Peg ministers' salaries to those of Hong Kong's ministers
-
Hmmm The reason why our minister is pay so high is that Singapore civil
servant by right cannot have direct ownership in companies... but indirectly
you can... But in USA president can own company outside. Look at Thai
Minister Thaksin? I don't think need to survive on his pay he earn big bucks
already....
But I still think if the country is doing well they deserve good pay if the
country is doing well (We lost so much money in Shin Corp) someone got to
come out and answer rather just sit down there quietly and wait for it to
disappear like a coward -
Atobe is right in that the Hong Kong SAR is different from Singapore in one major aspect: it is not a sovereign state. The Chief Executive in Hong Kong has far fewer responsibilities. For one thing, they do not have to worry about defence spending. If Singapore can channel our defence budget into other areas we will be much better off. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury.
That said, Hong Kong's economy is very similar to Singapore in many ways. We are close competitors in all our major industries, from port services to finance. Hong Kong has the advantage of a rich hinterland and an immense market in China just behind them. During the last Asian economic crisis, Hong Kong could lean on the support of the Chinese giant to ameliorate the effects of the economic downturn. China will never allow Hong Kong to go bust. Unlike Hong Kong, we do not have such a godfather.
The challenges facing Singapore are greater and the stakes are far higher. We have no Chinese villages to run to if we fail. That is precisely why we need to attract the best talents for our government but we must remain competitive with respect to our closest rival, down to the price of government. -
Reading the replies posted by the resident "fungi" from Oxford, I simply cannot help but to take a dig at the soil to find out the root cause of the offensive rot that continue to thrust itself onto our senses.
Another one more of your usual exaggeration and attempt to inflate your own self-worth by glorifying the graduates from the Ivy League and Oxbridge universities ?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
Originally posted by robertteh:
(1) Will benchmarking against private sector's boss/business owner CEOs' salaries with iron rice-bowl public sector's wage earner be apple-to-apple comparison at all?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Far from it. Government officials are under alot more pressure to perform. The competition for their jobs is intense with a new batch of bright young graduates from top Ivy League and Oxbridge Universities every year. If they fail to perform, they are out. The expectations of a top government official is as high, if not higher than any CEO in the private sector.
Since the mid-1980s, when the Ruling Party began its self-renewal process in picking 'possible' candidates, how many from the Ivy Leagues and Oxbridge - (in particular) has been even considered ?
Considering the large numbers of brilliant young Singaporean that made the academic grades to enter these prestigeous universities, how many actually get pass their nerdy stage, and decide to abandon their academic pursuits to return to serve Singapore AND accept the Singapore System as moulded by the Ruling Party ?
Is it not the case, that we have seen a handful of young Singaporeans - on Bonded Scholarship - who have dared to challenge the scholarship system and with some even daring to break the Bong ?
Yes, "the expectations of a top government official is as high, if not higher than any CEO in the private sector" - but only the government officials, the Civil Servants it seem. and NOT the MINISTERS who measure themselves with a different yardstick.
Viewing the nonsense that are spouted by the Politicians in Parliament to justify the policies - and even to cover up the glorious mistakes of their pet personalities - can the Ministers be comparable to the CEOs in the Private Sectors, who will be removed from his position by the Board of Directors, if not by the Shareholders themselves ?
With one debacle following another, has the CEO and his Executive Team taken responsibility for all the glorious mistakes and financial losses that they have created ?
Do the Singaporean Shareholders of Singapore Inc have any powers to sack the CEO and his Executive Team, when the CEO and his Team will contravene even the minimum requirements set out by ACRA in the manner that AGM and EGM are conducted ?
Your views concerning promotions and evaluation are obviously taken from the commercial experience. Yet you dare speak with an authority that show your little knowledge to the inner workings of the exclusive membership in the Central Executive Committee and the Cadre System of the Singapore Ruling Political Party.Originally posted by robertteh:
How to evaluate talents and performances of ministers/officers and terminate services of any one found non-performing or failing to meet expectation without being affected by cronism or protectionalism.[/b]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Performance evaluation is open and transparent. Key performance indicators are agreed upon at the beginning of each work year and they have to be objective and measurable. Promotions depend on these assessments, which are open to review. Prove your allegations of 'protectionism and cronyism'. Singapore has been regularly voted the cleanest government in Asia by PERC, a Hong Kong-based institution.
Does the Central Executive Committee of the Ruling Political Party in Singapore actually conduct its business in an open and transparent manner - when even the general party membership has no voting rights to elect members to this CEC ?
The upper crust of an exclusive 1000 selected members will form a trusted corp of cadres taken from the general party membership, and are given the exclusive right to "vote" for the annointed candidates to sit in the CEC.
