DisgustingÂ… $1.5M/mth pension for life?
-
DisgustingÂ… $1.5M/yr pension for life?
From: "truth" -Fri, 08 Apr 2005 --A Minister's Pay - an estimate-- http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/7151c65dc0ebd239?&hl=en
“Singapore ministers have a lifetime pension of about 80% of their last drawn salary after about two terms.
The Pm at S$1.9 million will get over S$1.5 million a year for life.
Tell me is he bringing all these money along with him when he die?”
True?
Saw the thread but found no intelligent answer.
Why nobody clarify?—bc no one knows or no one cares?
PAP supporters... is a/m true?
(apologies for mistake in title) -
It is ridiculous and absurd for me to accept these super scale incomes with the infamous "Integrity"Originally posted by bic_cherry:DisgustingÂ… $1.5M/mth pension for life?
From: "truth" -Fri, 08 Apr 2005 --A Minister's Pay - an estimate-- http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/7151c65dc0ebd239?&hl=en
“Singapore ministers have a lifetime pension of about 80% of their last drawn salary after about two terms.
The Pm at S$1.9 million will get over S$1.5 million a year for life.
Tell me is he bringing all these money along with him when he die?”
True?
Saw the thread but found no intelligent answer.
Why no body clarify?—bc no one knows or no one cares?
No wonder their candidates are being claimed the best of the world ?
No wonder there are no bribery ?
-
wtf give them money to rot at home??
waste our tax payer's money siaz -
If it is true, then the opposition should use this as an election issue! Goh Meng Seng where are you?
-
i feel a little better about our ministers after reading that Exxon-Mobil, after gouging the world and making US$36 Billion (yes.. that's 36 B, Billion.. US$36,000,000,000) in PROFIT last year...
and giving their retiring CEO US$400 million in a retirement package...
well, a little... but not much.... -
*cuts a hole in the golden parachute*Originally posted by the Bear:i feel a little better about our ministers after reading that Exxon-Mobil, after gouging the world and making US$36 Billion (yes.. that's 36 B, Billion.. US$36,000,000,000) in PROFIT last year...
and giving their retiring CEO US$400 million in a retirement package...
well, a little... but not much....
-
if that statement is true, Only if it is true, i am not saying it is true
Imagine what The retired PMs what they get and the retired minister how much they earn. -
Was the thread making a reference to this article written by the Chairwoman of the Workers' Party - Ms Sylvia Lim:Originally posted by bic_cherry:DisgustingÂ… $1.5M/yr pension for life?
From: "truth" -Fri, 08 Apr 2005 --A Minister's Pay - an estimate-- http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.singapore/msg/7151c65dc0ebd239?&hl=en
“Singapore ministers have a lifetime pension of about 80% of their last drawn salary after about two terms.
The Pm at S$1.9 million will get over S$1.5 million a year for life.
Tell me is he bringing all these money along with him when he die?”
True?
Saw the thread but found no intelligent answer.
Why nobody clarify?—bc no one knows or no one cares?
PAP supporters... is a/m true?
(apologies for mistake in title)
The Singapore Mayor: A Legitimate Ticket to a Parliamentary Pension?
By Sylvia Lim
On 8th July this year, Parliament sat and passed the Parliamentary Pensions (Amendment) Act, which basically provides for the PAP personnel who are holding office as Mayors to qualify for parliamentary pensions. This comes at a time when unemployment is inching towards a predicted high of 6%, workers are still being retrenched and several sub-committees are still remaking Singapore.
Under the current law, parliamentary pensions come in 2 forms.
The first is the office-holders' pension, which up to July 2002 was given only to members of the executive government holding positions from Prime Minister all the way 'down' to Minister of State, Parliamentary Secretary and Political Secretary. If a person holds such office for at least 8 years, and reaches 50 years of age, he will qualify for the office-holder's pension which is calculated as a fraction of his salary.
The second form of parliamentary pension is the Member's pension, which is given to Members of Parliament who have served a total of at least 9 years in the House and reach 50 years of age. This is calculated as a fraction of the Member's allowance. Interestingly, if an office-holder does not serve at least 8 years to qualify for the office-holder's pension referred to above, his years of service as an office-holder can be added on to the number of years he has served as a Member, to enable him to chalk up 9 years to qualify for the Member's pension.
