1) Ministers are the leader of their respective GRC, and when people vote, they vote based on the quality of the Minister prepresenting the GRC not backbenchers. The power is with the votersOriginally posted by eagle:1) Ministers have the power of the majority in the government because of the backbenchers
2) Wrong. A good leader is someone who can managed with all the IFs. If everything is deterministic, what is the point of having a good leader? Management philosophy is of course out of context here.
3) If we were to ignore everything because we are not involved, why would we even bother to air our views here? Furthermore, election campaigns are supposed to reach out to everyone; everyone of us is thus involved. Not being involved in the election campaigns of the opposition, isn't it what the incumbent would like dearly?
1) This is the main problem. Bear in mind that we are not voting in just a minister with a seat; we are voting in a minister with 5 seats. PAP can easily push out with any policy simply because they have more than 2/3 majority. How much of the rest are effective as MPs? This is the main drawback of mega-GRCs => MPs are voted in not based of their calibre and quality, but because of a person. Do we want that? Having in a 'good' MP/minister with the side effect of more ineffective and quiet MPs?Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Ministers are the leader of their respective GRC, and when people vote, they vote based on the quality of the Minister prepresenting the GRC not backbenchers. The power is with the voters
2) Increasing of ministers' salarys is how PAP managed the "IF", and your argument is that we should look for people who are committed to serve the country not because of the salary. As such dont you think that you are going round in circle to suggest taht a good leader should be someone who can managed "IF"
My question to you is that, if I apply the same principle of serving for the country not because of money, would YOU want to sign on as a police officer when you are 21 years old, or would you prefere to pursue your dreams which possibly can make your more freedom and money? And you answer is NO. As such dont you think it is selfish to expect others would do what you wont do? And can you run a police force if you are not certain IF there will be committed people like you suggest that will replace those who are retiring?
3) We are not ignoring the importance of election, what I am telling you is that it is a waste of time speculating how much is cost to run an elections and if the opposition can or cannot afford for the deposit.
1) Our original discussion is on the quality of the Ministers, not backbencher arent we? Plus those backbenchers are "junior" ministers which some will be groom to take over the seats while some will retire from politics. so why are you so concern about the chicks before they are being hatched to lead the country?Originally posted by eagle:1) This is the main problem. Bear in mind that we are not voting in just a minister with a seat; we are voting in a minister with 5 seats. PAP can easily push out with any policy simply because they have more than 2/3 majority. How much of the rest are effective as MPs? This is the main drawback of mega-GRCs => MPs are voted in not based of their calibre and quality, but because of a person. Do we want that? Having in a 'good' MP/minister with the side effect of more ineffective and quiet MPs?
2) There's one problem with your analogy. Many police officers are there because of a job. PAP's explanation is that they are there because they want to serve the country. The high pay is there because they can earn just as much if they were to work outside, implying they can easily get better jobs outside and thus do not need to be working in the government to get that pay. My question is, if they want to serve the country, why is a pay rise so important to them? It is their choice to serve the country; it's not a way of living for them.
3) It's not about the cost of election. Whether the opposition can afford will determine the amount of competition the incumbent will have. So what if one day the opposition does not have enough money to run for election? My point here was not speculate the cost of election. I'm trying to raise the point that increased MP salary will lead to increased election deposit, which will further limit the amount of competition that PAP will have in the elections.
1) I thought we started with the increase in salary, which include all the MPs. Furthermore, all ministers start out as MPs, so why shouldn't them be included in the discussion?Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Our original discussion is on the quality of the Ministers, not backbencher arent we? Plus those backbenchers are "junior" ministers which some will be groom to take over the seats while some will retire from politics. so why are you so concern about the chicks before they are being hatched to lead the country?
2) I presume that when you say the police officers are there for the job, you are saying ther they are there to make a living. Are you also saying that these bunch of civil servants are there because of $ only?
My question to you is that everybody need a job, and why you choose not to work in the police force? Is it because the propect and salary is too low and you think you are capable of earning much more in the private sector?