You must be dreaming if you believe that the Singapore Ruling Political Party operate in the same manner as the Political Parties in the UK, or in the USA, or any other political parties in the true First World.
Why do you even dare to ask for evidence, when you do not subject yourself to this minimum standard that you demand from others before you make your sweeping statements ?
Is there any need to give you evidence, when the obvious facts are already posted concerning the cronyism and protection that the Ruling Party offer to their own familiar ties within the Government and Government Linked Companies ? -
Are you connecting with robberteh's time lines that referred to the last three recessions - (1987, 1997, 2002) ?Originally posted by robertteh:
In the event of losses in investments by private sector bosses/business owner CEOs, these bosses/CEOs will suffer losses or even get the sack, how do our ministers account for failure in economic restructuring as announced over last three recessions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, I do not agree with 'failure of restructuring'. On the contrary, the economy is being transformed very successfully to embrace high-value industries n aerospace, biomedical sciences, water technology and precision engineering. It is precisely the success of economic restructuring that causes low-skilled Singaporeans to face structural unemployment.
Singapore's economy is plugged into the world market. With our main export market in the US and our economy being export driven, a recession in the US or global economy will hit us. Having a recession does not mean a failure of the government. In fact, we can expect a recession pretty soon in view of the weakening US property market. It is how we handle a recession that demonstrates the strength of government.
After the first and second recession, which this Ruling Party aka the Government had made glorifying claims of change - it has merely pushed the Singaporeans Citizenry to change, but have largely kept the status quo to its own modus operandi.
The politics of Governance have not changed despite the recommendations of the Economic Review Committees that have been set up with so much publicity after each of the three recessions.
"Stones have been turned over, looked at, and replaced - some golden cows remains to be fed fat"
Singaporeans have now acceded to an unfamiliar broken rice bowl, after being assured for over 45 years that the tripartite efforts of the Singapore System will ensure "more good years" - (a familiar cry from the Animal Farm).
Singaporenas are no longer assured of permanent jobs - which are also no longer the objective of NTUC - and its symbiotically 'osmosistic' face of the government.
In its place, Singaporeans are now encouraged to accept a new environment in which the Government and the NTUC can no longer hold back the flood gates - that will expose Singaporeans to the great lie of a Swiss Standard of Lifestyle, and to accept jobs on a contractural short term basis.
IF the future in "high-value industries n aerospace, biomedical sciences, water technology and precision engineering" is deemed so confidently prospective to bring us to greater heights of achievements and into a new economy - why do Singaporeans need to subject themselves to an unstable, non-permanent short term employment contracts ?
Is someone weaving another big lie concerning these FUTURE INDUSTRIES ?
How much can Singapore contribute to the Global Economy with our limited human resource for the requirements of these high value industries ?
How many older Singaporeans can be retrained, and younger Singaporeans be brought up to speed to be able to take advantage of these NEW INDUSTRIES, when the minimum entry level to these high skilled and specialist jobs are University qualification in Advanced Engineering in Metallurgy, Structural Designs, Bio-Medicinal Researches ?
Do we have the mass of such trained personnel in the short time available, or are we inventing these sectors for the benefit of more Foreign Talents to enter Singapore, and Singaporean will harvest the peripheral benefit of being in the Service Industry to take the crumbs from the table set up by the Government for foreigners ?
Now we can understand the reasoning behind the call to accept Foreign Talents, and that one foreigner can help in jobs created for more Singaporeans.
Why not be honest that the MILLIONS poured into these NEW INDUSTRIES are for the PRIMARY benefit of Foreign Talents, while Singaporeans will pick up the SECONDARY benefits from the remaining fallout ?
If the Government cannot prepare the economy to cushion off any recessionary impact towards the Citizens Standard of Living - surely it must be a reflection in their faillure to govern ?
If the Government dare to take credit for the sun to come up after the storm - as in the natural cycle of Life - surely, it must also take responsibility for not preparing for the storm; unless you and the government believe in the politics of voodoo-ism ? -
Service in 'Top Commercial Firms" is different from service to the Country and to the Citizens - while you may wish to center your debate as to which is more noble and more deserving a higher reward, one will have to question the morality of placing a material or financial value to the service performed for the nation.Originally posted by robbertteh:
How to offset the generous life-long annuities over 25-30 years' retirements in the actual benchmarked talent-retaining and anti-corruption market-driven salaries to be paid to ministers/officers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Minister pensions are related to the years of service and their performance and salary scales whilst in office, similar to that in Hong Kong and other goverbments. Top commercial firms also provide generous retirement benefits and golden handshakes for their top employees. If we want the best, we have to compete for the talent.
