Reason to pay million-dollar minister's salary not borne out
-
In the debates in and outside parliament to raise the ministers' salaries citizens were told by our first-world leader that it is necessary to offer million-dollar salary to attract good CEOs or captains of industries from the private sector to give up their existing million-dollar careers to join the government.
Look at the latest batches of MPs. How many of them are already earning near-million salaries in the private sector and have to be persuaded by million-dollar prospect to become MPs. More likely those who are really attracted to join are attracted because of the prospect of getting a windfall or of cushy job being shielded from firing for poor performance which happens very quickly in the private sector.
The new MPs were seen to be younger people who have started to rise in their careers earning much lower salaries below a million. How many of them with the ministerial potential too are earning a million dollar salary who had to be persuaded to give up their private sector job by one-to-two million salaries in the government on top of life-long millions pa after two terms.
Let us all be honest, the reason presented to Parliament and the public to pay million-dollar salaries to ministers are enriching the ministers and those who join realistically will be too happy to receive half-a-million or three-quarter of a million.
The reason in practice for those who join are very different from and has too little to do with what was offered in the parliament debates.
Given the hyper-salaries rewards and life-long million-dollar annual retirement funds ministers will not be able to perform great jobs too as they will have to learn to tread carefully in order to safeguard the two-term career annuities which will be the biggest rewards of all times in modern history.
The reasons given to pay ministers were not proven correct or working in practice from those given in debates with the worse reason being to prevent corruption. Those who join to become ministers finally are unlikely to do so because of ministers' salaries but because of stability of employment as compared with the private sector jobs which are subject to hiring and firing for smaller mistakes than NKF or Nicol Highway collapse. -
I will give him a one room hdb flat and 500 dollars everything.
-
Brother, MP does not get S$1M, they get allowance of around S$160+K.Originally posted by robertteh:In the debates in and outside parliament to raise the ministers' salaries citizens were told by our first-world leader that it is necessary to offer million-dollar salary to attract good CEOs or captains of industries from the private sector to give up their existing million-dollar careers to join the government.
Look at the latest batches of MPs. How many of them are already earning near-million salaries in the private sector and have to be persuaded by million-dollar prospect to become MPs. More likely those who are really attracted to join are attracted because of the prospect of getting a windfall or of cushy job being shielded from firing for poor performance which happens very quickly in the private sector.
The new MPs were seen to be younger people who have started to rise in their careers earning much lower salaries below a million. How many of them with the ministerial potential too are earning a million dollar salary who had to be persuaded to give up their private sector job by one-to-two million salaries in the government on top of life-long millions pa after two terms.
Let us all be honest, the reason presented to Parliament and the public to pay million-dollar salaries to ministers are enriching the ministers and those who join realistically will be too happy to receive half-a-million or three-quarter of a million.
The reason in practice for those who join are very different from and has too little to do with what was offered in the parliament debates.
Given the hyper-salaries rewards and life-long million-dollar annual retirement funds ministers will not be able to perform great jobs too as they will have to learn to tread carefully in order to safeguard the two-term career annuities which will be the biggest rewards of all times in modern history.
The reasons given to pay ministers were not proven correct or working in practice from those given in debates with the worse reason being to prevent corruption. Those who join to become ministers finally are unlikely to do so because of ministers' salaries but because of stability of employment as compared with the private sector jobs which are subject to hiring and firing for smaller mistakes than NKF or Nicol Highway collapse.
Btw, S$1M is not much to pay CEO of companies. Think if I am not wrong SingTel CEO, Bank CEOs, some CFOs are paid multi-million.
I personally think the debate about minister salary is really moot, lets move on to something more interesting.... like who gave permission to raise Kopi price!!!!
Make peace, not war. -
CSJ is 'sacked' from SDP??? got this from CNA earlier as told by reporter hwee goh who heard from ling how dong...