3) If you could come up with more accurate and reliable numbers, then it is worth discussing.
1) Sure, than may I suggest that you list down the profile of all the MPs and tell us who do you think doesnt worth the kind of money he is being paid and they are incapable for earning the same or more in private sector?Originally posted by eagle:1) I thought we started with the increase in salary, which include all the MPs. Furthermore, all ministers start out as MPs, so why shouldn't them be included in the discussion?
2) The prospects and salaries of the police force is seriously not bad, especially if you get their scholarship. It is not because the private sector can earn much more, but because the goals are not there.
I pose my question: If the PAP claimed that their ministers can earn much more in the private sector, why don't they go out to earn? If they claimed it is because of their goal to serve the country, then why talk about increasing the salary?
3) The truth is there => election deposit will be increased by near 23%. this is near 2.5k more per seat to be contested. Considering that the opposition contests 43 seats such that PAP is not returned to government on election day, that means more than 100k sgd more with this salary increase. Given the numerous 'barriers' that the government has set up to make it harder to raise money for political parties, don't you agree that the opposition will thus have a harder time?
1) 2) The problem is not with the profile. I'm sure that some opposition candidates have even better profiles... Yet why are they not recruited in by the PAP? Because their ideology is different, their goals are different. They are there to serve Singapore, such that even if there's a decrease in minister salaries, they will still follow on their goals.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Sure, than may I suggest that you list down the profile of all the MPs and tell us who do you think doesnt worth the kind of money he is being paid and they are incapable for earning the same or more in private sector?
2) by comparing a job in the police force as scholars, is just as good as saying the prospect of collection rubbish is not bad especially if you own the trucking company.
being a ministers of Singapore is not all about comparing salary to the private sector, it is about the sacrifice you have to make as a MIW, the attention you are from media, your family, your lifestlye, the protocol you have to follow etc.
If you can say that your goal is not there to be a police officer, than why others should have a goal being a MIW when they can make a comfortable living in the private sector? If you have doubt that any our our ministers is incapable for resigning today and make equal amount of money in the private sector and enjoying freedom from politics, you will just be kidding yourselfs.
3) I am still not convince who the rise in minister's salary will benefit their next election because this move causes more negative publicity than benefit which you claim would come from the rise in election deposit.
Originally posted by eagle:1) It will be more constructive that we discuss something specific rather than just quote them as "oppsition" or "backbencher" Profile are important as they are the future leaders and we definitely need to know if they capable enough to do the job and what we are paying for.
1) 2) The problem is not with the profile. I'm sure that some opposition candidates have even better profiles... Yet why are they not recruited in by the PAP? Because their ideology is different, their goals are different. They are there to serve Singapore, such that even if there's a decrease in minister salaries, they will still follow on their goals.
Are we short of people who wants to serve Singapore through politics? Definitely not. Just look at the number of new opposition candidates. They know their chances are still limited when facing the incumbent now, yet they do go out to compete. Pay rise? Attract talent? It's total BS to say it's to attract top talent to the government; it's more of attracting talent to the PAP, with taxpayers' money!
2) Why do I want to compare with scholars? Because we want to compare educational portfolio. Look at the number of current ministers with scholarships. Suppose you have a good educational portfolio without any scholarship, you will be able to rise just as fast in the police force.
[b]being a ministers of Singapore is not all about comparing salary to the private sector, it is about the sacrifice you have to make as a MIW, the attention you are from media, your family, your lifestlye, the protocol you have to follow etc
So if being a minister is about sacrifice, why do we need to raise their pay? They can "sacrifice" by holding on to their current pay!
If you have doubt that any our our ministers is incapable for resigning today and make equal amount of money in the private sector and enjoying freedom from politics, you will just be kidding yourself.
They may be capable of making the same amount (I'm pretty sure of that), but that does not necessary guarantee them the pay hike in the public sector! It's all about sacrifice as you have said.
LHL once said "who gives the media the right to criticize the government when it is not voted in". In this sense, I can also claim the following statement: "Who gives the government the right to raise minister pay? We voted them in to govern Singapore; we didn't vote for a minister pay rise!"