If such a standard is dictated in placing values for Service to the Nation, it will be pertinent to ask - what value should one place on the Lives of young Singaporeans who die in the service of protecting the country ?
What did the Singapore Government pay to the four lady Navy personnel who lost their lives at sea ?
If we can pay millions as retirement benefits to political leaders, could the country not look after for a lifetime, those parents who lost their children in the service of the nation ?
Will the price of looking after a local Singaporean family amount to the same that is paid to the Minister accustomed to his million dollar remuneration ?
Your idealistic view of politics is probably colored by your exposure to the democratic practices in UK.Originally posted by robertteh:
In the voting of their own salaries, will the PAP MPs or at least the executive MPs abstain from voting?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MPs and ministers are elected by Singaporeans. And I say that if Singaporeans do not agree with the pay of ministers, let them campaign in the Opposition Party camps during election and take away a GRC from the ruling party, provided they can persuade Singaporeans to their view.
I believe the majority of Singaporeans agree that we should pay good wages to attract the best talents into the government. However, I do agree that the wages we pay must not drive Singapore uncompetitive and therefore it will be good to peg it to the salary of Hong Kong cabinet ministers as well. Ministers in Hong Kong also receive generous allowances and some have government housing thrown in as well. These perks should also be considered in the assessment.
Sadly, Singaporeans do not have such a privilege that is the natural rights of the UK Citizens, that practice a mature politics, and has a mature political system of INDEPENDENT checks and balance, and with the proper separation of powers amongst the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislators.
It is idealistic to expect political change when there are no independent supervision and arbitrator, who will bring discipline and fair play into the Singapore Political Scene.
To start with, is there a need for 84 seats in Parliament to govern a small City state that has a population size and land area that is smaller than Hong Kong, which has only 60 seats in Parliament ?
Despite the high wages drawn by the Singapore Cabinet and Civil Service, what makes you believe that there are no additional perks paid in addition to the basic wages ?
Even those annointed ordinary Singaporeans - who are selected to be the Party Representatives and are successful in being elected as Members of Parliament - will receive special soft loans and flexibility to upgrade their domestic accomodation that will be commensurate to their new found status.
The pigs in Animal Farm moved out of the barn, and into the Farmer's house after evicting the Farmer from the Farm; while the rest of the animals toiled their day away, and the pups are specially groomed to look after the interest of the Pigs and maintain discipline on the Farm. -
Having acknowledge the fact that Hong Kong SAR is different from Singapore in the status of each territory, you have missed the core of the issue that I have posted that makes nonsense of the reasons offered by the Singapore Government that justify their high salary paid.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Atobe is right in that the Hong Kong SAR is different from Singapore in one major aspect: it is not a sovereign state. The Chief Executive in Hong Kong has far fewer responsibilities. For one thing, they do not have to worry about defence spending. If Singapore can channel our defence budget into other areas we will be much better off. Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury.
That said, Hong Kong's economy is very similar to Singapore in many ways. We are close competitors in all our major industries, from port services to finance. Hong Kong has the advantage of a rich hinterland and an immense market in China just behind them. During the last Asian economic crisis, Hong Kong could lean on the support of the Chinese giant to ameliorate the effects of the economic downturn. China will never allow Hong Kong to go bust. Unlike Hong Kong, we do not have such a godfather.
The challenges facing Singapore are greater and the stakes are far higher. We have no Chinese villages to run to if we fail. That is precisely why we need to attract the best talents for our government but we must remain competitive with respect to our closest rival, down to the price of government.
If Singapore has to be competitive, and expect everyone to tighten the belts, why is the government retaining such a high cost of operation with 16 Ministers, 1 Mentor and another 1 SM; with a similar number of Minister of States to each Ministry, and a bloated underlying layer of Permanent Secretaries and Senior Civil Servants, Private Secretaries Grades 1, 2, and 3; and an army of supporting junior Civil Servants and Clerks ?
This has not include the wages paid to elected Members of Parliament, who take up offices as Town Mayors, and managing Town Councils, on top of their role as Members of Parliament that consist of 84 seats compared to Hong Kong's 60 seats.
All these costs have put pressure on the Government, who ingeniously have repeated fall back on the hard pressed Citizens to squeeze more precisely with a slew of electronic revenue harvesting mechanism in the form of GST, ERP, COE, EasyLink, and soon to be launch electronic season parking; PLUS the other long established revenue collecting programs in Stamp Duties, Radio Licenses for Homes and Cars, Road Taxes, Import Duties on tobacco, wine, liquor, cars, luxury items, and furnitures, Development Charges, Gross Floor Area development fees and penalties, Auctioning of Land Parcels.