-
I am not saying MPs are paid S$1 Million per annum. If There is someone out there in private sector being paid more must it follow that ministers are worth more and they are automatically entitled to more. Where is the logic and how to support this kind of logic. As long as this kind of comparison is blurred and not apple-to-apple citizens will be unable to understand why ministers must get a multi-fold jump or increases in their salaries. To say that we need to offer highest salaries to potential ministers in order to make them part with their existing lucratively paid CEO jobs is not borne out in practice. So the original argument has fallen flat on its face and not supported by the previous salaries of new batches of MPs even those with Ministers' potential. Just tell me how much was Khaw or Lui paid before joining as MPs.Originally posted by Blue Dolphin:Brother, MP does not get S$1M, they get allowance of around S$160+K.
Btw, S$1M is not much to pay CEO of companies. Think if I am not wrong SingTel CEO, Bank CEOs, some CFOs are paid multi-million.
I personally think the debate about minister salary is really moot, lets move on to something more interesting.... like who gave permission to raise Kopi price!!!!
Make peace, not war. -
Robert
I agree with you in every sense of the words, MPs are not out
to sacrifice themselves for their constituents.
Maybe so in the 60's and even 70's but not today. Government wasnt this
rich then.
However, the story has changed since Government started to set up companies and businesses. It is now filthy rich. I sometimes wish someone
would sit down and work out exactly how rich.
Think it this way, what business that makes money from Singaporeans is the
Government not involved?
If the PAP Government grows richer yearly, why arent all Singaporeans
getting richer proportionate to the government's wealth growth?
Why do we continue to struggle?
Why are common household expenditures
getting higher with each passing year?
Surely a wealthy Governmen can afford to lower costs that will hardly dent the obscenely large reserves?
Unfortunately for many practical and thinking Singaporeans, many
other Singaporeans cant analyse and see things as clearly. This works to
the Government's full advantage.
PAP says 'lets move forward together',
and the whole of Singapore is echoing and cheering to that dubious claim.
Most Singaporeans have never moved forward at all.
The PAP Government is walking alone, oblivious to the mass of struggling people they are leaving far behind.
Talk is cheap, and that is exactly what PAP is doing - and only during election time.
Are Singaporeans able to think beyond the box?
And ask themselves is the PAP cunning and
undeserving of our 100% trust ?
If Singaporeans really think oppositions are not first world, lets not have any opposition then. Change the consititution, no more elections.
PAP is great - let them rule over Singaporeans, without worrying about
any opposition.
With no more opposition and election, can you imagine what can and will happen?
Having asked that, I dont expect any decent, intelligent reply from many well educated but super 'gong-gong'
Singaporeans.
Is this what you really are people? -
Hello MIONG,
Government is not a business entity. It is a body of people's representatives elected as stated in party manifesto or the constitution to protect and look after the people's welfare and wellbeing. It is not a body to enrich the government's coffers to show off to the world about our leaders' presumptuous ability or leadeship. It is an advertising firm for our leaders to show that they are world-class leaders.
Who care about our world-class buildings and airport during the recessions anyway ? Who care about what kind of degrees our ministers possess when in the recent recessions they were so helpless in rescuing the citizens from retrenchments except in giving excuses.
A good government is elected to protect and provide services to and look after the people. However our government only seems interested in keeping itself in power with all kinds of laws to control dissents and even gives the all the benefits while people are suffering from wage and CPF cuts. So Dr. Catherine Lim was right, it is losing touch of people's basic needs and aspirations and is causing deep disaffective divide among the people.
The government keeps taxing and recovering all costs to the fullest possible and even raise rentals in bad times to the disgust of many thousands of shopkeepers.
It is the only government that double-charges for land costs already paid for by the citizens under taxation. Through corporatisation, many traditional government services from hospitals to utilities, it has been able to freely raise fees to market and above-market prices. Thus government is able to claim success that it has built up surpluses. Yet despite having such surpluses which came from corporatised fees and double-charging on lands and assets, it still keeps raising fees of basic services including utility and transportation and even education. Citizens are at a loss what is the government for.
This election is therefore about whether we are still having a caring government which will look after the welfare and aspirations of the citizens. The MPs and oppositions should debate on such big issues and not waste their time having election and missing solutions of all these problems.
