Referendum on benchmarking ministers' pays to lottery winner
-
The cyber counter-agents of PAP and ministers have failed to robustly rebut or substantially reply to many strong objections raised in this forum to allowing ministers' to write their own pay checks or win a big sweep lottery every few years without going through the market-value-talent evaluation process undertaken by the private sector CEOs.
Without such prior interview and selection based on market-tested practices followed by the private sector in appointment of CEOs some of the ministers and top civil servants would be just tagging along which will result in legal or legalized corruptions and cronyism which were already seen happening in many organizations like the NKF.
Therefore to prove beyond all doubt that our ministers are not legalizing a corruptions or corruptly taking what are not due they should refer this issue to the people to decide in a referendum. -
They must've tendered their resignations.
Anyone seen OM lately? Haven't seen any of his replies the past week or so. -
wa lou!!! very creative thinking!!!!
-
No lah, they don't get any pay increase for rebutting logic with their brand of mee siam mai hum logic.Originally posted by ditzy:They must've tendered their resignations. Anyone seen OM lately? Haven't seen any of his replies the past week or so.
So they became ... er, corrupted and stopped rebutting. -
Maybe OM busy with his research? who knows. Anyway, I wish LKY can stop talking to the papers... he is sounding more and more ridiculous.
-
Robertteh:
JJ replied to Metophorical's post suggesting a referendum on further ministers' pay increases:-
The Govt has said before on more than one occasion that it does not and cannot govern if decisions are to be made based on referendums. Then all major decisions will be held hostage to popular opinion and difficult decisions can effectively be put off forever.
So Meta's suggestion is fantasy.
Even if a referendum were to be held, I believe the heartlanders will vote against the ministerial pay increase. And Meta, don't forget the heartlanders form the bulk of Singaporeans and because of this, they can outgun any bunch of CEOs, PAP supporters or any other interest group. Then Meta can kiss his favourite team goodbye and start cheering for the new team.
Metaphorical replied:
Ok basically my mp tell me yesterday already, is waste time for gov call referendum because sure most people will vote pay rise for ministers. so since gov already know the result, they must not waste money call referendum again. Last election people already know ministers' pay is so high but they still want vote pap, meaning they want ministers got high pay. If they dont like ministers got high pay, next election they can vote ministers out. What my mp say is right & got reason also. So no need got referendum. Simple as that!
This is called back-tracking. First you took the wrong cue perhaps from your MP who must have told you earlier that there is no problem with a referendum because people have elected ministers with high pays and have got used to ministers having high pays.
Now this is where you MP might be wrong for elections did not focus on high pays as it was concerned with many issues other than pays.
Now if your MP is to think it over he will realize the truth that people are incensed by ministers rewarding themselves with writing their own pay checks and this is a totally different issue now.
It can cause an open revolt except that our people were mostly frightened by defamation law suits or ISD.
So stop suggesting calling a referendum if your MP has not gut to carry out one.
Now you can see forumers are not without talents too for they can see your MP cannot win on this referendum.
Of course, the citizens have by now got used to this type of hypocrisy which has become part of the world class standard conveniently missing from the political memoirs. -
Everyone from the PAP camp is getting senile... it's contagious. A bunch of senile choir members... I keep hearing the same chorus over and over again.
-
Hi,
Man...you are getting more and more sidetracked....
I think you have a point you want to bring across....and I think it might be a good debatable point...but perhaps you should do away with using ridiculous soundbytes.....benchmark with lottery winner??
Regarding the point of CEO selection or private business selection.....ya they are not the same I guess......coz the areas are not the same.....public life/ politics of course need different criteria with private companies recruitment. But from what I read.....they are invited to tea party....then maybe further selection and filtering......I dont know much....I think there is some kind of recruitment process, which is pretty good if u ask me.....coz I think they manage to recruit good people....academics....doctors.....lawyers......former businessmen.... and mix with younger people like Eunice...who is more social-worker leaning type, and some younger NMPs.
So.....so far....I dare say the office or political holders...compared with other countries....are very high calibre. They are good quality.
But.....the point is....the other side of the coin, someone wrote in newspaper, that if the political office holders are paid too much, they might jeopardize their moral authority and their relationship with the people. This kind of argument I like. It makes more sense than the argument on comparing with private sector, or how there is no performance review, and so on, those sorts of technical comparison with private sector, or comparison with other countries's civil service.
I think there is a very good point on that one, and both are correct. The need to pay well, and the need to maintain moral authority. If there is a way to maximise both, it will be best.
Meat Pao. -
very true.Originally posted by bigmouthjoe:Everyone from the PAP camp is getting senile... it's contagious. A bunch of senile choir members... I keep hearing the same chorus over and over again. -
Human greed seems to know no limits, and it debunks LKY's philosophy that pay well to prevent corruption, as the following article seems to show that paying too well will create an insatiable appetite for more.
Ministers get pensions too
The Parliamentary Debate recorded a lively exchange between Steve Chia and then DPM cum Finance Minister LHL concerning Minister's Pension.