After having squeezed all that is available from the Citizens, and to diversify their sources of revenue so as to sustain a bloated Government, they looked at themselves as the main Service Provider to Singaporeans, but not in the public role as a Government Service, but as a Privatised Owner-Operator in splitting its core function into a string of Private Companies formed with Government Capital.
Is it not an anomaly for Temasek to be the major shareholder to Singapore Powers, who generate electricity and dictate prices sold to those "Private Companies" that serve as the Power Grid Distributors ?
It is common knowledge that Singapore Powers make the bulk of the Profit, and the other Government owned "Privatised Companies" will make a smaller margin distributing and maintaining the Power Grid distributirion network.
Does Temasek account for the profits that it receives from the payment collected from ALL Singaporeans ?
Is it ingenious that Temasek is funded by taxes collected from Singaporeans, and will provide an essential service that is largely financed by Singaporeans, who are then charged at a punitive rate for the services ?
Hong Kong Government is nowhere as unprincipled in its operating philosphy as the Singapore Government - and probably explains for its being paid a lower wage than the Singapore Government.
We may not have a God Father, but we have guardian angels in the relationship that the Singapore has cultivated with the USA, UK, Australia, and a multitude of countries across the globe - at the political and personal levels, government-to-government, and people-to-people.
With so much foreign investors sinking huge capital into Singapore, it will be in the interest of the governments of those nationalities with big capital investments placed here to look over our shoulders in the event a Kuwaiti Incident should fall on Singapore. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Without going further on this subject, i do believe the highlighted section you mentioned is the crux of dissent among the people.
[b]
If Singapore has to be competitive, and expect everyone to tighten the belts, why is the government retaining such a high cost of operation with 16 Ministers, 1 Mentor and another 1 SM; with a similar number of Minister of States to each Ministry, and a bloated underlying layer of Permanent Secretaries and Senior Civil Servants, Private Secretaries Grades 1, 2, and 3; and an army of supporting junior Civil Servants and Clerks ?
This has not include the wages paid to elected Members of Parliament, who take up offices as Town Mayors, and managing Town Councils, on top of their role as Members of Parliament that consist of 84 seats compared to Hong Kong's 60 seats.
All these costs have put pressure on the Government, who ingeniously have repeated fall back on the hard pressed Citizens to squeeze more precisely with a slew of electronic revenue harvesting mechanism in the form of GST, ERP, COE, EasyLink, and soon to be launch electronic season parking; PLUS the other long established revenue collecting programs in Stamp Duties, Radio Licenses for Homes and Cars, Road Taxes, Import Duties on tobacco, wine, liquor, cars, luxury items, and furnitures, Development Charges, Gross Floor Area development fees and penalties, Auctioning of Land Parcels.
After having squeezed all that is available from the Citizens, and to diversify their sources of revenue so as to sustain a bloated Government, they looked at themselves as the main Service Provider to Singaporeans, but not in the public role as a Government Service, but as a Privatised Owner-Operator in splitting its core function into a string of Private Companies formed with Government Capital.
If our ministers continue to preach about a dynamic environment, short-term contracts, and be less selective over job hunts, they certainly do not seem to be practicing what they speak, especially since they continue to command such a high pay and worst, are now preparing to legislate in parliament over a pay rise which has little or no justification.
There is no leadership by example, with such a super-scale salaried team of staff within each of their own portfolios eating the lion's share of taxpayers' monies.
At least the private sector, in their attempts to reduce wage costs, are slowly moving into automation processes and beefing up their technology to meet the challenges of Profit and Loss, thus restricting their manpower growth to an acceptable and justifiable figure which will eventually be related to their respective voluminous industry.
While it cannot be directly compared to a PM's office, how do such ministrial organisations reduce wage costs, if at all? -
I have always been fascinated by Atobe's post.
Cheers -
One word for all......!!!
They are bunch of merciless, coward, bullies and blood thirsty vampires!!!
-
sigh... you know, where the average Singaporean middleclass earns only about 1.5k to 4k a month, these so-called top people are paying themselves 5 - 6 figure salarys.Originally posted by BillyBong:Without going further on this subject, i do believe the highlighted section you mentioned is the crux of dissent among the people.
If our ministers continue to preach about a dynamic environment, short-term contracts, and be less selective over job hunts, they certainly do not seem to be practicing what they speak, especially since they continue to command such a high pay and worst, are now preparing to legislate in parliament over a pay rise which has little or no justification.