If there was a vote to whether minister pay rise should be raised, and the majority says yes, I would have no qualms about it.
And why must the ministers salaries be pegged to the top earners? Supposed the minister salary was pegged to the bottom earners multiplied by a certain multiplier such that their pay is still "high enough for them". A minister pay rise because of an increase in the salaries of the bottom earners will definitely be more welcomed than the current situation.
Perhaps the pay rise is necessary... But the reasons given are not convincing enough. Singapore's governance is too heavily dependent on attracting people with money, and not by patriotism. It is also governed too much like a whole corporation.
3) I meant this as a side effect. The negativity should have been expected, but the severity was unexpected.
Why is it expected? Look at the timing of the hike's announcement... soon after election.
Why is it unexpected? LHL's offer to freeze his salary. Btw, although some may claim that LHL was 'scared' of the public outcry of on the hike and thus his offer to freeze his salary, I think that by offering, he is showing his willingness to really sacrifice, maybe not for singapore, but for PAP. His family may be rich, but it's still a large sacrifice on his part. It's a difference of near a million sgd a year if he forgoes it... Well done on his part I guess... One of the very few popular moves he made after he became PM.[/b]
1) How did the PAP judge capability for new MPs? By profiles!Originally posted by Gazelle:1) It will be more constructive that we discuss something specific rather than just quote them as "oppsition" or "backbencher" Profile are important as they are the future leaders and we definitely need to know if they capable enough to do the job and what we are paying for.
2) Sorry, I think you miss the point. the reason why I am asking if YOU will want to be police officer instead of some high flyer civil servant, is because it is a civil servant job which lay man can related too.
As you have already commented that you wont sign on as an officer, sighting reasons such as personal goal etc. But my guess is that the main reason is because you believe you will have a bigger chance for earning more money in private sector and not bound to the protocol of a civil servant (unless you are a scholar)
However if suppose he government want to attract talent like you and they offer you a 5 figure starting pay, would you reconsider your position?
3) No further comments.
1) I am sure they will be judge based on the KPIs and their leadership quality before being promoted to MP. Please dont ask me the details as I dont run the HR/Recruiting department of PAPOriginally posted by eagle:1) How did the PAP judge capability for new MPs? By profiles!
2) To answer your last question: no. With my current mindset, I would not consider it. I know I'm not ready even if I want to.
But consider the two mindsets:
"I'm a talent. I need money. PAP offers me a 5 figure salary. So I join"
compared with
"I'm a talent. I want to serve! PAP offers me a 5 figure salary. That's a bonus"
PAP's explanation: To attract top talent, we need to pay top money. Doesn't that give you the impression that they will get people with the first mindset?
1) So what makes you think opposition candidates don't deserve any better?Originally posted by Gazelle:1) I am sure they will be judge based on the KPIs and their leadership quality before being promoted to MP. Please dont ask me the details as I dont run the HR/Recruiting department of PAP
2) Let me ask you.
suppose if you are a top scholar fresh grad from uinversity and you are being offered 2 jobs offering the same salary.
a) sign on as Captain or Major in the army with the prospect of becoming a general and minister 20 years fro now
b) as a consultant at McKinsey & Company, with no iron rice bowl
Which job do you think most people will choose?
I would choose the sec job.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) I am sure they will be judge based on the KPIs and their leadership quality before being promoted to MP. Please dont ask me the details as I dont run the HR/Recruiting department of PAP
2) Let me ask you.
suppose if you are a top scholar fresh grad from uinversity and you are being offered 2 jobs offering the same salary.
a) sign on as Captain or Major in the army with the prospect of becoming a general and minister 20 years fro now
b) as a consultant at McKinsey & Company, with no iron rice bowl
Which job do you think most people will choose?
1) What makes you say that my thought on the opposition is no good?Originally posted by eagle:1) So what makes you think opposition candidates don't deserve any better?
2) I do not have the power to know what most people will choose. You will need to do a survey for that.