The amendments passed in July 2002 allow time served as a Mayor to be counted as time served as an office-holder, if the person serves as Mayor for at least 8 years.. If less than 8 years are served, then the time served as a Mayor can be added to the years the Mayor has served as a Member of Parliament, to enable him to chalk up the requisite 9 years for a Member's pension.
In other words, the office of Mayor is now considered equivalent to at least the office of a Parliamentary or Political Secretary. But is this justified?
If one looks at the other office-holders who draw office-holder's pensions, one can immediately see that the nature of the work done is at Cabinet level. They discuss and draw up national policies and resolve issues of national security, and foreign affairs. Most of the offices mentioned are created under the Constitution. In contrast, a Mayor in Singapore works towards enhancing community relations, which is consistent with the fact that Mayors are appointed under rules made by the Board of Management of the People's Association (PA) under the People's Association Act. Well, an apple is obviously not an orange!
As for allowing a Mayor's term to count towards a Member's pension, it is interesting to note that in November 2001 (the month of the last General Election), the Board of the People's Association (consisting of the Prime Minister, another Minister, 8 appointees of the Prime Minister, and 4 persons elected from other appointees) met again. They changed the criteria for eligibility to the office of Mayor. Previously, it was a requirement that the potential Mayor should be the Chairman of a Town Council, who has to be an elected MP under the Town Councils Act. However, since November 2001, the requirement for the Mayor to be the Town Council Chairman was deleted, and the requirement now is only that the potential Mayor must be a Chairman of a Community Development Council, who does not have to be an elected Member.
In answer to queries by Mr Low Thia Khiang during the Parliamentary debate on the amendments, Minister Wong Kan Seng assured the House that the PAP could conceive of no instance when the PA would appoint an unelected person as a Mayor. However, these assurances are not binding on the future, and under the existing structure it is possible for someone to serve as an unelected Mayor (ie. a Mayor who is not an elected Member of Parliament) and use that period of service to qualify for a Member's pension, without serving the requisite 9 years required of other MPs. If and when this happens, it will further undermine the dignity and respect to be accorded to a holder of a Member's pension!
Why did the PAP moot these changes? Minister Wong declared that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to have Mayors, and the districts had now become huge (total of 5 in Singapore) to take advantage of economies of scale in managing constituencies. He said that there was no reason why Mayors should not be treated like the other office-holders who can draw pensions. However, the justification for giving pensions to Mayors is still unclear. What could the underlying reason be? Does the PAP need an incentive for its members to agree to be Mayors? And is there a fear that some Mayors may not be able to serve 9 years as a Member, and will quit the PAP rather than stay?
One disturbing feature of this whole episode is how the PAP has, again, managed to use the handy tool of subsidiary legislation to effect significant changes at a national level. Sadly, our Parliament has become accustomed to passing skeletal Acts giving wide powers to the implementing bodies to come up with the details. While this is sometimes necessary, too much of it leads to Parliament literally giving carte blanche (ie. a blank cheque to the executive to do what it wants. The creation of Community Development Councils and the office of Mayor was not debated in the House, but designed by the Board of the PA under the People's Association (Community Development Councils) Rules. These rules are subsidiary legislation not scrutinised by Parliament. Belatedly, after the creation of the post of Mayor, the government comes to the House to ask for the release of public monies for parliamentary pensions for Mayors. By that time, with the post of Mayor already created and approved, the outcome was easily predictable. In a kind of fait accompli.
There has been chat over the Internet and in conversation as to why Mayors are required in Singapore, when there are already 84 MPs managing constituencies through the Town Councils, many of which are already clustered into Group Representation Constituencies of 5 to 6 Constituencies.
The Singapore Mayors are getting parliamentary pensions at a time when ordinary working people light votive candles for signs of economic improvement, paying increased fees for basics necessities like transport, power and even medical care in public hospitals. Hot on the heels of the "Stayer/Quitter" debate sparked by Prime Minister Goh's National Day Rally speech in August, I cannot help but embrace the words of the famous trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow: "True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else".
Sylvia Lim is a lecturer who is a lawyer and former police inspector. She serves on the WP Council. -
WTF I ALSO WAN !!