It is shocking that Ministers (appointed before 1995) are paid a pension when they reach 55 years and continue to stay in Office.From Yawning Bread, April 2007
Ministers get pensions too
The Parliamentary Pensions Act is worth a read. Despite its name, it doesn't now appear to provide pensions for any members of parliament after 1995. However, it does provide pensions "in respect of service as Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Speaker, Ministers and other office-holders." The computational formula is quite complex, based on the number of years of service, up to a maximum of "two-thirds of the highest annual salary of any office held by him."
On 15 June 2004, Steve Chia, then a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, raised this question in the chamber.
8. Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance what is the justification for keeping ministers on the pension scheme when all other public and civil servants have been converted to the Central Provident Fund scheme.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance (Mr Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Speaker, Sir, when the civil service phased out pensions for most of the public sector in 1986, it consciously decided to retain the pension scheme for officers in a small number of key services, one of which is the Administrative Service. Administrative Officers need deep knowledge and long experience of policy issues. The service takes in some recruits mid-career, but it continues to rely heavily on officers who have joined at the entry level. For these reasons, the pension scheme remains relevant to them.
As part of their overall package, pensionable officers receive lower CPF contributions than non-pensionable officers.
Political appointees are also on pensions because their terms of service follow those of Administrative Officers.
( Having a pension scheme for senior civil servants, as an incentive to permanence, may be understandable, but the same reasoning does not extend to political appointments. The expectation should be that political office-holders come and go, from alternating political parties. It is precisely because of the changeability of political office-holders in a democracy that there is a need for a stable, permanent civil service that can retain experience and institutional memory. That is why the senior-most civil servant in a ministry is titled "Permanent Secretary". He is supposed to be permanent when the minister is expected not to be. That being the case, why should political appointees enjoy the permanence-inducing pension scheme? )
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, how does the Deputy Prime Minister expect citizens to take the uncertainty of retirement planning under the CPF, which is a defined contribution scheme, at their own cost, whereas ministers and public officers themselves are under a guaranteed and defined benefit pension scheme, using taxpayers' money? In other words, their CPF may run out before the citizens die whereas qualified ministers are taken care of by the taxpayers' money until they die. Am I right to say this?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is an entire package. When we calculate the salary, we look into how much a person receives now, how much he receives in the CPF, and how much he can expect to save in pensions. And when a person retires, he has a choice of having a pension stream for the rest of his life or taking a commuted lump sum at the point of retirement. In fact, as a matter of fact, nearly everybody who retires prefers the commuted lump sum. Because you take the lump sum, you invest it, you do what you want. If it runs out, it runs out. There is no free lunch. If you do not have CPF, you have the pension. If you have the pension, you have less CPF. So it all adds up to a finite amount.
The Member's implicit question is are the ministers enriching themselves again? And the answer is, we are going on market terms and, if anything, we are paying below what the market is.
(Lee doesn't actually answer Chia's question )
Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Clarification from the Minister. Does any serving minister who turns 55 actually receive both salary and pension at the same time? If yes, should he be serving?
Mr Lee Hsien Loong: I believe the answer is yes. That is the rule for the civil service, and the ministers follow the civil service rules.
(Source: Parliamentary Debates, 2004)
[This may be the "rule", but is it morally right?"
Steve Chia was referring to Section 5 of the Parliamentary Pensions Act, which says,
5. Â (1) Where an office-holding Member has Â
(a) not less than 8 yearsÂ’ reckonable service as an office-holding Member (whether continuously or not);
(b) attained the age of 55 years; and
(c) not previously been granted a pension under section 4,
he may be granted a pension under that section notwithstanding the fact that he has not ceased to hold office.
As at 31 March 2007, the following office holders, of cabinet level or equivalent, were 55 years or older:
Name Office Year of birth
Lee Kuan Yew Minister Mentor 1923
S Jayakumar Deputy Prime Minister 1939
Goh Chok Tong Senior Minister 1941
Abdullah Tarmugi Speaker of Parliament 1944
Wong Kan Seng Deputy Prime Minister 1946
Lee Boon Yang Minister for Information, Communication and the Arts 1947
Mah Bow Tan Minister for National Development 1948
Lee Hsien Loong Prime Minister Feb 1952
(Source: Parliament website)
By the end of 2007, Khaw Boon Wan, the Minister for Health will also have turned 55.
Two cabinet ministers did not state their dates of birth on their government website CVs. They are Tharman Shanmugaratnam, the Education Minister and Lim Boon Heng, the Minister without Portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office. The latter's CV, however, mentioned that he obtained his bachelor's degree in 1970. This suggests that he was born before 1950, which would make him above 55 years old at this time. -
Result of a poll conducted on minister's lottery self-reward scheme is printed below:-
It is far too high and not reasonable 80.43 % (74)
No, It is too high 13.04 % (12)
OK lah, although it is on the high side, is still reasonable 3.26 % (3)
Yes, Ministers deserve the increase 2.17 % (2)
No Comment 1.09 % (1)