Sometimes I keep wondering where are our talents. With so many talents and scholars none of them is doing their jobs properly with ability to solve our problems. -
mr bill gates makes USD3000 per second. now that's filthy stinkin rich.
every country is ruled by a political elite there is no exception. i challange you to name me one state which has a truly "democratic" government. and don't say US, its ruled by the bushes, rockefellers, kennedys,weyerhaeusers,lords,walkers,buckleys and the list goes on and on... -
In countries that practise true democracy like the US, Switzerland and Finland governments have been stable for centuries and there are many successful people in all fields of human endeavours. Scientific and technological advances today have been mostly brought about in such democratic countries as in such countries citizens enjoyed freedoms of choice essential conditions for progress and prosperty of nations. Edisions, Einsteins, Bill gates and Jack Welches were tjhe products of democratic diversities at work where people are largely motivated by freedoms to exercise their choices.Originally posted by vito_corleone:mr bill gates makes USD3000 per second. now that's filthy stinkin rich. every country is ruled by a political elite there is no exception. i challange you to name me one state which has a truly "democratic" government. and don't say US, its ruled by the bushes, rockefellers, kennedys,weyerhaeusers,lords,walkers,buckleys and the list goes on and on...
Many non-democratic countries are learning from democracy and are trying to emulate democracy even if democracy is not perfect. Even great critics like Mahathir has admitted in a recent speech at the Singapore Management Unversity that there is no other system of government better than democracy.
History however has been the best judge. After all the travails and tributions over many forms of government from authoritarianism to communism and dictatorship etc, the effectiveness of democracy offering free election and choices to citizens has by far proven more successful than authoritarianism and dictatorship etc.
Yet democracy is not perfect requiring modifications to suit different people of different cultures and affinities. Even in modified democracy or pseudo-democracy their leaders still prefer to tell the outside world they are democratic even as they are criticising democracy.
Therefore it is beyond all doubts that democracy is still the best form of government as a system and political ideology and philosopy. Even as our leaders and leaders of certain countries are criticising democracy, they are still learning to use democracy to gain more support of their people. If they have tried to control freedoms previously, they will sooner or later in order to create competitiveness and vibrancy have to open up to free election and freedoms and choices to the people.
So quite clearly it all depends on one's perspective and perception in trying to discuss democracy whether democracy offers the best form of government.
Within democracy, it is possible to throw up the best leaders of people' choices but in an autocracy or thecracy or modified democracy, there will be problem in choosing quality leaders. If bad leaders are in charge, it will have to take revolution to changer and sustain the autocracy for whatever authocracy may be boasting of.
In the ultimate epic contest befween democracy, authoritarianism, communism, socialism, theocracy and dictatorship, democracy has triumphed time and again in recent history.
Countries which practised true democracy will be countries which empower the masses leading to advances and progresses in all fields. Western democracies are largely responsible for scientific progresses and technological advancement of the world today of which the authoritarian and autocratic regimes everywhere are merely trying to keep up. Autocracy is good by accident of history and may in fact produce some limited and isolate success but as a whole and as a system autocracy will lag behind in term of producing competitiveness of the masses and knowledge applications.
Singapore has stagnated from the 1970s and the people of talents find no scope in continuing their endeavours here unless they have freedom to exercise their creativity in diverse fields.
It is now up to the leaders to see why it is stagnating and costs of living keep going up while wages are dropping. So in terms of welfare and wellbeings and aspirations or happiness index, Singapore leaders must realise that they are scoring very badly. They must now open up and allow citizens to have more freedoms to choose whatever they are doing without all the conrols and regulations and defamations suits or constraints.
Democracy offers freedom and choice but autocracy reduces these basic motivation of people. The leaders could not understand the aspirations of the young as shown in the recent TV dialogue. It is time they take a closer look at motivation and knowledge application to bring back Singapore as a democratic country. -
England then.
I agreed to everyone who say that though the government said that singapore is progressing but the life of the lower-middle income is still mostly stagnant. The reserve of Singapore is indeed increasing constantly but has the governemnt constantly spend at least 50% of it on the ppl who really need it. The progress package give everyone $ even those who do not need it, the professional.
