Are ministers going to cut over-hyped salaries like in Japan
-
To begin with our so-called talent-attracting and corruption-avoiding benchmarking of ministers to the private sector was flawed.
Ministers simply are not business bosses or CEOs who have put in the whole efforts including their personal own monies to build up going-concerns.
They are not in that category but by a clever twist of argument it looks like the ministers in Singapore are comparable to business people and should take their kind of rewards.
Singapore in order to attract talents and avoid corruption could have simply followed the strictly wage-remuneration system for this category and benchmarked their salaries to that of equally successful countries of equivalent size and complexities like Korea, Finland ..If our Ministers are benchmarked to those ministers' pay in Japan their salaries would have been inflated.
Why no one debated the ministers' salary increments and life-long pensions at two-third of last drawn pay (so soon after abolishing teachers' pensions) seriously and objectively in parliament allowing artful argumentations to sail through our honoured house of people's entrusted parliamentarians.
So taking all the above-mentioned objective and accountable principles into consideration, Ministers in Singapore should cut their pay by 70% onwards and yet will be sufficient to attract many talents and anti-corruption in quantum.
So when are our ministers going to do something on this matter - apparently they have no good arguments and principles to stand by their own self-rewards like seen happening in NKF. -
This will NEVER happen even if we wait long long...
-
How much is their pay?Originally posted by robertteh:To begin with our so-called talent-attracting and corruption-avoiding benchmarking of ministers to the private sector was flawed.
Ministers simply are not business bosses or CEOs who have put in the whole efforts including their personal own monies to build up going-concerns.
They are not in that category but by a clever twist of argument it looks like the ministers in Singapore are comparable to business people and should take their kind of rewards.
Singapore in order to attract talents and avoid corruption could have simply followed the strictly wage-remuneration system for this category and benchmarked their salaries to that of equally successful countries of equivalent size and complexities like Korea, Finland ..If our Ministers are benchmarked to those ministers' pay in Japan their salaries would have been inflated.
Why no one debated the ministers' salary increments and life-long pensions at two-third of last drawn pay (so soon after abolishing teachers' pensions) seriously and objectively in parliament allowing artful argumentations to sail through our honoured house of people's entrusted parliamentarians.
So taking all the above-mentioned objective and accountable principles into consideration, Ministers in Singapore should cut their pay by 70% onwards and yet will be sufficient to attract many talents and anti-corruption in quantum.
So when are our ministers going to do something on this matter - apparently they have no good arguments and principles to stand by their own self-rewards like seen happening in NKF. -
wait nong nong....beri nong nong.......
-
I suppose the country fork out for most of the expenses for these MIW on top of the high salary.
The last time there was a cut 10%, when the economy show false signs of weak recovery (which subsequently slumped again), it was adjusted back and there was a multiplier to make up for the years of "underpayment"
http://www.talkingcock.com/html/article.php?sid=1080
http://www.thinkcentre.org/article.cfm?ArticleID=1163
Then recently, they just approved of their salary increase
http://singaporeelection.blogspot.com/2006/05/singapore-ministers-pay-legitimised.html
http://singaland.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_singaland_archive.html
http://www.wp.org.sg/news/hammer_online/04_opin_wuihua.htm
and you cannot find much articles about the fact that the MIW salaries are adjusted back and increased here and there... -
They are not in that category but by a (not) clever(is Dirty twisting) twist of argument it looks like the ministers in Singapore are comparable to business people and should take their kind of rewards.Originally posted by robertteh:To begin with our so-called talent-attracting and corruption-avoiding benchmarking of ministers to the private sector was flawed.
Ministers simply are not business bosses or CEOs who have put in the whole efforts including their personal own monies to build up going-concerns.
They are not in that category but by a clever twist of argument it looks like the ministers in Singapore are comparable to business people and should take their kind of rewards.
Singapore in order to attract talents and avoid corruption could have simply followed the strictly wage-remuneration system for this category and benchmarked their salaries to that of equally successful countries of equivalent size and complexities like Korea, Finland ..If our Ministers are benchmarked to those ministers' pay in Japan their salaries would have been inflated.
Why no one debated the ministers' salary increments and life-long pensions at two-third of last drawn pay (so soon after abolishing teachers' pensions) seriously and objectively in parliament allowing artful argumentations to sail through our honoured house of people's entrusted parliamentarians.
So taking all the above-mentioned objective and accountable principles into consideration, Ministers in Singapore should cut their pay by 70% onwards and yet will be sufficient to attract many talents and anti-corruption in quantum.
So when are our ministers going to do something on this matter - apparently they have no good arguments and principles to stand by their own self-rewards like seen happening in NKF.