-
hmmm...they made 36billion last year....Originally posted by the Bear:i feel a little better about our ministers after reading that Exxon-Mobil, after gouging the world and making US$36 Billion (yes.. that's 36 B, Billion.. US$36,000,000,000) in PROFIT last year...
and giving their retiring CEO US$400 million in a retirement package...
well, a little... but not much....
but their ceo receive US$40million laa... not 400. hahha its still a lot anyway.
but actually the 40 million is not cash... he is entitled to stay in the corporate house...estimated at 1 million rent per year.
so for the remainder of his life maybe 8-10 million on net cash basis. also he is entitled to use the corporate jet for the next 2 years.
cool eh.... wonder if our elite ministers earns more.... -
What does a mayor in singapore do anyway?
-
Originally posted by mhcampboy:hmmm...they made 36billion last year....
but their ceo receive US$40million laa... not 400. hahha its still a lot anyway.
but actually the 40 million is not cash... he is entitled to stay in the corporate house...estimated at 1 million rent per year.
so for the remainder of his life maybe 8-10 million on net cash basis. also he is entitled to use the corporate jet for the next 2 years.
cool eh.... wonder if our elite ministers earns more....
In corporate world, if u don't perform, u will get kicked out. So the high pay is not forever. But our MP get pension- it is for life! -
exxon mobil is nt a country...Originally posted by the Bear:i feel a little better about our ministers after reading that Exxon-Mobil, after gouging the world and making US$36 Billion (yes.. that's 36 B, Billion.. US$36,000,000,000) in PROFIT last year...
and giving their retiring CEO US$400 million in a retirement package...
well, a little... but not much.... -
Why dont you stand for election?Originally posted by Cindyfeh:What does a mayor in singapore do anyway?
-
Ermm he owns and set up the company from scratch. If you think any government that owns the country you need to have your brain examined.Originally posted by the Bear:i feel a little better about our ministers after reading that Exxon-Mobil, after gouging the world and making US$36 Billion (yes.. that's 36 B, Billion.. US$36,000,000,000) in PROFIT last year...
and giving their retiring CEO US$400 million in a retirement package...
well, a little... but not much.... -
f*** up ppl...
-
not answering my question of what does a mayor in singapore doOriginally posted by TooFree:Why dont you stand for election? -
I can only say they're there for sucking more and more, and to rub shoulders with grassroot's and RC's to get foolish use of this group "PAP Angkat's" to serve them only ????Originally posted by Cindyfeh:not answering my question of what does a mayor in singapore do -
wah so good!! i also want a lifelong pension of 80% of my pay leh
-
Rest assured that they can't bring these to their coffin when they die. Will come a point where whatever one amass just becomes useless. Whether it is logical some get more or less than another does not apply, e.g. assume that the world is made for all, some or just a few at the top. Just that what one takes from this society or others, they will just have to pay it back plus interests. It may be at a different time, form, sort or kind etc.Originally posted by SG,LauBaiXing:It is ridiculous and absurd for me to accept these super scale incomes with the infamous "Integrity"
No wonder their candidates are being claimed the best of the world ?
No wonder there are no bribery ? -
It is noting and no where better than the infamous "Bumibutra System"Originally posted by CosmoKing:Rest assured that they can't bring these to their coffin when they die. Will come a point where whatever one amass just becomes useless. Whether it is logical some get more or less than another does not apply, e.g. assume that the world is made for all, some or just a few at the top. Just that what one takes from this society or others, they will just have to pay it back plus interests. It may be at a different time, form, sort or kind etc.
Our childrens will definitely be worst than us, if these inconsiderate systems pass easily day by day and it is not prevented of serious impacts to the society and the peoples heavier burden in living. -
Have to pay higher to get better quality minister to run the country.. -
if this $1.5million a year pension of the PM is true, how is this exactly justified? In a country where we don't have a fixed minimum wage rate, to help the lower income earners, how do we justify paying a retired PM $1.5million a year for life?
-
This is their big and uncall for Bull s.h.i.t. !!Originally posted by king108: Have to pay higher to get better quality minister to run the country..
The real respected Politician have his or her blood of Patriotism, I'm or we're not a fool to buy this anymore........... -
Originally posted by SG,LauBaiXing:This is their big and uncall for Bull s.h.i.t. !!
The real respected Politician have his or her blood of Patriotism, I'm or we're not a fool to buy this anymore........... The coffee shop woman refused to buy this issue leh..how can I did agree with her 
Later she don't serve me coffee then how