In due of the rising oil prices the government has done nothing. Dont say that the rising oil prises only affects people who drive, it has farfetchhing consequences like the increase increase of oil prices or bus fare. The ppl who suffered the most might be private bus as the fuel prices hike and more competition from both comfort and NTUC their livelihood is being treaten. The government has done nothing to help such ppl. There are also other industry, eg NTUC going into casket, that is being harm by big cooperation snatching up the customers. The government shld have done something to help individuals in such industry.
Its true the government has done much to help singapore propel forward. With retraining people will be able to find a new job when retrench. How will they survive the time they take to find the job especially if the person is a single parent witha grand parent and son going through university? Prevention is always better then cure. The government shld do better in prevention. The jobsecurity in Singapore is really very low. Everyone in the private sector know that. The gov shld do something to improve it.
There are many thing in which the gov can improve on especially in the aspect of job securtities. We are paying a couple of million each year for a grp of COE. In a company just one is needed to help solve all the problems so with a grp things close to the heart of singaporeans like job securities shld have been solve long ago so maybe they just dont deserve their pay. -
4th world government, hence 4th world salaries?
-
are you sure?Originally posted by robertteh:Hello MIONG,
Government is not a business entity. -
Government's traditional key tasks are legislature, judiciary, laws and order, facilitating of environmental support to create vibrancy for businesses and investments, provisions of basic services, telecommunications, information, transportations, infrastructures, facilities, utilities, medical services, defence, home security, education, finance, social and cultural development to support overall needs and aspirations as men do not live by bread alone.Originally posted by Redblood:are you sure?
The day it goes into businesses and tries to compete with its own private sector, that will be the day it begins to take on a different philosophy towards costs of living and welfare and wellbeing of its citizens. That is the day when it has to watch its own business bottomless pits as businesses might be suffering losses which at the end may have to be funded by people's taxations.
NTUC is now in business and has lost control over its original objectives. It will have to support price increases in insurances and supermarket and essential items in order not to lose monies. As it is NTUC has lost many millions in overseas venture. Sooner or later it will have to rely on increasing membership fees and goods and services to fund its expansion. Thus government like NTUC will be neglecting and compromising its obligations to its citizens once it goes into its own business as businesses have their own bottomless pits to watch which ordinary civil servants will have problems in watching. -
stick to the questionOriginally posted by robertteh:In countries that practise true democracy like the US, Switzerland and Finland governments have been stable for centuries and there are many successful people in all fields of human endeavours. Scientific and technological advances today have been mostly brought about in such democratic countries as in such countries citizens enjoyed freedoms of choice essential conditions for progress and prosperty of nations. Edisions, Einsteins, Bill gates and Jack Welches were tjhe products of democratic diversities at work where people are largely motivated by freedoms to exercise their choices.
Many non-democratic countries are learning from democracy and are trying to emulate democracy even if democracy is not perfect. Even great critics like Mahathir has admitted in a recent speech at the Singapore Management Unversity that there is no other system of government better than democracy.
History however has been the best judge. After all the travails and tributions over many forms of government from authoritarianism to communism and dictatorship etc, the effectiveness of democracy offering free election and choices to citizens has by far proven more successful than authoritarianism and dictatorship etc.
Yet democracy is not perfect requiring modifications to suit different people of different cultures and affinities. Even in modified democracy or pseudo-democracy their leaders still prefer to tell the outside world they are democratic even as they are criticising democracy.
Therefore it is beyond all doubts that democracy is still the best form of government as a system and political ideology and philosopy. Even as our leaders and leaders of certain countries are criticising democracy, they are still learning to use democracy to gain more support of their people. If they have tried to control freedoms previously, they will sooner or later in order to create competitiveness and vibrancy have to open up to free election and freedoms and choices to the people.
So quite clearly it all depends on one's perspective and perception in trying to discuss democracy whether democracy offers the best form of government.
Within democracy, it is possible to throw up the best leaders of people' choices but in an autocracy or thecracy or modified democracy, there will be problem in choosing quality leaders. If bad leaders are in charge, it will have to take revolution to changer and sustain the autocracy for whatever authocracy may be boasting of.
