannot answer to arguments such as by calling the youths idealistic, ungrateful or challenging those with views to stand for election. Such a mindset is counter-progressive and reflecting sheer arrogance and lack of concern or passion to serve the people. -
it will never happen.Originally posted by mhcampboy:worst....i thought they are doing this voluntarily.... hahaha
remember how much our ministers are paid? -
Paying more to talented is good. What is $12000 compared to $1M, is nothing, should go higher so that more talent can come out.
-
In 1960s, MPs were paid $3 K or thereabout. Under the government's Goh Keng Swee doctrine, the government year after year even through periods of recessions from 1970s onward have pushed up their own wages about three times.Originally posted by dragg:i thought they are paid only 3k!!!
Now there is a great disparity in the wages between the iron ricebowlers who only collect and spend public fund and the corresponding wages of workers in the private sector who work more creatively and harder to produce jobs.
Right or wrong is the government wage push for the period 1970s-2000s and whether that big wage push has resulted in our people achieving Swiss standard of living or enhancements of our retirement nesteggs or CPF all our citizens can now judge for themselves based on facts. -
If we could must bribe our Ministers with million-dollar salaries in order to prevent corruption, our anti-corruption battle must have been lost long ago. It is now a new generation who will ask : can we bring back the ultimate integrity to be accountable to and serve the interest of the people back to trodden politics.Originally posted by mhcampboy:worst....i thought they are doing this voluntarily.... hahaha
I think people still want our politicians to possess passions and integrity and not just those who have passed certain examination or held certain high posts like CEOs.
Many CEOs have been found to be engaged in insider trading and corruption despite the high salaries paid to them.
This is the real fact of life which MM Lee in fielding the recent candidates has failed to consider.
Many good people are not earning good rewards like million dollar salaries but that does not mean they cannot stand for presidency or PM. The important criteria is he must have the integrity and passion to serve and fight for the people and not the narrower interest of any one or his own party.
Let the new generation discuss this issue so that we could throw up a group of good people to take charge. -
12K per month part time job is too much.
What about their workscope ?
Meet-the-people sessions
Listen to pple about their problems and refer them to relevant agencies.
Loanshark harassment to SPF etc.
What else ?
Walk around to shake hands ?
Also when they mean MPs are talented, what talents do they refer to ?
They really need to convince us voters. -
$12k, i thought it was $11k, talk about no free lunches..... i don't get the $8k p.m for life after 2 terms? so those who serve 1 term don't get the freebie? if so, i suspect they were trying to deprive the one-term opposition mps but it seems more pap mps are getting boot after 1 term.
-
I suggest this. At the end of each year, each household is to give an angbao to the MP as payment for services rendered. How much the MP gets would depend on how happy residents are with his work. If you are not happy, give him a $1 angbao. If you are very happy, give him a $50 to $100 angbao or as much as you like. Fair isn't it?
-
Money is not the sole criteria. Unfortunately we are always told assumptions about talents without taking care that in rewarding them we must not go above the limit to avoid overdoing the act.Originally posted by king108: Paying more to talented is good. What is $12000 compared to $1M, is nothing, should go higher so that more talent can come out.
Can one imagine after two terms of office, the taxpayers will have to pay them 2/3 of their last pays for life. This is not a small sum or burden and has to be factored in by an independent panel.
However I agree that by paying sufficiently high salaries we will attract certain better candidates. Remember though salary is not the only criterion to attract the best candidates as there are many good people out there who will be prepared to accept lesser pay to serve if an opportunity is open to them.
Just because of autocratic assumption we have under the Goh Keng Swee doctrine unnecessarily pushed up the public sector wage costs leading to our loss of competitiveness for the whole economy as seen in the last two deep recessions.
We can afford to pay our MPs and Ministers good salaries but not over-inflate them to the extent of rewarding the free-riders or free-loaders who did not perform with major areas of success.
Up to now there is no accountable and transparent independent panel to assess our public iron ricebowlers' actual market values based on apple-to-apple comparison.