There is no leadership by example, with such a super-scale salaried team of staff within each of their own portfolios eating the lion's share of taxpayers' monies.
At least the private sector, in their attempts to reduce wage costs, are slowly moving into automation processes and beefing up their technology to meet the challenges of Profit and Loss, thus restricting their manpower growth to an acceptable and justifiable figure which will eventually be related to their respective voluminous industry.
While it cannot be directly compared to a PM's office, how do such ministrial organisations reduce wage costs, if at all?
And who controls their pay? Seems like they can decide on their own to increase their pay.
Our govt is behaving like the pigs in the story Animal Farm, where the pigs begin to think they are more equal than others. While others are slogging outside (like the goat and the horse, etc), the pigs enjoy wine, and the high life.
If there is anything to consider seriously, I say our govt better consider the ending of Animal Farm seriously. If they continue to squeeze us, and pay themselves ridiculous pays without achieving anything, then the unhappiness will only become worse.
By the way, I don't see oxford mushroom addressing any of the above yet. -
i will take this sttmt with a pinch of salt.....Originally posted by oxford mushroom:MPs and ministers are elected by Singaporeans.... -
Salt? Take with Vodka and some other stuff.Originally posted by weiqimun:i will take this sttmt with a pinch of salt.....
-
Originally posted by BillyBong:
While we are bogged down with daily drudgery, only a few Singaporeans will be able to conciously observe the double standards practised by this Government aka the Ruling Party.
Without going further on this subject, i do believe the highlighted section you mentioned is the crux of dissent among the people.
If our ministers continue to preach about a dynamic environment, short-term contracts, and be less selective over job hunts, they certainly do not seem to be practicing what they speak, especially since they continue to command such a high pay and worst, are now preparing to legislate in parliament over a pay rise which has little or no justification.
There is no leadership by example, with such a super-scale salaried team of staff within each of their own portfolios eating the lion's share of taxpayers' monies.
At least the private sector, in their attempts to reduce wage costs, are slowly moving into automation processes and beefing up their technology to meet the challenges of Profit and Loss, thus restricting their manpower growth to an acceptable and justifiable figure which will eventually be related to their respective voluminous industry.
While it cannot be directly compared to a PM's office, how do such ministrial organisations reduce wage costs, if at all?
They measure themselves by a different 'yardstick' even amongst themselves - one for the Cabinet and another for the Civil Service.
This Government continue to 'clone' more 'little autocrats' that resemble 'mini-LKYs' so as to multiply the efficiency of the POWER OF ONE, many side issues have been cleverly slotted into the big picture, and submerged into the tide of events, escaping the attention of most Singaporeans bogged by the daily doldrum.
To keep the huge machinery of Government well oiled, there seem to be a two tier budget - one that is officially balanced (or placed in deficit) and approved in Parliament, and the other informal funding from the Government control of the GLCs.
Temasek was set up with the objective of investing and growing the Reserves, yet it is now involved in providing essential services and soaking up the Citizen's funds through its control and arbitrary raising of electricity pricing of Singapore Powers.
This source of revenue is worth millions - if not billions - that go directly into the hidden accounts of Temasek, out of reach of any prying eyes, and no longer reported in the Government Balance Sheet - ever since Power Generating and Distribution has been "privatised".
To avail themselves to more fundings - perhaps even to plug the big gaps in the investment accounts - the Ruling Party aka the Government had surreptiously slipped into the "2 per cent GST increase" debate, a simple one line statement - that it will propose to amend the legislation to allow the Government to access past reserves without Parliamentary or Presidential approval.
While the 'Monkees' of Parliament hoop and loop over the 2 per cent GST increase, no one picked up this insidious statement from PM aka Finance Minister LHL, who cleverly inserted this statement towards the end of his long budget presentation in Parliament.
If this legislation is passed, it will allow this Government to go to a Casino with the confidence of a huge bank to call the bluff of anyone at a poker table.
Was it not a fact that it was LKY's nightmare that any future government will want to 'gamble' away the Reserves, and had set up a 2-key system to be held by an Elected President and by Parliament ?
Now that the Elected President's executive oversight to the Reserves has been 'blind sidedd' by amendments to his original role as defined in the Constitution, this Ruling Party has begun manipulation to remove the second key held by Parliament.
At the same time that the State Revenue is bloating, Singaporeans are despairing to see their real wages shrinking, and with hardly any left to be saved for the future.
Yet, despite being the Highest Paid Government on this Planet, this Government is making plans to increase its own salary.
Are we heading into the future with a Government aka the Ruling Party that has been too long in the seat of power, that it believes that it is its birthright to be in the seat of power ?