In the ultimate epic contest befween democracy, authoritarianism, communism, socialism, theocracy and dictatorship, democracy has triumphed time and again in recent history.
Countries which practised true democracy will be countries which empower the masses leading to advances and progresses in all fields. Western democracies are largely responsible for scientific progresses and technological advancement of the world today of which the authoritarian and autocratic regimes everywhere are merely trying to keep up. Autocracy is good by accident of history and may in fact produce some limited and isolate success but as a whole and as a system autocracy will lag behind in term of producing competitiveness of the masses and knowledge applications.
Singapore has stagnated from the 1970s and the people of talents find no scope in continuing their endeavours here unless they have freedom to exercise their creativity in diverse fields.
It is now up to the leaders to see why it is stagnating and costs of living keep going up while wages are dropping. So in terms of welfare and wellbeings and aspirations or happiness index, Singapore leaders must realise that they are scoring very badly. They must now open up and allow citizens to have more freedoms to choose whatever they are doing without all the conrols and regulations and defamations suits or constraints.
Democracy offers freedom and choice but autocracy reduces these basic motivation of people. The leaders could not understand the aspirations of the young as shown in the recent TV dialogue. It is time they take a closer look at motivation and knowledge application to bring back Singapore as a democratic country.
so all in all it still doesn't prove that there is one state which practices "authentic" democracy. asia has traditionally been ruled by political families, even now in today's world its pretty much the same so if you want to see a truly democratic state in asia then i'd say a jolly yo ho ho and in your dreams. -
the government needs to have business-like institutions..where the hell are you going to create jobs, money and wealth without commerce?Originally posted by robertteh:Government's traditional key tasks are legislature, judiciary, laws and order, facilitating of environmental support to create vibrancy for businesses and investments, provisions of basic services, telecommunications, information, transportations, infrastructures, facilities, utilities, medical services, defence, home security, education, finance, social and cultural development to support overall needs and aspirations as men do not live by bread alone.
The day it goes into businesses and tries to compete with its own private sector, that will be the day it begins to take on a different philosophy towards costs of living and welfare and wellbeing of its citizens. That is the day when it has to watch its own business bottomless pits as businesses might be suffering losses which at the end may have to be funded by people's taxations.
NTUC is now in business and has lost control over its original objectives. It will have to support price increases in insurances and supermarket and essential items in order not to lose monies. As it is NTUC has lost many millions in overseas venture. Sooner or later it will have to rely on increasing membership fees and goods and services to fund its expansion. Thus government like NTUC will be neglecting and compromising its obligations to its citizens once it goes into its own business as businesses have their own bottomless pits to watch which ordinary civil servants will have problems in watching. institutions can draw lessons from each other, business from nature, politics from business, business from warfare it doesnt mean that bureaucracy has to stick purely to their books for bureaucracy and the notion of government draws heavily from religion and philosophy. -
I have not only answered your point but fully addressed both its express and impled view that there is no democracy which has worked. I have shown you democracy has worked well and it has even overwhelmed all other systems including autocracy.Originally posted by vito_corleone:stick to the question so all in all it still doesn't prove that there is one state which practices "authentic" democracy. asia has traditionally been ruled by political families, even now in today's world its pretty much the same so if you want to see a truly democratic state in asia then i'd say a jolly yo ho ho and in your dreams.
If autocracies has been the prevailing system in the past in Asia it has now changed and is still changing towards democracy. Even if Asia has been traditionally run by autocratic or political families, like the Sukarnos and Suhartos, the trend is now towards democracy. So I have shown you democracy has worked and I believe I have your point answered fully. -
I only wanna say this...
MPs are voted by the citizens, the people of republic of Singapore,
to manage our country, to serve us and our homeland.
They can have many "peanuts", but compare to us,
the average singporean!
So many Household income of $3k and less monthly...
and look what our PM is getting?
If they are really concern about our welfare and livelihood,
Increase our WORTH!!!
close up the gap between the rich and the poor!