MPs are currently doing only part-time job and as such the independent panel should be able to judge their real contributions as MPs based on performance and job scopes.
Unless he is made a minister in which case he should not be over-paid just to attend a few meet-the-people sessions or parliaments without even raising major issues and solving problems as posted by many in this forum.
Let the real yardstick finally be based on actual work scope and concrete assessment of performance. -
Oop this is a good suggestion which has its merit. It is worth considering too with proper control and implementation. When Ang Bao are properly given and collected with accountability they can reflect the bonuses that should be given to the MPs to match dollar for dollar with a cap. Only then will there be a change and the MPs really have to work harder for the people.Originally posted by casefan:I suggest this. At the end of each year, each household is to give an angbao to the MP as payment for services rendered. How much the MP gets would depend on how happy residents are with his work. If you are not happy, give him a $1 angbao. If you are very happy, give him a $50 to $100 angbao or as much as you like. Fair isn't it? -
you mean they eat grass?Originally posted by ditzy:Oh, you mean MPs are paid? I always thought they did it as a service for the nation. -
I think we should just pay them an allowance on an hourly basis.. for instance, when they conduct Meet the People's sessions, they can be paid like $50 an hour. When they attend Parliament, maybe $30 an hour (since most of them go there to sleep or daydream anyway).
This is based on the tried and tested formula of No Work = No Pay that i believe will spur them to wake up their bloody ideas and start doing some work.
I for one, have NEVER seen my MP for my estate and for that matter, i have no bloody idea who he is. All i know is that i am in Marine Parade GRC and the only MP i know in this GRC is our dear Senior Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong who unfortunately isn't the MP for my estate. Then come election time, since Marine Parade is probably going to be an uncontested walkover anyway, i don't think i'm ever going to see/know/hear who my MP is.
-
An MP's allowance is 12k monthly exclusive of medical benefits. And if an MP is elected for more than 2 terms, he will be paid a pension of 8k monthly from the day he retires from Parliament till the day he dies.Originally posted by countdracula:$12k, i thought it was $11k, talk about no free lunches..... i don't get the $8k p.m for life after 2 terms? so those who serve 1 term don't get the freebie? if so, i suspect they were trying to deprive the one-term opposition mps but it seems more pap mps are getting boot after 1 term.
Shiok huh? Which other job gives you a pension of 8k monthly? In fact in today's civil service, which job gives you a pension at all upon retirement? And considering that MPs receive a whole range of perks in addition to their monthly allowance. For instance, many MPs are given high-paying directorships in the various divisions of NTUC while they perform their MP duties concurrently.
That's why we have many young people who sign up to become PAP members immediately upon graduation and are very active in grassroots activities. So as to attract the attention of the party leadership, and hopefully get fielded to become MPs or even ministers in the future.
After all, money makes the world go round, doesn't it? -
it that is the case then becoming a pap mp is like striking a lottery....on top of the millions they already earned in their profession, then the next million in parliment and then another million as they sit around collecting the pension.....wow, this is amazing.....a real eye opener, i can't believe any one term pap mp would want to 'leave' politics....
-
I would encourage improve their payout on the basic that all singaporeans' payout are improve on an agreeable basics.
As we are talking only on MPs only. We should set current targets for them to achieve within their terms and give them the performance bonus and wages.
As a resident, you may listed down basic task and special assigned tasks for them to achieve. Hence, if they don't meet the mark, the whole board should go. -
It can be frustrating when an MP says he/she's looking into it but takes months if not years to resolve problems raised. He/she might even be forgetful. -
I was under the impression that MPs earn 8K a month apart from their own personal income, not 12K.
In any case, we should look at it from a different perspective. Since we are fully aware of the enormous pay of ministers, the public should make it a point to judge character very carefully and vote the RIGHT person into office. With as many as 57 seats contested this coming elections, it is up to the public to decide whether their current MP has given them dollar value for their services or if they should throw their lot with a challenger.
The Ruling party are appealing to the people: don't vote opposition for the sake of voting opposition.
Likewise, don't just vote the ruling party with a safety first mentality. If you do, your vote will be wasted.